Well done lad, he really needed that goal.
10
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 53
- Goals
- 11
- Assists
- 7
- Yellow cards
- 3
- Status
Deserved his goal for all his effort. Nice finish too. And nice few words from Jose about him.
If he stays here next season, that should be his role. Coming in as subs.
And it's a very well taken goal.
And it's a very well taken goal.
To be honest, and I've said this before, I'd rather he went out on loan to get a lot of playtime somewhere else and learn the trade of the CF a bit better.
Prefer that than him stay here to be Ibra's back-up 90% of the time or play in the LW position which doesn't suit him. It'll do him a world of good and we'll reap the benefits long term.
Agreed with the loan. Also most likely we'll buy another striker, next season. We shouldn't depend on him as our second striker. His role should be as subs, or loan out.
The problem with loan is that we can't get any guarantee that he would get enough game time.
Last time I floated the idea, someone shot me down with "He's good enough to be here and I'll be very upset with Mou if he sends him away". There reality is he's good enough to be here as a squad/substitute player, but not to be starting the majority of our games as a striker. And he could really use the experience and confidence boost of leading a line over a whole season, being the main man. It'll do him a world of good and help him mature a lot quicker.
If he doesn't play enough by Jan, you recall him. You can put a recall clause in the case of a minutes threshold not being reached.
EDIT: I reckon he'd be the main man for a bottom half side easily. Or even higher, like Lukaku did for WBA.
If Huddersfield go up, they'll bite your hand off for Rashford and they'll play him too. Their main man, Nahki Wells, has scored only 10 in 39 this season and that's in the Championship. They'd happily play a capable loanee than spent upwards of £10m on a striker they won't be able to afford if they go down.
Last edited:
But then what if our squad at the time is doing well & there is no place for the returning loanee? So he is first teammer before the loan. Come back mid season in uncertain circumstances. Manager can't limit game time of another first teammer in the squad because the mistake of sending the player on loan in the first place. I meant manager need to reward the actual performance/ contribution, than accommodating player having trouble on loan, when the season kicked in. Relegate the former first teammer (before the loan move) to Reserve also doesn't look well.
Edit: Saw your edit. It's not that easy in reality. Some players just have the raw attributes suited lower teams. Some superior talent wouldn't be fancied in bottom half team since the coaches can't build a team to play the style to bring the best out of these fancier talent, while fighting relegation. Relegation battlers also carry uncertainty with their head coaches' fates too. They may need to change coaches during the season and change their system for all we know. Very tricky situation.
Last edited:
I wouldn't loan him.
Definitely offers enough quality and threat. Fair enough you'll have to persevere with some patchy stretches and I don't think he should be starting as many games as he is but he's a gem, can easily break into our first 11.
Definitely offers enough quality and threat. Fair enough you'll have to persevere with some patchy stretches and I don't think he should be starting as many games as he is but he's a gem, can easily break into our first 11.
I think you are severely underrating the money in the PL if you think Huddersfield will shy away from spending 10m+ on a striker.
The loan would have to be to a team abroad. Teams rarely rely on an on-loan striker now, the position is too important and they'd prefer to own them.
That sounds a bit extreme. He'd be like a Jan signing, fresh for the 2nd half of the season too after not playing much. He's definitely good enough to be a squad player, it's just that I think a good loan will see him develop faster than being a squad player here. Game time is invaluable to youngsters. If he comes back he'll compete with Martial for LW like he currently does.
It kinda depends on what happens in the summer. If we move for Griezmann and Ibra stays for another year (I know, ifs) then it'd be better for him to go somewhere else for more experience and return when Ibra moves on. He's not gonna break into first XI as striker while Ibra is here.
I think you are severely underrating the amount of money players cost these days if you think you can get a forward of Rashford's ability for £10m. The point (not very well conveyed) was that they'd have to spend upwards of £10m on a player who'll likely be half of Rashfords ability. Whereas with a good loanee they can save that money and use it to invest in the rest of the squad, god knows they'll need it.
Sunderland seem to be using Januzaj who's on loan. Everton were relying on Lukaku who was a loanee two (or was it 3?) seasons ago. Not as rare as you'd think if the player is of adequate quality.
Well done rashy, buzzing that he scored.
As they say: " Prepare for the worst, hope for the best"
As I put it, there would be cases where you don't want to disrupt your working squad, and of course you wouldn't hope you're doing badly so your failed loans would be your new signing mid season. Thing can happen for the better, but most of the time a failed loan would be quite damaging for the youngster, not just because they don't play for their temporary club, but also finding themselves unwanted mid season in their mother club plan.
