Exactly. More than that (Kane at City and Sterling at Spurs) is just crazy speculation
Is Sterling the best english player at the moment?
- Thread starter TsuWave
- Start date
If we're talking all round play rather than numbers then I much prefer Kane to Sterling. Also, Zidane was a creative minded midfielder, it's not the same as comparing two forwards (which is what Sterling is, same as another wide player like Salah). I actually think Kane would get more assists than Sterling if they played in the same team (which is what happens for England, best example is the Spain game where Kane put in a masterclass, got 2 fantastic assists for Sterling) depending on what role you had him in.
In modern football, 'wingers' (they're basically just forwards now, they mostly don't perform the traditional winger role) are very often the main source of goals rather than the strikers. Especially in a team like Guardiola the front three are incredibly fluid and all pick up a shit ton of both goals and assists because so many situations arise where they simply have to tap it across the box or tap it in to the net. Kane doesn't get nearly as much service or movement around him at Spurs, because a) the quality of our players is lower and b) Pochettino's attacking tactics aren't as good as Guardiola's, who is the best coach in the world at basically making a team a goal machine in the league.
Again, we see this impact Sterling at England. People can pretend him looking a fraction of the player is a coincidence, but it's not. If he had far more individual quality than Kane then that individual quality would shine through at every level, rather than just for City. If you prefer Sterling that's entirely fair, but the gap between them is not significant either way, and there always has to be recognition (imo) that Sterling plays in a team which scores more goals than any other side. Any attacking player would kill to play for City.
Sterling was obviously better than Kane last season. It was by far Kane's worst since breaking through and he was held back by two bad ankle injuries, and a lot of the time when coming back didn't look right. One better season doesn't make Sterling better though.
That he's underwhelming but is still their record goalscorer and still produces relatively consistently. He's not godly for them but he is still by far their most dangerous player whereas Sterling doesn't have a single tournament goal for England and only one assist.
compare the last 3 seasons. Last season was Kane's worst and interrupted by injuries
Your post was about chances created last season. Also the Spurs fan was "look how Kane contributed so many goals last season when he wasn't at his best"
Fair enough. Maguire is the best English player at this point in time
Sure, why not especially when Sterling just scored just 3 goals and Kane 2 goals.
The point was that even in Kane's weakest season at the club, where he was hit by two bad ankle injuries, he's still directly contributing to nearly as many goals as Sterling. In a team who score far less goals.
I don't think anyone denies that overall Sterling had a better season than Kane. But I don't think Sterling last season was better than when Kane scored 40+ in all comps in 17/18, and I do think Kane can easily get back to that kind of level (or even improve on that) if he doesn't suffer a couple of injuries which derail his season.
In fact I'm willing to say right now Kane will win the golden boot this season. He'll thrive more now that we have actual creativity/service coming from midfield other than Eriksen. All dependent on whether he stays fit of course, but if he does I think he'll score 40+ in all comps again.
No one is saying Sterling's best season is better than Kane's. That's a different argument, it's about who is the best English player now.
Kane took 4 penalties, from open play Sterling contributed to 27 goals compared to 17 by Kane (Might be wrong, didn't check again). This is ignoring Kane is focal point of the attack and lead striker for the club, whereas Sterling plays as winger/wide forward. Again apart from all this, Sterling creates more chances, completed more take ons and he should be leading in few more attacking stats too.
Kane is obviously great player but at this point Sterling looks better player.
So .. we judge players on a season by season basis? Fair enough. Personally I don't think having one better season makes you a better player.
Kane takes penalties because he's fecking ace at them, taking penalties is a skill, why do people discount it? And Kane contributed to 21 goals, not 17.
Kane is the 'focal point' as in he's the man who drops deep in to midfield to pick up the ball because of our lack of creativity all season. He takes all the burden of our build up play because, unlike Sterling, he doesn't have a host of the world's best midfielders behind him giving him across the box tap ins 50 times a season. Kane did the same for England when he wasn't getting any service whereas Sterling kind of just looked grumpy and ran in to players over and over again, life's hard outside of Man City isn't it Raheem?
