dubplate warrior
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
So Rashford "isn't that good", and the guy you want to replace him is Kvaratskhelia...
Yes, 100%
So Rashford "isn't that good", and the guy you want to replace him is Kvaratskhelia...
Nah, not really IMO. I’ve been an advocate of a more team-oriented approach and have mentioned this for years in relation to Bruno and assists, but I draw the line a bit when it comes to goalscorers. We can’t just pass the buck around there, someone needs to score the goals, and if we want to achieve anything - they need to score enough of them. We can’t have a bunch of forwards struggling to score 10 goals, it simply won’t work. And in terms of ‘team play’, I don’t see Rashford’s game as too detrimental to us anyway. What IS detrimental to us is his form. If he were performing consistently at his best, then just being the tip of the spear that can run past and and beyond defenders and score goals is fine, because ultimately, someone needs to provide that threat in a top team. I’m happy for us to become less transition minded behind him, but whatever we do, I think it would be a big mistake to remove a threat that can scare top level defences in terms of pure athleticism and goals. It would make us a far weaker team IMO.
Even if Rashford goes, I’d be looking for a replacement who can offer similar qualities. Mbappé, Vinicius, Leao. Those are the only names that would make me indifferent to losing Rashford. Now on the other wing, I’m far more open minded, and that is because we have what Rashford offers on the other side. I don’t mind going for a less explosive right winger, a more skilful creator etc. But one of the two needs a proper direct threat. If we got one of those on the right wing, then I’d be happy to lose Rashford on the left, but we need one direct threat.
We won’t be looking to sell him, and I think we would struggle to replace him more than many think.
For me, it depends on what he wants. If he wants to go and experience something else then I’d be looking at 120m at least and let him go. We’d need a top forward who can come in and out up big numbers and ready to do it against the big and small teams to come in, and there aren’t many sure things for that, and they will cost the same as we’d sell him for.
Yes, 100%
It would rely on us making the most of Højlund which are we set up for?I'd try and sell for as much as we can get because for every goal he scores he allows the opposition to build play unabated without applying much resistance. And I don't really rate him that highly, and if the club want to replace the goals then sign a inside forward with potential elite ball striking ability who will also help us apply a well coordinated press high up the pitch.
I would suggest we get a better squad with our wingers playing for our strikers. I.e. Hojlund and another striker are the main source of goals - for arguments sake here, let's say we replace rashford with Ramos from PSG and Williams from Bilbao. We've arguably taken "goals" out the team, but I bet we score more overall. We'd also expect Garnacho to contribute a few more as he matures.Nah, not really IMO. I’ve been an advocate of a more team-oriented approach and have mentioned this for years in relation to Bruno and assists, but I draw the line a bit when it comes to goalscorers. We can’t just pass the buck around there, someone needs to score the goals, and if we want to achieve anything - they need to score enough of them. We can’t have a bunch of forwards struggling to score 10 goals, it simply won’t work. And in terms of ‘team play’, I don’t see Rashford’s game as too detrimental to us anyway. What IS detrimental to us is his form. If he were performing consistently at his best, then just being the tip of the spear that can run past and and beyond defenders and score goals is fine, because ultimately, someone needs to provide that threat in a top team. I’m happy for us to become less transition minded behind him, but whatever we do, I think it would be a big mistake to remove a threat that can scare top level defences in terms of pure athleticism and goals. It would make us a far weaker team IMO.
Even if Rashford goes, I’d be looking for a replacement who can offer similar qualities. Mbappé, Vinicius, Leao. Those are the only names that would make me indifferent to losing Rashford. Now on the other wing, I’m far more open minded, and that is because we have what Rashford offers on the other side. I don’t mind going for a less explosive right winger, a more skilful creator etc. But one of the two needs a proper direct threat. If we got one of those on the right wing, then I’d be happy to lose Rashford on the left, but we need one direct threat.
Last season I would have agreed but I think he's regressed a lot.Yes, 100%
This thread will be a good barometer of vision. If we are to progress as a team he needs to be sold. I’m confident the new regime will feel similarly.
Sorry, I just realised I repeated what you said really. As I mentioned in my above post, we could get winger and a striker for what we potentially get for Rashford. Or at least from an FFP perspective it opens it right up.It would rely on us making the most of Højlund which are we set up for?
The money could get us out of FFP trouble and save a ridiculous salary.
In terms of inside forwards that fit the bill it’s also a very expensive list unless we go for potential and even then it’s £30/40m+ for the better fits so if that’s the case then we’re looking at maybe 2/3 players worth that risk.
It needs really careful thought because he can be an incredibly dangerous forward but we’ve moved to Højlund who needs supply.Sorry, I just realised I repeated what you said really. As I mentioned in my above post, we could get winger and a striker for what we potentially get for Rashford. Or at least from an FFP perspective it opens it right up.
I think in general we need to think less of players we rely on, more on the positions we expect our chance to be created for and have multiple options within those positions/roles.It needs really careful thought because he can be an incredibly dangerous forward but we’ve moved to Højlund who needs supply.