Here you mistake that our team would be the same come next season & Martial would be Rashford's only contest in case of failed loan. What if there is some high profile player happen to become available & we sign him on deadline day (after Rashford's sent on loan)? I don't think any manager would say no because they think our loanee has potential to be better, when there is always chance they can't develop to the expectation. What if it happens with the worst scenario I described?
My point is if Rashford can be seen as first team player for us, even with a limited role; it's better for him to stay & compete than going on loan with so much uncertainty. Loan is good for players who can't contribute immediately while having potential thus deemed as not for sale.
Edit: Last but not least, top players don't just become top player by playing at smaller club. They need to prove it at top level. Lukaku for all his good at Everton would be a risky move for whoever forks out the cash to lure him away from Everton. He may still fail at big club for all we know. He's just more proven in good level in PL. Not top level yet. So with that in mind, again my view is that loan move helps to give the young players the experience so they can break into our first team. For them to become top players for us, they have to prove themselves with us! If they fail to do so, even if later in their career they do with well with Everton, Tottenham, Arsenal... it's irrelevant for us as they're given enough chances with us to prove their worth. We move on with different prospect by that time. We're big club capable of getting more talent and retry.
Last edited:
So pleased he scored, he looked so relieved, and Zlatan looked especially pleased for him too. Even Martial flicked a slight smirk in his direction to congratulate him.
I dont, but clubs want to stabilise their position in the top flight, and signing a 20 year old loanee who may or may not be committed to performing for the club is consider a hefty risk. More of a risk than signing a striker for 10-15mil who's older with more experience.
Januzaj isn't a main striker, nor has he been an automatic starter. Lukaku seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
His goal scoring 'patchy stretch' lasted 5 months this season! A league winning team cant afford such patchy stretches. Thats the problem.
He's 19. If you're hanging your hopes on a 19 year old carrying your goal tally you live in lalaland.
It doesn't mean he shouldn't get minutes and develop.
I've read the arguments for loaning him out, but I just don't agree at all that it will benefit him. James Wilson probably learned more in the 3 weeks under Giggs in the first team squad than he ever did the following couple of years.
What happens if Rashford goes on loan and scores 6-7 goals all season and we start to hit some rhythm without him? It will push him back 2 years. He needs to stay with the core of this squad, training and playing with his mates. Not exiling the lad from the squad and playing for a mid table side.
Strange wish to loan him out.
What happens if Rashford goes on loan and scores 6-7 goals all season and we start to hit some rhythm without him? It will push him back 2 years. He needs to stay with the core of this squad, training and playing with his mates. Not exiling the lad from the squad and playing for a mid table side.
Strange wish to loan him out.
Well. Isn't that the purpose a striker on the field, whether as a starter or a sub?
Loaning out he would be played in his strongest position and be able to get confidence and a proper feeling of being a professional footballer. At the moment he is being used to fill the left-wing and it has clearly harmed his confidence.
So taking him away from the club he grew up playing for, taking him away from 40 games a season for Manchester United, and telling him to go learn how to play as a striker for a year, to me would be a huge insult and would shatter my confidence a lot more than having the privilege of playing for the club you love, with your mates, where you're loved and adored by the fans. He will play as a striker most days in training, learning from Rooney, learning from Zlatan, where should we send him? To someone like Stoke, or Palace? Who have inferior managers, coaches and players? Where is the learning?
Not for me I'm afraid.
Banging goals in every week for Stoke or Palace as he would do wouldn't shatter anyone's confidence. He'd come back here much a better player. But I can see why people don't like loans to. I'd be happy either way.
But what happens if Benteke keeps him out of the striker position and they play him on the wing? Its a risk taking him out of this squad, I think it would shatter his confidence being told he's not good enough to stay and fight for his place.
Should Martial be loaned out too? He's been equally as inconsistent this season and shown less care or determination than Rashford to put it right.
Yep, we should just buy Griezmann, Auba, Messi and Ronnie back.
Imagine having to petition for giving a young and extremely promising Manchester lad from our own youth system a chance on a United Forum.
Lunatics.
I don't really see the risk. The risk you are describing, being kept out of the starting XI or playing on the wing is basically where he is now. Your worst case scenario, is his current reality. There's the upside that he could have a loan like Lukaku's at WBA, bang in 15 goals and come back to take Ibra's spot after the big man leaves. There's plenty of teams that could use a striker of his quality.
Regarding the confidence, you first approach the player and explain your opinion and judge his reaction. Some players are keen to get more first team opportunities. If he doesn't want to go, you don't send him. But if he's so mentally fragile that going on a loan for his own sake would "shatter his confidence", then he's really going to struggle with challenges in his career. Plus, there's ways to handle that risk. You don't just park him there and ignore him for a year. Pereira says Mourinho talks to him almost every week and keeps close tabs on his progress. So he feels like a United player who's been sent out for an experience with a firm view to come back, rather than just being outcast. I'm sure Mou would do the same for Rashford.
