He was mostly annoymous but credit to him for the two yard tap in, he should have been offside if it were not for Blind's poor positioning.
Significantly more exciting maybe in the way he plays the game but Iheanacho already has a phenomenal scoring rate in goal per minute and is lethal in the box. They are very, very different styled players. Who will be more effective long term? Who knows.
Good players have a knack of being in the right places - like Rashford in the game against Hull.
Both look like frightening prospects, but I agree with Raoul - Rashford's got more magic about him. I would have loved it if Rashers got the equalizer today - but they were simply too good for us, and well, at least we put up a fight.
Iheanacho has 11 goals in 12 starts.Rashford seems to have scored more than Iheanacho when you factor in their number of appearances. Ihea is a good player, but Marcus is a step above.
Rashford seems to have scored more than Iheanacho when you factor in their number of appearances. Ihea is a good player, but Marcus is a step above.
Iheanacho has 11 goals in 12 starts.
He had 14 goals in 35 appearances last year. Rashford had 8 in 18 (9 in 20 counting this year's fixtures).
Rashford seems to have scored more than Iheanacho when you factor in their number of appearances. Ihea is a good player, but Marcus is a step above.
Last season: CL/Euro and League
Rashford: 7 goals 2 assists in 16 apps (1105 minutes)
Iheanacho: 8 goals 1 assist in 30 apps (896 minutes)
This season:
Rashford: 2 goals 0 assists in 6 apps (85 minutes)
Iheanacho: 3 goals 2 assists in 6 apps (70 minutes)
The quality of opponents, the spate of the game, the responsibility on Rashford compared to Iheanacho, the magic of what he did and is doing - these are things that can't be quantified, unfortunately.
Ihea's wiki has him at 14 goals in 35 appearances in all comps
Looks even enough to me except it's not really my point. Nacho has proven that when he starts he scores goals, lots of them. Overall appearances can we very misleading.He had 14 goals in 35 appearances last year. Rashford had 8 in 18 (9 in 20 counting this year's fixtures).
Looks even enough to me except it's not really my point. Nacho has proven that when he starts he scores goals, lots of them. Overall appearances can we very misleading.
I disagree put rashford in a team that creates chances and he'll score just as wrllIheanancho does not look technically gifted, but he seems like a great goalscorer like Miroslac Klose or other similar legendary player. Rashford is still more gifted overall, but Iheanancho does better what is most important in a game, which is scoring goals or being more productive in terms of output.
This.Both fantastic talents but very different players.
I did not say Rashford is a bad goalscorer, but rather that Iheanancho is better at the moment using historical data. I would not argue against the idea that if Rashford was in a team like City, he would score a lot aswell, but from my perspective Iheanancho attribute like his predatory instinct, spatial awareness and shooting precision has contributed somewhat more to his goal tally rather than being in a better team that creates more. You can be in a team that creates a lot like Arsenal, but if your strikers does not excel or are good in those attribute, the team's creativity will be meaningless.I disagree put rashford in a team that creates chances and he'll score just as wrll
Iheanancho is a poacher like Hernandez. Rashford does a little bit of everything more like a CF. One plays on a team that can score for fun. The other on a team that has struggled to score for the last 3 years. Who's better? Depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for a player who can create something out of nothing and contribute to the build up play its Rashford. If you are looking for a clinical finisher who's always in the right spot to score its Iheanancho.
I'd prefer a goal scorer 10 times over.Iheanancho does not look technically gifted, but he seems like a great goalscorer like Miroslac Klose or other similar legendary player. Rashford is still more gifted overall, but Iheanancho does better what is most important in a game, which is scoring goals or being more productive in terms of output.
Kelechi has played 1431 minutes for City, scoring 17 (actually 18 but one horrible mistake by the linesman) & assisting 8. Giving a goals/min ratio of 84 minutes per goal & a goals/assists per minute ratio of every 57 minutes.What's Kelechi's goal to minute ratio again?
Kelechi has played 1431 minutes for City, scoring 17 (actually 18 but one horrible mistake by the linesman) & assisting 8. Giving a goals/min ratio of 84 minutes per goal & a goals/assists per minute ratio of every 57 minutes.
For Nigeria Kelechi has 3 goals, 2 assists in 282 minutes, a goals/min ratio of 94 minutes per goal & goals/assists per minute ratio of every 56 minutes. Impressively similar to those in an obviously stronger team at City.
As a comparison Rashford has 10 goals, 2 assists from 1917 minutes for United, giving him a goals/min ratio of 192 minutes per goal & goals/assists per minute ratio of every 160 minutes.
So on stats alone Iheanacho outscores Rashford at a 2:1 rate, and scores/assists at a rate of 2.8:1 compared to Rashford.
I think they're both fantastic young talents with big futures, but quite different in terms of style - I think it's fair to say Iheanacho is a more natural goalscorer with more end product as it stands, and Rashford is more of a dribbler & threat from other areas such as the wing.
I think City being a much better attacking side should be taken in to consideration when comparing the stats.
Kelechi is a great talent though.
Agreed, though that's why I added in Nigeria's, they're so poor they didn't even qualify for AfCON, yet he still maintains extremely similar ratios; albeit smaller sample size naturally.I think City being a much better attacking side should be taken in to consideration when comparing the stats.
Kelechi is a great talent though.
Agreed, though that's why I added in Nigeria's, they're so poor they didn't even qualify for AfCON, yet he still maintains extremely similar ratios; albeit smaller sample size naturally.
Different style of players both lads, both look very promising though.