Sterling 'creates more chances' because the movement of the players around him is far better, and of course he completes more take on's .. he's a wide forward, it's not Kane's game to take on and beat players consistently. Again, we only have one example of both players playing outside their comfort zone (for england) and in that arena Kane remains a top class goalscorer and retains his world class hold up play. Sterling's goalscoring touch for England deserts him, and he's about as creative as Lee Cattermole.
Last season Sterling was 100% the better player, and if he's better across this whole season as well then I'll hold my hands up.
From open play. It's not discounting penalties, it's for fair comparison. From open play it's 17 vs 27, Sterling also won 2 penalties vs Kane 1.
Also yeah, who is better player is surely based on how they perform over the season?
Now you are saying it's not Kane's role to take on players because of the role but you are comparing the player whose role is to score goals to the wide forward whose role is completely different, and you are comparing them based on goals.
So Sterling scores more goals because of his teammates, Sterling creates most chances again because of his teammates. It's amazing how his season is played down so easily. We should do this for every City player.
Regarding the bold part, how does it matter? You already said Sterling scores and creates thanks to his teammates, so if he has one more good season obviously it's because of his teammates? I mean he will play with same players again.
I'm gonna go with Kane. He's a world class striker whereas I don't rate Sterling as "world class." Sterling is very, very good but not world class level.
Why are we discounting penalties? Can we discount Sterling's 1 million tap ins from 3 yards too?
And no, a player doesn't get reset after every season. It's perfectly possible for an inferior player to have a better season, especially when the better player suffers multiple injuries.
A wide forward in the modern game is meant to score goals, it's their job. Salah is another great example of this, they get in to just as many attacking positions as strikers do. Kane does far more donkey work than Sterling in terms of dropping back, holding the ball up and spraying it out wide (you don't get assists for this) as a striker, so actually often ends up spending less time in key attacking areas to get goals.
Yes, Sterling scores more goals because he plays in the most creative team in the world. Why is this a controversial opinion? He also gets more assists because he plays a different role to Kane where he's the one often playing the final pass, whereas Kane's creative role in the side is to pick the ball up and push the ball out wide a lot of the time. He's a fantastic passer of the ball but that doesn't always equate to assists.
I didn't say he only scores and creates because of his teammates, I said it boosts him as a player, which it does. Playing in a team which is a machine going forward is going to boost any player in the world statistically. He still has to earn the spot in that side and he does that because he is a brilliant player, otherwise he'd be replaced.
We have only one truly fair situation in which both players are under the same conditions: Their England performances. But people want to discount this because it doesn't suit the sterling>kane argument, and act like international performances don't count or some shit, despite being you know .. football the same as the club game.
It doesn't reset but it changes who is the better player.
So Sterling
contributed more goals
created more chances (2x)
completed more take ons (2x)
has better pass completion
attempts more passes (2x)
wins more tackles
I mean almost every possible stat (except headers) Sterling is better.
Sterling is not just part of the team that is excellent, he is key player in the team that is excellent. He is one of the reason for why their attack is so good. He is one of those players who creates panic in the box with his dribbling and movement.
No, comparing them based on their England performance is not fair comparison. Some 4-7 games in a year doesn't show who is better, that too against bunch of lower level teams, managed by past it managers and barely any training sessions.
Also the bold part says it all. In a machine like team, he is key player. Shows how good he is.
In Kane's worst season where he played less games than Sterling because of injuries, but let's just ignore context?? Kane had a better goal to minutes ratio than Sterling, he just played less.
And it's arguable whether Sterling is the key player at City, very arguable.
Yes, it is fair. If you are consistently shite for England outside of your comfort bubble then something is probably up. If you score 1 goal and get no assists at multiple tournaments, then maybe that should be noted. If you have to have Guardiola's system to perform, then maybe you aren't as super duper great as people on here think, I mean this is meant to be a ballon d'or level footballer according to some of you.
