Is Sterling the best english player at the moment?

Had a poorish first half but still bagged a hat trick.
Must be doing something right?
 
Great player and he’s become more a ruthless goal scorer under Pep than the dynamic player he was in his early days that wanted to dribble and constantly take people on.
 
Arguably the one footballer in the world that has benefited the most of a system change from Liverpool to Manchester City. He was great at Liverpool, but it's just lights out under Pep.
 
Sancho hasn't shown enough to be mentioned alongside Sterling and Kane imo.
 
mav_9me said:
To answer the question, no. That would be Sancho or Kane.
Click to expand...

Too early for Sancho. Sterling has been quality for 3+ seasons now and has consistently taken it up a level while doing so. Sterling and Kane are at the top with Sancho behind and arguably with a higher ceiling.
 
Rossa said:
Sancho above... Must be some player!
Click to expand...

It's my subjective opinion. I was thinking between the two who would I want for our RW. Sterling has obviously improved a lot and was already very good. But he benefits a lot from city style of play. I think Sancho is the more talented player comparing them right now.
 
mav_9me said:
To answer the question, no. That would be Sancho or Kane.
Click to expand...

Sterling is quite clearly at a higher level right now. He just scored a quarter of the goals in one game that Sancho has in two seasons.
 
hellohello said:
Sancho hasn't shown enough to be mentioned alongside Sterling and Kane imo.
Click to expand...

SilentWitness said:
Too early for Sancho. Sterling has been quality for 3+ seasons now and has consistently taken it up a level while doing so. Sterling and Kane are at the top with Sancho behind and arguably with a higher ceiling.
Click to expand...

Yeah wouldn't disagree with what you guys are saying.

As I explained above that's my personal opinion. Objectively you guys are right.
 
Sterling doesn't look anywhere near as good when he plays for England. It's like he's playing for a club side who are ridiculously better than everyone else or something.

6 goals in 50 odd England games tells its own story.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Sterling doesn't look anywhere near as good when he plays for England. It's like he's playing for a club side who are ridiculously better than everyone else or something.

6 goals in 50 odd England games tells its own story.
Click to expand...
Most players don't look as good for their country though. Unless you're C.Ronaldo, using international performances as a yardstick is a bit harsh. By way of evening out the argument, Stones also plays in that same ridiculously good club side - yet he looks nothing more than okay for them and for England as well.

Having said that, for me it's still a close call between Kane and Sterling.
 
How much better would Pep and also KDB, Silva X 2, Mahrez etc make Rashford look? A lot better.

Sterling is a very good player though no doubts. But he's not in same level playing for England was my point. He needs quality around him.
 
I think that is a really hard question to answer. He is definitely a big part of the team 'spine' and has been for several years now.

I personally rank him in the top 10 in the world but there is an argument for Kane being there as well.

I am just really pleased that they are both part of our International set up and with Rashford they make an excellent forward line.

There is still Hudson Odoi to consider post injury and also Sancho knocking on the door to be integrated if they show they can continue to develop after good first seasons.
 
Still Kane. He’s the sort of striker that will rise above any malaise within the team. Sterling is brilliant, and has improved perhaps more than any other attacking player around, but he would look a very different player playing in a side struggling for form.

Put it this way. If Sterling was playing under our recent managers I think he would be getting it in the neck. I think Kane would have managed to come out with some credit to his name.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
How much better would Pep and also KDB, Silva X 2, Mahrez etc make Rashford look? A lot better.

Sterling is a very good player though no doubts. But he's not in same level playing for England was my point. He needs quality around him.
Click to expand...

When has Mahrez ever made Sterling look better?

Kane is not the same level playing for England. Actually, most players (past or present) see their levels drop playing for England. That should not be used to evaluate the quality of a player.
 
Arguably the same with Messi and Argentina...

Sterling has added a lot to his game in the past couple of years, definitely someone Rashford can look at in the England setup and see how he's taken his game to higher levels
 
K13 said:
I think that is a really hard question to answer. He is definitely a big part of the team 'spine' and has been for several years now.

I personally rank him in the top 10 in the world but there is an argument for Kane being there as well.

