Leftback99
Oscar the Grouch.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 16,089
His purple patch carried us last season but the consensus to sell him rather than give him a huge new contract wasn't far from the mark.
“Would be a fine addition in an already decent side.”Too inconsistent to build a team around, which we’re bending over backwards to do. There is enough evidence at this stage after 7 seasons that he isn’t going to be THAT guy. Nani comparisons are valid, would be a fine addition in an already decent side but his decision making is too poor to rely upon every week. We knew this a long time ago too but people get overly soft on him.
“Would be a fine addition in an already decent side.”
Then make the rest of the fecking side decent then. Else we will be lambasting the next player we bring in to carry the team
Players like Martinelli and Saka are actually as inconsistent as he is.
I share the same sentiment. I would sell him tomorrow if I could but I have accepted he’ll retire here and I would be shocked if we win anything major while he’s our starboy.He's an absolute joke. Thinks he's better than he is and plays for himself and not the team. I am sick of the fecking sight of him.
Good post. Though I personally don’t rate Rashford but can’t disagree with the points you made.I don't often comment on Rashford, for better or worse, because I think he's one of the biggest casualties of the clubs' incompetence throughout his tenure as a professional. He lost so much key, formative development because of our atrocious coaching and lack of duty of care to those youngsters who were coming through post-LVG and what we see in his game is a byproduct of that, again, for better or worse.
If you break it down, he plays like youth player, for better or worse (noticing a theme yet? You should be!) and so much of what he does wrong would have been eradicated from his game at other clubs, in the formative years it should have been dealt with. Instead, we've encouraged his whole game, warts and all because when it works out, he's the hero ball player we've come to rely on for practically all of our successful games and periods where no cohesive football or structure has been put in place. I find it rather futile to chide the player for doing what he has been encouraged to do and especially for what was never coached out of him. This is what happens when your club infrastructure is a shambles; very, very few players who come through your academy are going to be rounded out and complete, because they were not given the full formal education of their peers.
Pep would have Clockwork Orange'd Rashford before even allowing him to be a permanent fixture in any side of his; Klopp would have pointed toward Salah and said, this is your bar, if he can do what I ask, you better, too. It's not particularly deep and these are the seeds we've sewn. Ole almost breaking the player and having his career curtailed also adds an additional layer of complexity in that Rashford served his dues to the club by putting his body on the line when at better managed clubs that would never have been allowed to happen. So many things are resultant in the player we see.
It's easy to say you should have those wits about you as a player to not constantly make the same errors and failings in judgement and assessment, but that belies what being educated, in any field, is. In times of crisis, what you have, or have not, been taught is what you fall back on; most layers of paint coaches try to add after the fact are immediately lost at these points. Your formal conditioning and education is what you revert back to - in times of stress and dire straits, Rashford becomes even more of a hero ball player, not less; it's not just greed or ignorance, even if that plays a part.
As a player, Rashford will always have had far more praise and merit for scoring and playing how he does (as long as it resulted in goals) than he would have been told off or given corrective address despite scoring. We already know for a fact that if you don't adhere to what Pep wants, you don't play - even a storied striker like Aguero had to get with that program, and he was less selfish than Rashford. The same again goes for Klopp who, for as long as he has him, only needs to point to Salah to say this is what you, as a lesser forward, are dutybound to match the bar of. There's a very simple fact here, at Manchester United, if Rashford hadn't scored all those goals across so many seasons, we would have been absolutely fecked; it means our co-dependence on his goals has facilitated his game as it is, for better or worse. You can't give a player mixed messages about 'team' and 'collective' when you, for so long, have relied on him as an individual effectively playing outside of the team and doing what he feels instinctively is right. You also can't expect considered action and instinctive action to just mesh; one is a byproduct of intense coaching and reputation, the other is impulse and in the moment... do we as a 'team' ever look like the byproduct of intense coaching and drills? You can't put that on Rashford that we don't despite him being a cog in the misfiring machine that prevents us from ever really looking like a team.
You can liken this version of Rashford to someone like Daniel Sturridge. He too, had a very erratic formal development that essentially left him as an incomplete forward who mostly played for himself and not the team. Sturridge was shown the light by Klopp and produced the best football of his career in a cohesive attacking trio that he contributed to in the most selfless period of his entire career. We've seen glimpses of Rashford the team player during Martial's best periods - the two of them fired off combination passes like an intuitive unit. It's about the only time - and the only player - we've got to see what Rashford could be about on a permanent basis with. I very much doubt that synergy had much to do with coaching, rather than that effortless bonding some players strike up with another. Just as Rashford is now, he was playing then on impulse and not looking for Martial per se. We have to hope something similar can be struck up between Hojlund and Rashford, but I very much doubt it'll be organically coached.
