Just had an argument with a rag mate (i know, is there really such a thing?) who vehemently denies that Iheanacho is not anywhere near as good as Rashford.
My argument was that while Rashford is undeniably exciting with obviois strengths in pace, dribbling and unfortunately, finishing, Iheanacho is a technically better player, offering a passing ability and awareness that makes him more complete.
He refused to take the stats as relevant, with Kelechi's more goals and assists not counting because 'city score more goals and iheanacho's goals never have any significance because they're all in three or four goal wins'. I immediately pointed to the matchwinner against Palace, but 'Rashford has won so many games for united that he's undoubtedly better.'
I am made to watch most scum games because of my friendship group and that has given me an insight into their bang-average team - which when coupled with the media hype makes rashford stand out more than our Kelechi.
The blind loyalty is what kills me. Even in the face of undeniable statistics, the rag manages to say rashford is better all round.
Oh and kelechi cant shoot as well as rashford, despite scoring belters for Nigeria ("yeah but against who? Doesnt count") and having scored goal from all over the box for city.
Help me out here, how can i prove anything?! (Or is it too far gone?)