I am just really pleased that they are both part of our International set up and with Rashford they make an excellent forward line.

There is still Hudson Odoi to consider post injury and also Sancho knocking on the door to be integrated if they show they can continue to develop after good first seasons.
Click to expand...

Reading this just reminded me how brillant the England squad will be in 2-3 years. Foden, Sancho, Hudson Odoi, Rashford, Sterling, Kane, Rice, Nelson, Alli, Sessegnon, Maguire, Alexander-Arnold, Greenwood. Damn.
 
Zehner said:
Reading this just reminded me how brillant the England squad will be in 2-3 years. Foden, Sancho, Hudson Odoi, Rashford, Sterling, Kane, Rice, Nelson, Alli, Sessegnon, Maguire, Alexander-Arnold, Greenwood. Damn.
Click to expand...

I know it is incredible isn't it. Hats off to the junior level coaches who have really provided such a wonderful crop of technically gifted players. A real turn around from where we were 10 years ago.
 
adexkola said:
When has Mahrez ever made Sterling look better?

Kane is not the same level playing for England. Actually, most players (past or present) see their levels drop playing for England. That should not be used to evaluate the quality of a player.
Click to expand...

So your only rationale is judging him in the best club side in the country?

How would he get on in this United team then? Let's say for example in place of Lingard.

He'd get half the goals he gets now.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
So your only rationale is judging him in the best club side in the country?

How would he get on in this United team then? Let's say for example in place of Lingard.

He'd get half the goals he gets now.
Click to expand...

Which would still be better than the output of our attackers (he scored 26 goals and provided 16 assists last season in all competitions).

Do you think Lingard would get 26 goals and 16 assists if he started for City?
 
K13 said:
I personally rank him in the top 10 in the world but there is an argument for Kane being there as well.
Click to expand...
That's a gimme considering he's been a Ballon D'Or top 10 finalist for the last two or three years. Sterling has only done it once IIRC.

Normally I wouldn't put too much stock in such things but Kane placing highly in the Ballon D'Or list is massively against the odds when he's English, unfashionable, not ostentatiously skillful and in a team that doesn't win anything. Everything is against him cracking the top 10 yet he consistently does it.
 
Last edited:
adexkola said:
Which would still be better than the output of our attackers (he scored 26 goals and provided 16 assists last season in all competitions).

Do you think Lingard would get 26 goals and 16 assists if he started for City?
Click to expand...

No but I don't rate Lingard. Hahahaha. He's definitely not as good as Sterling.
 
1966 said:
That's a gimme considering he's been a Ballon D'Or top 10 finalist for the last two or three years. Sterling has only done it once IIRC.

Normally I wouldn't put too much stock in such things but Kane placing highly in the Ballon D'Or list is massively against the odds when he's English, unfashionable, not ostentatiously skillful and in a team that doesn't win anything. Everything is against him cracking the top 10 yet he consistently does it.
Click to expand...

Depends how you view the Ballon D'Or. Personally I think it has lost all value since the format changed to allow the public to vote. Better when it was just media.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Exaggerations like this are totally insane.

You can argue Sterling is better than Kane, whatever, but better by a country mile?
Click to expand...
Kane is a very good player but I don’t think He is unplayable.
Sterling however can be unplayable when He is on top of his game..just can’t see how you stop him in full flow
He would turn us straight into title challengers if you swapped him for Lingard in our Team
Ok maybe not better by a country mile but I rate him very highly
 
Most people in agreement it’s either him or Kane. I’d rather have Sterling in my team if I had to choose.
 
adexkola said:
When has Mahrez ever made Sterling look better?

Kane is not the same level playing for England. Actually, most players (past or present) see their levels drop playing for England. That should not be used to evaluate the quality of a player.
Click to expand...
It's true that Kane drops down a level for England but he drops about as much as you would expect considering the concomitant difference in quality of the players around him. I'd argue that Sterling drops down more than expected. His stats as a forward player for England are truly dismal, along with a lot of his performances too.

Regardless of dropping down for his country - which I agree is almost inevitable for England players - Kane still has a much better international GPG than anyone from the "golden generation" with some impressive goals against countries in the upper tiers of the game.