Last edited:
Those stats are per 90 mins stat, so number of mins doesn't count, if anything it adds in Sterling's favor that even after playing more mins, he maintained higher standards.
So player who is focal point of the team, takes penalties has better mins per goal compared to wide forward, not surprising.
Yeah, it's just Pep's system, it's not as if he was superb when he was just 18 or something in 2013-14 season, playing under Rodgers.
Also in 2017-18 season, Kane averaged 90 mins per G+A in PL and CL. Sterling averaged 91 mins per G+A. This is with Kane's 7 goals from penalty spot.
If you go by chances created, take ons completed and few more again Sterling will come out on top. So it's not like Sterling was better only last season.
When fully healthy, both are world class and I can't see much distance between them. But the ability to stay healthy is an important attribute of a player, so Sterling edges it for me. Kane has had five significant ankle injuries over the last three seasons, suggesting that his ankles might just be chronically weak. If they're equally good when on the pitch but you can expect Kane to miss a couple months every year, Sterling is the better player.
I tend to think that about Kane. He seems to rattle about at times, seems to move like he's older. Think he'll have an early decline.
I think so too. I would not be surprised if Kane has only 1-2 years left as an elite striker, before settling into a few years of simply being a good one. Most of the best premier league forwards fallen off from truly elite play somewhere between ages 27-29 and I wouldn't be surprised if Kane's decline occurs in the early part of that range given his injury history.
Yep, it adds in Sterling's favour that despite Kane being injured twice and having to come back from that, he still scored goals at a faster rate than him. Definitely.
Kane being the 'focal point' wouldn't mean he scores more goals .. hence why (for the millionth time) we have to see him dropping in to midfield to even get the ball a lot of the time, because we lack creativity.
His best season under Rodgers was 9 goals 5 assists. He was good, but not some ex
Goals>assists. Assist stat can be massively flawed because if a player passes the ball sideways and the player they pass it to runs past 2-3 players and bags, it counts as an assist. And penalties count, Kane is fantastic at them so takes them for his team. It helps having actual shooting technique.
Yep, chances created and take on's completed for a wide forward. Problem is you can't put in to statistics how Kane holds the ball up, sends the ball out wide constantly to get us in to attacking positions. Sterling taps it across the pass for an Aguero tap in and it matters more than Kane spraying a 40 yard ball perfectly out to Trippier last season.
You fecking wish
.He looks fitter and sharper than ever this season, and will play well in to his early thirties with his playstyle.
fecking hell, you just changed everything to favor Kane
Assists don't count, penalties count, Kane isn't expected to take on players, he can't create chances because he drops deep.
Kane must be shit at dropping deep if he averages 20 passes per 90 mins.
Part of this is definitely wishful thinking as an Arsenal fan. I can admit that!
But in all seriousness most of the best Premier League forwards have their last truly elite season somewhere between age 27-29 and fall off a level afterwards due to a combination of more frequent injury and decline in play. It happened with Henry, RvN, RVP, Shearer, Alexis, and Rooney. Drogba fell off badly for several years then had one crazy season at 31 before falling off again. Aguero and Wright are probably the biggest exceptions.
Kane could be an exception too but his injury history makes me think (wish) that he won't be.
fecking hell, you just changed everything to favor Kane
Assists don't count, penalties count, Kane isn't expected to take on players, he can't create chances because he drops deep.
Kane must be shit at dropping deep if he averages 20 passes per 90 mins.
We don't play anywhere near the same combination football as City, so Sterling will average far more short passes than Kane, who will drop deep, hold it up and attempt to play more direct balls out wide. He's not playing a short, intricate passing game to anywhere near the same extent as Guardiola will demand from Sterling. He will often pick the ball up with his back to goal, hold it up and wait for support, then send the ball in to wide areas .. you don't average loads of passes per game playing like that, but it's still excellent hold up play.
