This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.
These stats are from this article -
https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.
Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists =
162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists =
159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists =
134 total
Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.
Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling
140 total contributions.
Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling
149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.
Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling
140 total contributions.
- A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a
huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.
So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.
Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to
158 total contributions.
Our comparative stats now look like this:
Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists =
140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists =
149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists =
158 total
So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.
This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.
I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.
(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)
*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