The Martial situation is very different. Firstly, he's older at 21. Secondly, he's not an academy product, he's a £35m purchase from another club. Thirdly, Mourinho has been far more warm and tolerant towards Rashford than Martial. He seems to hold Martial to a higher standard (understandable, for the aforementioned reasons) and has been critical of Martial when he's played badly while being very supportive of Rashford through his bad performances, that's not even up for debate. All of the above in conjunction with the history of their relationship (Martial was clearly not happy that after being top scorer last season, he had to hand over the #9 shirt and his place to Ibra and move to the wings before he even got a chance) indicates to me that Martial would react very badly to an attempt to loan him out. He'd definitely see it as being ostracised, with reason, but the same would not necessarily be the case for Rashford. I've listed all the reasons why, so please don't ask me that
If Mourinho doesn't trust Martial for a starting spot next season, which is his prerogative, then the correct action would be to try to sell him in the summer to recoup some of the fee. Trying to loan him out would most likely result in a transfer request from Martial and a huge devaluation of his price. I personally see Martial with half a foot out the door anyway. He's not happy with his situation and I feel he'd rather have a fresh start elsewhere than try to work into Mourinho's good books. That's just a personal opinion by the way, but that's my 2p on Martial.
Last edited:
That's what he's been given in the last 2 years. We're still crap, and continue to be crap if we just care about youth. Even under Fergie, United had repeatedly sent youth out on loan, and nobody thought he was lunatic. What do you think about Fergie bought RvP when Welbeck was available?
Good performance today. Ideal minutes and situation for him to come on and contribute but still not be expected to miraculously bail us out of a difficult situation. This was just the right appearance to continue his gradual development.
A lunatic is when someone puts a individuals development ahead of the club.
There's a reason why Fergie didn't sign young strikers or didn't play them there very often. Rooney was the exception because he was world class. Welbeck our only recognisable striker from the youth set up under Fergie and was played all over the pitch because Fergie didn't trust he'd get the goals we need to win stuff. Fergie went for tried and trusted players up top. Last two seasons we haven't had enough of those players. Striker is the hardest position to play and big clubs can't afford to develop players there unless they a pretty special player. I don't think Rashford will reach the Rooney level.
You loan out players when they aren't getting enough game time at the required level. He's clearly getting that, whilst playing a role that doesn't put too much pressure on him. What on earth would be the point in sending him somewhere else? We'd never loan him to a top team, so any side we'd send him to would inevitably be one that created even less chances than us, and thus give him fewer opportunities to hone his craft as a striker anyway. Completely pointless.
Most concern is because although he's getting enough time here, but not in his 'preferred' position. His goal draught and also being a bit crap is deemed because he "always" played on the wing and shattered his 'confidence' of a pitiful young player.
As more likely we're going to buy another striker for next season, that would further limit his time on his 'preferred' position. Just spending more time on the wing, more likely. And this potentially is not good for the development of the best youth product United have ever had, although it's better for United. But who cares about the latter, though.
So loan him where he can solely play in his preferred position is the only way out.
Last edited:
Or at the required position. He's getting plenty of time, but mostly as a winger. Therefore he gets even less chances to score than he would as a striker for worse team, because most of our chances tend to fall to the main striker (Ibra).
And you're intentionally missing the point too, because finishing chances in not the only skill of a striker. Learning to play on the shoulder of a defender, to make runs in behind/between the CBs, to develop hold-up play, to learn to win (and score from) headers in the box.... These are all elements you don't really get from wing play and a lot of those, if you think about it, are missing from Rashford's play. His movement is decent for example but he doesn't win any headers and his hold up play is quite scrappy whereas guys that are smaller than him (Aguero for example) manage a lot better in those aspects. That's all constructive and honest criticism, imo.
Skip to 18:00, he competes against; Oxlade, Aubemayang and Andre Silva in a Nike tournament in taking one on ones and eventually vs Courtois.
Watched it this morning, didnt impress too much. Ox and Silva played some lovely stuff though.
What was he doing with that volley at 19.40? Obvious it was going well high before he'd hit it.
The rest seemed dead close to the keeper.
Sell him
The rest seemed dead close to the keeper.
Sell him
Anderlecht 1:1 Man Utd
He's been pretty good.
Probably his best game starting for a while.
He's been superb, offensively and defensively.
Bang up for it. Best player so far.
Very good
- Status