I think it’s a very big change that I’d trust us to do correctly 18months from now with INEOS’ football structure having been in place for some time.
@Adnan Who would you have a young replacement then?
Id be down if we’re going reasonable like for like:
- Tel
I think making the most of any player requires everyone to do the bare minimum. Rashford doesn't do the bare minimum imo and plays for himself rather than the team. The amount of times I've seen him just allow the opposition to build play through the first phase is infuriating and it creates a dysfunctional aspect in our out of possession game, which is very detrimental to the team as a whole.It would rely on us making the most of Højlund which are we set up for?
The money could get us out of FFP trouble and save a ridiculous salary.
In terms of inside forwards that fit the bill it’s also a very expensive list unless we go for potential and even then it’s £30/40m+ for the better fits so if that’s the case then we’re looking at maybe 2/3 players worth that risk.
It baffles me to read people still hoping he can hit form.
we can’t tolerate or trust this type of player. We didn’t wait for Cantona, Beckham, Giggs, RVN, Rooney etc to hit form. They were great players because they were consistent.
and whilst having a few off games is acceptable, prolonged periods (9 months in Rashfords case) is not good enough and shouldn’t be tolerated. More so from a top earner. I don’t care how many school children he’s fed, it bares no significance to what he offers Manchester United.
I’d even argue the same if he goes on a run of 5 in 5. I don’t trust him and would be confident to guarantee another Barron spell wouldn’t be too far away
get rid
An 18 year old with 3 Bundesliga goals to replace a player that's usually good for 20 goals + a season when we have scoring issues is not the right move.
We have to be in the market for Kvaratskhelia or Leao.
At the moment, yes.Do you trust Hojlund?
Same rumor every year.
I think in general we need to think less of players we rely on, more on the positions we expect our chance to be created for and have multiple options within those positions/roles.
I have actually a bit more faith if the recruitment teams have more power than the clear manager power we've had in player acquisition, but I think 18 months we'll see a much clearer picture of how we want to play and recruit for that. Which is good news for the future, but pretty middling for now.
I’ll just answer both at the same time.An 18 year old with 3 Bundesliga goals to replace a player that's usually good for 20 goals + a season when we have scoring issues is not the right move.
It's because his heart is in Manchester.Last season I would have agreed but I think he's regressed a lot.
Which is why I then look at someone like Nico Williams as a potential option but you’ve not got the same ball striking there more the carrier and physicality.I think making the most of any player requires everyone to do the bare minimum. Rashford doesn't do the bare minimum imo and plays for himself rather than the team. The amount of times I've seen him just allow the opposition to build play through the first phase is infuriating and it creates a dysfunctional aspect in our out of possession game, which is very detrimental to the team as a whole.
I think the money we can generate from his sale would be a massive boost towards our FFP situation and it would allow us to do more in the transfer window
I'm a big believer in potential, and imo we should replace him with someone who has similar attributes but with the added bonus of having the appetite to help apply the press out of possession. I think we've been linked to the young French kid from Bayern, and he potentially has elite ball striking ability on both feet and can be utilised on either side unlike Rashford who it seems only favours the left. I'm sure there's other players as well, but for me if we replaced Rashford with a younger player who applied himself with and without the ball, then we'd be better as a collective unit, rather than playing to the strengths of one or two players in transition.
I don't know about that. I'm getting the impression they can analyze things without having to have first hand experience. Having a better team around him is fine, but his performances should be analyzed by his own efforts and contributions. As a winger he's expected to make things happen, track back some, feed the striker and also have some shots himself. Have seen very little of that for a while now. Yes he had a great season but that happens to a lot of players that end up going back to where they normally are.it’s all moot anyway, there’s absolutely no way the new owners sell him without having a proper look at him first. I’m sure Brailsford and the new staff will fancy themselves to get more consistency out of him and to put a much better team around him on the pitch. I can’t see us selling unless it’s a crazy bid given the new money behind us. He’s surely on his last chance though as the main guy.
Not suggesting it’s what you believe should happen but this line frustrates me. That they want to come in and see what he can do. Surely given the takeover talks that have rumbled on for circa 12 months they would have been paying some attention and already seen what he is offeringit’s all moot anyway, there’s absolutely no way the new owners sell him without having a proper look at him first. I’m sure Brailsford and the new staff will fancy themselves to get more consistency out of him and to put a much better team around him on the pitch. I can’t see us selling unless it’s a crazy bid given the new money behind us. He’s surely on his last chance though as the main guy.
I completely agree.Which is why I then look at someone like Nico Williams as a potential option but you’ve not got the same ball striking there more the carrier and physicality.
I just think it’s a really awkward one unless we moved Garnacho to LW maybe?
The way we want to play we need every player pressing and together and so any weak links on that front need pruning. We’ve seen the difference young hungry talent can make so if we do sell I hope we invest in youth and not some 28/9 year old.
I think if you’re looking obvious elite potential it’s got to be Tel.