Rashford as a CF (11g & 5a in 18 games in 22/23)

KikiDaKats said:
Unlike most fans I hold the belief he is the Striker and Martial the LWF.
Rashford as a wide forward is more effective with space to run into and the only position to guarantee that space at all times, unless they choose to hamper their attack and play a low block is CF. Whilst Martial is so inactive without the ball and takes himself out of position, CBs can have a picnic during games.
I think Mourinho playing a young Rashford out wide because he didn’t trust him to lead the line is deep rooted in our minds. Not having a LF is not excuse enough to play a guy there that has no play making/creative abilities. He might have his weakness but he is never had to work on them because we’ve never let him get back to being a CF.

Edit
Why is lack of hold up play never brought up when discussing Mbappe?
Click to expand...

Because his end product means it’s not as important. He can run on and actually score himself with regularity. Who would you want him holding it up for in our team? I’d be happy if the players you are thinking of are just there to sweep in any rebounds! Rashford is no where near the finishing levels of the worlds best strikers, a great player for me but yeah it’s a no for Rashford being our best striker.
 
RedOrange said:
If the player prefers the left he might not appreciate being moved to striker. He might not do an Mbappe but it could still have a bit of a negative effect, like damage his confidence.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t talking about their preferences.

Rashford came into the team as a striker and performed admirably but was never trusted to continue in that position to develop the skills all strikers mature/age into, by succumbing to the usual calls of us needing a proven goal scorer ie Zlatan, Lukaku, Sanchez and shunted him out wide to mature as a footballer. Yet we keep calling him out for a lack of skills he never needed to work on whilst playing out wide.
Yet with Mbappe, very similar strengths and weaknesses(not comparing levels) has managed to develop said skills after years of playing CF without being exceptional at them. No one calls it out as a reason for him not to be a striker.
I am not blind to the shortcomings of Marcus Rashford but his strengths for me are better utilised up top and get a WF with the right balance of creativity, goals and work rate, dependent on how the manager wants to use that WF.
 
RedorDead21 said:
Because his end product means it’s not as important. He can run on and actually score himself with regularity. Who would you want him holding it up for in our team? I’d be happy if the players you are thinking of are just there to sweep in any rebounds! Rashford is no where near the finishing levels of the worlds best strikers, a great player for me but yeah it’s a no for Rashford being our best striker.
Click to expand...
This is a bad faith argument.
 
Rashford - Gre*nwo*d
Mount​

The return of the 442 striker partnership please next season.

Or the diamond with attacking fullbacks

Rashford - Gre*nwo*d
Sancho
Bruno - Mount
Casemiro
Shaw -Lisandro -Varane - Frimpong
​
Sometimes it feels like a team that is using a new/ less common formation can shock the world and win a lot of titles because they don’t know how to play against them.
 
Last edited:
It's not a good idea. We've dabbled with it for years and it's never worked. He is only effective when he can run in behind. He won't be able to do that much as a CF and he's rubbish with his back to goal. Couple all that with his finishing which ranges from adequate through to couldn't hit a barn door. Leave him on the left where he is at his best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.