The curious case of Rashford is not so curious, in my opinion. The onus should be on developing the rest of the attack to be able to stand up in its own right. Rashford is what he is, which, to me, is mostly a maverick player who is going to drift in and out of games, as he has always been allowed to do. If it was working, we'd be concerned, but focus would still be on the more broken parts of the team, however, at the moment, we have a Poundland Ronaldo out there trying to affect games, and we already know how detrimental that is. I don't know whether it/he is fixable (I don't think it is, personally), but the coaching staff have to try and get it through to the player that, but for better decision making, he could have come away from this game with a hattrick of assists and possibly a goal... give Rashford some vids of Henry to study and tell him the merit (and glory) he seeks is there for him if he'd try and emulate someone who accrued individual as well as team accolades by being aware goals can be amassed alongside assists rather than instead of, like Rashford seems to think..
Compare him to the rest of the team in terms of creating chances last season. Willing to bet only Bruno and possibly Eriksen were ahead.
As a team we do not create enough and usually our play amounts to trying to get Rashford away down the left This is especially the case away from home
Yikes.
Even my girlfriend who has zero knowledge of football asked me "why is that No. 10 shirt guy so selfish and lazy" during the game
I don't often comment on Rashford, for better or worse, because I think he's one of the biggest casualties of the clubs' incompetence throughout his tenure as a professional. He lost so much key, formative development because of our atrocious coaching and lack of duty of care to those youngsters who were coming through post-LVG and what we see in his game is a byproduct of that, again, for better or worse.
If you break it down, he plays like youth player, for better or worse (noticing a theme yet? You should be!) and so much of what he does wrong would have been eradicated from his game at other clubs, in the formative years it should have been dealt with. Instead, we've encouraged his whole game, warts and all because when it works out, he's the hero ball player we've come to rely on for practically all of our successful games and periods where no cohesive football or structure has been put in place. I find it rather futile to chide the player for doing what he has been encouraged to do and especially for what was never coached out of him. This is what happens when your club infrastructure is a shambles; very, very few players who come through your academy are going to be rounded out and complete, because they were not given the full formal education of their peers.
Pep would have Clockwork Orange'd Rashford before even allowing him to be a permanent fixture in any side of his; Klopp would have pointed toward Salah and said, this is your bar, if he can do what I ask, you better, too. It's not particularly deep and these are the seeds we've sewn. Ole almost breaking the player and having his career curtailed also adds an additional layer of complexity in that Rashford served his dues to the club by putting his body on the line when at better managed clubs that would never have been allowed to happen. So many things are resultant in the player we see.
It's easy to say you should have those wits about you as a player to not constantly make the same errors and failings in judgement and assessment, but that belies what being educated, in any field, is. In times of crisis, what you have, or have not, been taught is what you fall back on; most layers of paint coaches try to add after the fact are immediately lost at these points. Your formal conditioning and education is what you revert back to - in times of stress and dire straits, Rashford becomes even more of a hero ball player, not less; it's not just greed or ignorance, even if that plays a part.
As a player, Rashford will always have had far more praise and merit for scoring and playing how he does (as long as it resulted in goals) than he would have been told off or given corrective address despite scoring. We already know for a fact that if you don't adhere to what Pep wants, you don't play - even a storied striker like Aguero had to get with that program, and he was less selfish than Rashford. The same again goes for Klopp who, for as long as he has him, only needs to point to Salah to say this is what you, as a lesser forward, are dutybound to match the bar of. There's a very simple fact here, at Manchester United, if Rashford hadn't scored all those goals across so many seasons, we would have been absolutely fecked; it means our co-dependence on his goals has facilitated his game as it is, for better or worse. You can't give a player mixed messages about 'team' and 'collective' when you, for so long, have relied on him as an individual effectively playing outside of the team and doing what he feels instinctively is right. You also can't expect considered action and instinctive action to just mesh; one is a byproduct of intense coaching and reputation, the other is impulse and in the moment... do we as a 'team' ever look like the byproduct of intense coaching and drills? You can't put that on Rashford that we don't despite him being a cog in the misfiring machine that prevents us from ever really looking like a team.
You can liken this version of Rashford to someone like Daniel Sturridge. He too, had a very erratic formal development that essentially left him as an incomplete forward who mostly played for himself and not the team. Sturridge was shown the light by Klopp and produced the best football of his career in a cohesive attacking trio that he contributed to in the most selfless period of his entire career. We've seen glimpses of Rashford the team player during Martial's best periods - the two of them fired off combination passes like an intuitive unit. It's about the only time - and the only player - we've got to see what Rashford could be about on a permanent basis with. I very much doubt that synergy had much to do with coaching, rather than that effortless bonding some players strike up with another. Just as Rashford is now, he was playing then on impulse and not looking for Martial per se. We have to hope something similar can be struck up between Hojlund and Rashford, but I very much doubt it'll be organically coached.