Assists do count, but they're 100% easier to get than goals. You're counting goals exactly the same as an assist which isn't fair at all. If assists for passing sideways count, why wouldn't penalties.
Well then we have to come up with whether goals from tight angles count same as tap ins.
Sterling creates more chances than Kane, so if anything he should have even more assists. Assists are counted as same as goals as they end up as a goal for the team. In the end that's what it's all about.
Last season Spurs were 4th in possession table, so 20 passes per game is poor. Mitrovic playing for Fulham averaged 28 passes per game.
Among the players who played at least 10 games as strikers, Kane is 28th out of 36 players when it comes to passes attempted. That doesn't look like someone who drops deep, for a player who drops deep they should average lot more.
Hard to compare Sterling and Kane being that they are very different forwards, but Raheem has really emerged since the 17/18 season and even kicked on a bit more last season. Saw this on twitter yesterday that's a really impressive stat:
Raheem @Sterling7 at 24, has 87 Direct Goal Contributions in the last 87 games for Manchester City.
Goals: 52
Assists: 35
Raheem @Sterling7 at 24, has 87 Direct Goal Contributions in the last 87 games for Manchester City.
Goals: 52
Assists: 35
We probably should do that. Sterling would be left with about five goals.
Here are some articles on Kane's supposed poor hold up play that you're judging purely on passes per game:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...the-key-to-tottenhams-chances-against-chelsea
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fft100-2018-no10-harry-kane-tottenham
https://www.planetfootball.com/tren...class-striker-hes-also-a-brilliant-playmaker/
And if you want a perfect example of his hold up play:
But yeah, Mitrovic is better at it because he manages more passes per game. Because that's all that matters, right?
Now this is perfect example of clutching straws.
Where did I say Kane has poor hold up play or that Mirtovic is better?
You said Sterling averages more passes because of the way his team plays and all that, also that Kane drops deep. I said for a player who drops deep he averages less passes, so he must be shit at it.
You are finding excuses to downplay Sterling and excuses to big up Kane. If Kane was scoring so many tap in, you would be commenting on how good his movement is. Sterling has that, so he gets into many goal scoring positions.
You implied that passes per game is the way to judge hold up play. Kane doesn't drop deep every game, but he does it in games where we're struggling to create. And he does it all the time for England.
Kane's movement is fantastic .. but he doesn't get the service Sterling does. Sterling's movement isn't better than Kane's is, he just has better players around him to pick him out when he does get to the back post for tap in's. When you play with B. Silva, David Silva, De Bruyne etc, that's what you get. For England Sterling doesn't have that, so he doesn't score nearly as many because the times where he does show his good movement he often fecks up the opportunities.
Do something for England, then you can be called the best English player.
Passes per game has nothing to do with hold up play, it's about dropping deep and involved in the game/build up. Hold play is completely different.
Yeah, so no matter what Sterling achieves at ManCity, it doesn't matter because he has good teammates. So by default Kane is always better. It's not Kane is playing with poor players, Son, Eriksen, Lucas, Alli are all good players and create plenty of chances.
Edit: Btw, when playing for the same team
Rashford > Sterling
Lingard > Alli
Last edited:
No, but you do take in to account the team/system players are in. If we're not even going to recognise that playing in a side that scores 30 more goals a season might help Sterling get more goals/assists than Kane, then that's insanity. Kane plays with good players in a reasonably attacking system, Sterling plays with some of the very best in the world in the best attacking system possible. That is obviously going to impact on how good he looks statistically.
I'm not saying better england performances = instantly a better player. I'm saying you take it in to account as much as club performances. So on balance whilst Rashford outperforms Sterling for England, he's so far behind club wise it's clear Sterling is better. But Kane and Sterling aren't far apart in their club performances, but Kane totally outperforms Sterling at international level. And it's absolutely valid to say that the team Sterling plays for probably helps him in terms of racking up goals/assists.