If you dismiss international performances completely because of the team, it makes no sense to then base anything solely on club performances because the team is still a confounder. I look at both when I say that Kane is still better than Sterling -- not by much at all, mind you.

rooney2009 said:
Kane is a very good player but I don’t think He is unplayable.
Sterling however can be unplayable when He is on top of his game..just can’t see how you stop him in full flow
He would turn us straight into title challengers if you swapped him for Lingard in our Team
Ok maybe not better by a country mile but I rate him very highly
Click to expand...
Kane has already put in an "unplayable" performance against United in the past.

"Unplayable" is a bit of an odd term but I'd argue the number of utterly unsaveable shots Kane manufactures surely makes him unplayable at times.
 
Sterling is fantastic, however, I feel like he'd do worse than Kane in a lesser team. City suits Sterling down to a tee.
 
Jacob said:
Sterling is fantastic, however, I feel like he'd do worse than Kane in a lesser team. City suits Sterling down to a tee.
Click to expand...

This is basically how I feel.

Kane is more adaptable and would score goals at any team in the world, at any level. Hence why he still does his job in a slightly dysfunctional England side whereas Sterling look a joke.

Sterling, like you say, fits Guardiola's system like a glove and thrives on the amount of movement/creativity. He would struggle more in a side where he gets only 2-3 chances per game .. again, as we see for England.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Sterling doesn't look anywhere near as good when he plays for England. It's like he's playing for a club side who are ridiculously better than everyone else or something.

6 goals in 50 odd England games tells its own story.
Click to expand...

Shhhh....

That still doesn't change the fact that he's the best english outfield player in the premier league.

 
Classical Mechanic said:
He’s right though. I watch every single England game and he’s missing in 95% of them. He had a couple of cracking games recently, one against Spain and the one you posted but he’s a massive disappointment for England overall.
Click to expand...

well it's difficult to adjust as international games don't come along ever week. but lots of people disagree with you... "sterling is improving at a light speed..the consistency of him making those runs will terrify all the best full back in the world"

he has improved... for city and for international team

Classical Mechanic said:
Danny Welbeck and Peter Crouch have been better for England. I’m not exaggerating, Welbeck in particular played his best football for England, in my opinion.

In recent years Pickford, Kane, Maguire, Henderson, Rashford and even Stones have been consistently better for England.

He’s probably the best English player at club level recently though.
Click to expand...

take sterling back to 2001, 2002, 2003... he would have terrorized any defence. he's world class now. pep has turned him into a world class player. he's not the same player he was at liverpool... he's better


SquishyMcSquish said:
Yep. Congrats for providing a link to one of maybe 3 or 4 games in which Sterling has actually performed for England. He basically doubled his goal tally for his country in that game.

And why sssh?? Since when did performances for your country become irrelevant when judging a player? If he's crap for England then clearly people are going to take it in to account when they judge him, the only difference between that and club football is he doesn't have an insane City team around him for England.
Click to expand...

But you would be excited if spurs signed him though. Admit it. You think barca, etc, aren't putting in unbelievable bids for him behind the scenes? Pep won't sell him. Pep is the only reason he isn't playing for barca or real.
 
Last edited:
HisDudeness said:
well it's difficult to adjust as international games don't come along ever week. but lots of people disagree with you... "sterling is improving at a light speed..the consistency of him making those runs will terrify all the best full back in the world"
Click to expand...

Danny Welbeck and Peter Crouch have been better for England. I’m not exaggerating, Welbeck in particular played his best football for England, in my opinion.

In recent years Pickford, Kane, Maguire, Henderson, Rashford and even Stones have been consistently better for England.

He’s probably the best English player at club level recently though.
 
HisDudeness said:
Shhhh....

That still doesn't change the fact that he's the best english outfield player in the premier league.

Click to expand...



Yep. Congrats for providing a link to one of maybe 3 or 4 games in which Sterling has actually performed for England. He basically doubled his goal tally for his country in that game.

And why sssh?? Since when did performances for your country become irrelevant when judging a player? If he's crap for England then clearly people are going to take it in to account when they judge him, the only difference between that and club football is he doesn't have an insane City team around him for England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.