The curious case of Rashford is not so curious, in my opinion. The onus should be on developing the rest of the attack to be able to stand up in its own right. Rashford is what he is, which, to me, is mostly a maverick player who is going to drift in and out of games, as he has always been allowed to do. If it was working, we'd be concerned, but focus would still be on the more broken parts of the team, however, at the moment, we have a Poundland Ronaldo out there trying to affect games, and we already know how detrimental that is. I don't know whether it/he is fixable (I don't think it is, personally), but the coaching staff have to try and get it through to the player that, but for better decision making, he could have come away from this game with a hattrick of assists and possibly a goal... give Rashford some vids of Henry to study and tell him the merit (and glory) he seeks is there for him if he'd try and emulate someone who accrued individual as well as team accolades by being aware goals can be amassed alongside assists rather than instead of, like Rashford seems to think..
This is nonsense. He played as a striker last year. It wasn't his job to create chances - it was his job to score, and he did that last year.
“Would be a fine addition in an already decent side.”
Then make the rest of the fecking side decent then. Else we will be lambasting the next player we bring in to carry the team
Players like Martinelli and Saka are actually as inconsistent as he is.
Couldn’t lift it over right ?They did not, and Im not just talking about Rashford but also Hojlund. Who by the way chances today and vs Arsenal only came from bits of play from Rashford, why is that? Where was Eriksen and Bruno making chances for Hojlund today?
On the ball going out of play, hes trying to ensure the defender does not get the block on the pass clearly
He reminds you of Ronaldo at Madrid? He is not even 10% of what Ronaldo was at Madrid.He reminds me of Ronaldo at Madrid. As brilliant as he was, it required the whole team to be adjusted to him. When Madrid was attacking, Ronaldo used to do some stepovers and if the opportunity to run with the ball didn't arise, he would just pass it to defenders and go back to starting position. You very rarely saw him do anything in the buildup (even 1-2s), and you never saw him do anything off the ball.
Madrid got very lucky with Benzema as he needed to adjust his game to accommodate for Ronaldo, and he did it amazingly well.
The man behind him had all the space in the world. So much could have been done with that chance.
Sums up my thoughts nicely. The amount of times I see players run 2-3 yards past him and he doesn't even put in the effort of pressing them is too high.I saw this on twitter about the Rashford vs Ronaldo.
source @Martienball
Interesting read.
Double Standards: Ronaldo vs Rashford
⏤ “Yes, Ronaldo is scoring goals but he is holding back the development of young players”
⏤ “Yes, Ronaldo is scoring goals but he doesn't press and modern football requires pressing”
⏤ “Yes, Ronaldo is scoring goals but he doesn't track back”
⏤ “Ronaldo is not the right player for Ten Hag because he can't help in the build-up”
⏤ Constantly bringing up his 500k salary in every argument
Now let me ask you something:
Does Rashford press? No.
Does Rashford track back? No.
Does Rashford help in the build-up? No.
Is Rashford the highest earner at the club? YES.
You all demanded pressing and tracking back from a 37-year-old player, but now you're not demanding it from a 25-year-old player.
Apparently, modern football doesn’t require pressing anymore... now it's “the manager's approach not to press”.
You all kept talking about Ronaldo's salary, but you're not even talking about it now that Rashford is the highest earner at the club.
It’s a BIG problem if the team “needs to play” for Ronaldo (a target man) but it’s not a problem at all when the whole starting IX needs to be organized to accommodate Rashford to play in his favorite position.
Can’t play as a RW, can’t play as a CF, can’t track back, can’t press, can’t claim long balls, can’t hold the ball, can’t score headers, can’t score with his weaker foot, terrible decision-making, and bad awareness on the pitch.
I remember someone was called “a problem” for way less than this.
This fanbase is hilarious with their double standards.
I guess if you're Manc born and bred you get away with literally everything
This. He strolls around the park like he's prime Ronaldo or Messi but talent wise he doesnt even fit to lace their boots. He plays for himself all the time. He isnt as good as he think he is. Mbappe can stroll around but thats Mbappe for you and Rashford doesnt even have half of Mbappe's talent. The only reason people here persist with him is he's a local lad making it through the academy. If his name is Rashfordinho and he hails from Brazil people will label him as typical lazy south american flair playerHe’s a bluffer. We are going nowhere with him in the team. He’s a bigger problem for me than Bruno atleast Bruno works his socks off. He meanwhile trots around like mbappe. Any tactics any pressing system will go to shit as long as he plays. He’s the single biggest reason we will always be a transitioning team. I hate the way we play just to accommodate him and make sure his limited strengths are utilised.
I've said this before, but all he sees when we walks onto the pitch is 21 opposition players.