Marcus Rashford brutally described as ‘lazy, infuriating and abysmal’

Marcus Rashford is a player who did not even ‘fake defend’ for Manchester United so he deserves no sympathy.

And the day after that Hugo Ekitike red card, everybody is getting shirty.

Send your mails to theeditor@football365.com

Defending Scholes, blaming Rashford

I understand why F365 thinks that Scholes has a Marcus Rashford problem.

Because if you haven’t put yourself through each and every rubbish match they have played over the last 4-5 years, and then check that Rashford does play a few games a season quite well, you will wonder why Rashford is being targeted. But as someone who really really liked Marcus Rashford, and has put himself through each and every minute of each and every game since 10-15 years now, let me tell you why Scholes is just saying what every fan feels.

Marcus is a local lad, who burst through and gave United fans hope that this is the next Academy player to be a star. He had great talent, was an amazing human and had the right values. So when he walks around the field for 80% of the match, literally not putting 2 steps to the right to try and defend or even fake defend when United don’t have the ball, and is one of the laziest players I’ve seen to grace the pitch, right up there with Martial and the 40 year old Ronaldo playing for Portugal currently. And while the Ronaldo case is easier to understand and the rest of the team work 10% harder to accommodate him at the age of 40, there is absolutely no reason the rest of the United team should suffer because Marcus cannot be bothered to do a proper job.

On the edge of his own box, with the ball in front of him, he will just walk around and let the opposition players take shots or walk past him with ease. In EACH AND EVERY MATCH. It’s extremely annoying to watch regularly.

Twice or thrice a season, he will put in a performance where he is energetic, runs with and without the ball, and his decision making is on point. But the rest of the time, he is one of the most lazy, infuriating and abysmal players on the pitch. Then comes his off-pitch behavior of being late, going partying, not working with the team agenda in mind, when he was the poster boy for Manchester United, it all mixes together to bring a feeling of sadness and regret at what he could have been and what he has become. The massive wages United gave him play a part in this downfall and for that I blame the management and board.

The only reason I am excited for Rashford scoring or playing well for Barca is so United can scam 30 million pounds off for him, which no one in their right minds would otherwise pay along with his stupid wages. May he excel at Barca and find his peace there. I genuinely wish him well, and unlike Scholes I am happy for him if he finds a home in the beautiful city of Barcelona.
Aman

Culture vulture

I don’t think Matt Stead understands how culture is embedded within large organisations or in society at large.

To take Arteta and Arsenal as an example – I’m an Arsenal fan and don’t believe the culture is perfect at Arsenal. However I believe we can agree that Arteta has improved it since he arrived.

Which demonstrates that the manager sets the required culture (standards), the players have to fall in line and if they don’t the manager needs to be backed by senior leaders to enforce the required standards. This starts with disciplining the players and if they continue to misbehave they need to be removed from the team and the club. This has what has clearly happened at Arsenal.

At Utd both Ten Hag and Amorim have set standards. They started by disciplining players (dropping them/fining them) then moved to excluding them and then selling them. This was clearly backed by senior leadership who allowed multi million pound assets to lose value by excluding them from the first team.

Therefore the managers and senior leadership have done their jobs in maintaining culture and standards.

In conclusion what is left are the players that did not uphold Utd’s standards and culture. And although it could be argued that what they are paid is irrelevant, my argument would be that a) employees earning 25k a year are expected to adhere to company standards b) chief executives earning 10m a year are expected to adhere to company standards. Therefore people earning 15m a year certainly should be.

If they don’t, it’s no one else’s fault. And tbh the state this country is in demonstrates that many people no longer feel accountable for their own actions or situations. Footballers are just a microcosm of that.
Rojapy

Mikel Arteta: The world’s most self-satisfied man?

“I had a lot of things, on my phone, who could not believe what we did to Manchester City. People who are coaches, managers, CEOs, presidents. So proud, and I look at the players and the people around (the club).”

Mikel Arteta ladies & jellyspoons. After arguably dropping two points at home versus an eminently beatable Man City, in large part due to his unwillingness to play one of the best 10s in the league until it was too embarrassing not to.

Some lucky proper manager is going to inherit this team and win the league.
RHT/TS x

Ekitike not disadvantaged by Isak

I think that it is time to dial back this ongoing narrative peddled by many (including F365) of Ekitike being somehow disappointed/disadvantaged by the signing of Isak.

In the 2024/25 season, Liverpool had two dedicated number 9s (Nunez and Jota) with four other senior players capable of ‘doing a job’ to varying degrees (Chiesa, Diaz, Gakpo and Salah). In 2025/26 this became Isak and Ekitike, and Chiesa, Gakpo and Salah.

There was literally zero prospect of a team trying to go through an entire season with just one recognised striker, so two were always going to be necessary. The fact that one of these unexpectedly turned out to be Isak may have pushed Ekitike from an expected starting role to backup, but doesn’t change the fundamental fact that he was always going to be competing with someone for his place. He was likely made aware of this when he signed.

After a great start to his Liverpool career, getting himself sent off in some of the dumbest circumstances possible will have undoubtedly not helped him retain his starting position over Isak, but that has probably only accelerated the inevitable.

However, with the number of games that Liverpool are likely to play and Isak’s lack of pre-season and slightly patchy injury record, Ekitike will still get plenty of starts and substitute appearances. It therefore seems unlikely that the times he spends on the bench will result in significant surprise or unhappiness on his part despite what the media and certain people BTL would have you believe.
Matt D, London

READ: Liverpool star given ‘needless’ advantage as £100m links continue to plague lost midfielder

Ekitike shirt talk

Ekitike’s comedy moment last night got me wondering what would happen* if, instead of revealing a stretchy undershirt a player has an identical numbered shirt on underneath?

No DoCKers (ask your dad), I belong to Jesus, or other messages. Just another matchday shirt.

The original shirt could then be thrown to the crowd. Would love to see the PGMOL try and justify a card for this.
DF (Tardelli managed to keep his shirt on)

*Rhetorical really, as causing a minor shirt scramble would no doubt be viewed as inciting a riot.

…A lot of discussion around why taking your shirt off is a bookable offence. The IFAB reasons (time-wasting, sponsorship visibility, provoking fans…) are a tad silly.

All they had to put was ‘Ryan Giggs, Villa Park, 1999’. No one wants to risk seeing that.
Gary AVFC, Oxford (Getting shirty!)

…Hugo Ekitike’s second yellow card last night and Hesh’s email this morning present the perfect opportunity to explore this in more detail.

The first thing to note is that removing your shirt to celebrate a goal became a yellow card offence in 2004, but was punished before under the more general “excessive celebration” category. Ekitike was born in 2002, so for his entire football playing life, he’s known he’ll be booked if he does that.

As Hesh points out, it’s a “nonsense” rule given how ultimately harmless the act is, and how unaffected the other team are by it.

However, the act itself is equally as daft as the rule. Maybe it’s just me. I’ve never understood the logical connection between scoring and taking your shirt off. It’s probably the most prominent thing that doesn’t make sense outside of a football context, but even in a football context, it’s something people used to do and I’m not convinced many of them really knew why, beyond it being something lots of other people did at the time.
Ed Quoththeraven

…I am sure you will get a million mails on the same thing but wanted to let Hesh (LFC) know that players get booked for taking their shirt off because the sponsors want their logo on websites and in the papers. If you look at the back pages, usually it is a goal celebration pictured. Lots of lovely eyeballs on the gambling company logo.
Micki (you even get booked for a Riise-style shirt over the head) Attridge