You are just considering goals when the fact is Sterling creates more chances too and tops every possible stats. You can't excuse everything on Pep's system and his teammates when he is one of the best players in that team.
Also it shows how good a player Sterling is, with huge money spent and all that, he is still one of the key players for that City team. It's not as if he is some sidekick player, padding up stats. He is one of the best City players.
If we go by this logic, then we have to play down every City player because of Pep and their teammates.
Nope, I'm considering assists too. He gets loads of easy tap in across the box assists to pad his stats too .. as well as the aforementioned he passes it sideways and a player scores a worldie for him.
Nobody is saying Sterling isn't a good player so that's not really relevant. He's one of the best in the league, that just doesn't make him better than Kane. He starts for City on merit, but at City he plays in a team who completely outscore/outcreate anybody else in the league.
I think there's quite a few players in that City team who wouldn't manage to hit that level of goal/assists elsewhere, whilst still remaining world class. It's a collection of brilliant players who are boosted to even higher levels by playing alongside that level of quality under the best attacking coach in world football. The system Pep goes with is a goalscoring machine and he has all the right tools in order to make it function, so almost all their attacking/creative players boast insane stats.
Ludicrous statement.
Think about what it'd actually take to 'outshine' Sterling at this point...
at city sterling is used as a winger who cuts inside and consequently makes goals for agüero
if spurs had sterling with him, song (that korean) and kane... they would compete for titles. simple. the players behind them are strong enough.
just missing that 1 player... a sterling.
if spurs had sterling with him, song (that korean) and kane... they would compete for titles. simple. the players behind them are strong enough.
just missing that 1 player... a sterling.
Last edited:
Sterling or Kane but both are unobtainable so would have to go for Sancho.
Last season I was still undecided but right now I'd have no hesitation in stating that Sterling has edged ahead of Kane. People still underrate how important he is to this City side. In a team whose wingers are Bernardo, Sane and Mahrez, he is first choice and the most "undroppable". Out of all the players we have, he would be the one that would upset me the most if he left. I think he's one of those players who will end up being rated higher once he retires and people look back and appreciate how much he has contributed to this City side.
Your logic implies that Aguero isn't a top top striker. He plays for the most creative team in England and struggles to score 30 goals in all compets. Maybe you think that if Kane played for City, he would score 50 goals, right? Given the teams they play for, Kane is much more productive than Aguero?
Even if Sterling scores 40 goals and contributes 15 assists this season, you'd explain away his record by referring to the "system". Basically, no matter what happens at club level, Sterling isn't better than Kane because Kane contributes more goals for England.
Its going to take Kane being in an elite side to make a statistical argument between the two. Anyways Son is the more the direct comparison.
What's more interesting is whether people think he's as good as Salah. With the current system that City play theres potential for Sterling to have a huge season numbers wise.
Aguero's minutes per goal are generally up there with the very best, if not the best. The only thing that has held him back from 40+ seasons in the past has been injuries. I think Kane would score 20+ in the league for City (the goals are shared out a little more) but also would easily get 10+ assists with the players around him. In a fully fit season for City? I easily think he'd get 40+ all comps pretty much every season.
Anyway, the point is not 'sterling only scores/assists because of players around him' because clearly he's a brilliant player who is earning that spot. The point is that the service in to Kane (particularly last season) hasn't been particularly good as a result of us being a far more functional team than City are. We simply score far less goals than they do, and we play the likes of Sissoko/Winks in midfield who, whilst decent players, don't have half the dribbling or creative passing ability that City's midfielders do.
Recognising that fact is perfectly logical, as is noting that Sterling seems to struggle to replicate his performances when outside of a creative machine full of fantastic movement, whereas Kane doesn't. For me I think Sterling is perfect for this city side but would struggle more elsewhere whereas Kane could go in to any side and score goals because that's natural to him. I do believe Sterling to be more of a 'system player' than Kane is, but again that doesn't mean he's not a great one.