that's fair enough so would you sell us Harry Kane to partner with our young and budding Rashford? Please...?
Is Sterling the best english player at the moment?
- Thread starter TsuWave
- Start date
that's fair enough so would you sell us Harry Kane to partner with our young and budding Rashford? Please...?
Martial, Pogba and De Gea headed our way and he's all yours.
I think it would be an interesting tactic to play in a friendly but against the elite countries I'm sure it would work...but then for all I know you've also just stumbled across the next formation that will dominate football for the next 3 years!
I’d say Kane. He’s really a complete forward.
He's not our best player, based on his performances for us...
I misread the thread as England's best player, which to me would require actually playing well for England from time to time. Ignore that part.
He isn't the best English player either though unless you ignore Harry Kane...and even then it's debatable as I wouldn't swap him for Rashford.
I think people try to underplay him somewhat by suggesting it's easy to look good in city's team. I don't think that's quite true but I do think it's fair to say an attacking player will be more productive playing in city's team than for United, Spurs, Chelsea etc.
City sometimes create more openings for their forwards in a half than other teams manage in a month.
Exactly. People keep saying that and it’s the weirdest argument I’ve read. “Oh yeah, Sterling is doing well but we need to see him playing for Rotherham United to be sure”.
People act as if Kane is playing with League one team-mates or something. Spurs are in the title race ffs.
Nothing about this post makes sense to me. Sterling not having the ability of Rashford is incredibly debatable, in fact, I’d hazard a guess that if we were to look at a comparison of dribbles completed and chances created between the two this season Sterling is more than likely to be on top. Potential? Sterling is only older than Rashford 3 years, and as a teenager Sterling was an important part of Liverpool’s title challenge, hitting double figures in both assists and goal, Rashford as a 21 year old has not achieved that once, although he seems on course to do it this season.
Proven pedigree of Kane? you are talking as if Kane is a balon d’or winner and Sterling is going through a purple patch of something. For instance, Eden Hazard, someone that is usually shown a lot of love, and that I’ve seen regarded as the best player in the league by some posters on this forum before, his best season saw him register 16 goals and 5 assists in the league. Sterling had 18 goals and 15 assists in the league last year, and on course for similar figures this year.
That England/Sanchez argument makes no sense and gave me a headache
Kane is better but Sterling is the second best.
He’s an outstanding player who I really like and wish was at United. He’s really kicked on this season as well.
He’s an outstanding player who I really like and wish was at United. He’s really kicked on this season as well.
Sterling looks amazing in the city setup because of their structure, but he rarely produces the same for England.
He’s a great player but if Southgate sticks to 352 I’m not sure sterling is the man for that over Rashford currently.
He’s a great player but if Southgate sticks to 352 I’m not sure sterling is the man for that over Rashford currently.
Martial, Pogba and De Gea headed our way and he's all yours.
Oh my. Kane worthy of that 3 players?
Kane can't even lace Pogmom's boots!
Hard to admit it but yup, currently he is. Hopefully he won't play well when we meet shitty.
Rashford has a lot of potential but Sterling’s 2013-14 as a teenager was better than anything he’s shown so far.
Not sure how Sterling’s last two seasons at City aren’t considered pedigree either. He’s been brilliant.
Thanks but no thanks buddyMartial, Pogba and De Gea headed our way and he's all yours.
Its not just down to their set up though. He has a strong mentality. Playing in a pep system is a double edged sword of sorts. It either elevates you or finds you out quickly enough. In a star studded team he was the one that dragged him out of the mud time and again. He still does brain farts here and there but he certainly is elite.
Thinking about the argument again maybe Kane just about edges it but its quite ridiculous to suggest that this is all down to playing in a pep system.
Given matches in the nations league, our preferred formation is now a 433 with Rashford, Kane and Sterling up top.
Beans !
He’s certainly up there right now
Neck and neck with Kane with Kane’s neck maybe slightly longer
The kids doing wonders at City, absolute wonders
He was learning his craft at Liverpool and became a very valued player with us, he’s now gone to City and become a vital player, in a squad full of class he makes the team sheet all the time he’s that good
Neck and neck with Kane with Kane’s neck maybe slightly longer
The kids doing wonders at City, absolute wonders
He was learning his craft at Liverpool and became a very valued player with us, he’s now gone to City and become a vital player, in a squad full of class he makes the team sheet all the time he’s that good
They aren't. You've made this up.
Kane plays in a good team, Sterling plays in a better one. Manchester City are incredible going forward and the top scoring side in all of Europe with 20 more goals than Spurs in the league this season. Do you genuinely not believe this would influence how many goals/assists Sterling is able to pick up whilst playing for them? Of course he's a big part of why they score so many goals, but with or without him they're a machine for chance creation, you don't even need stats to see this, you just need to watch City play on a regular basis. Their front 3 get an incredible amount of goalscoring opportunities per game.
We're a more pramatic and less creative side than City, hence why going 'Oh Sterling has scored the same, let's ignore context and say this must mean Kane is a fraud' is ridiculous and far too simplistic. You mention Hazard as well and the fact that Sterling scores and assists more than he does, now I actually think Hazard is a somewhat overrated player (brilliant, but not a top 5 player in the world like some view him as) but do you think that maybe playing in an inferior side is why Hazard has less impressive stats? Both Sane and Sterling racked up a silly amount of goals/assists last season, they're very good players but they aren't better than Hazard.
People talk about Sterling's performances for England because we have no other way of judging him outside of this free scoring City side. Would it be fair to judge him entirely on his international performances? No, but all players get judged on how they perform for both club and country, so I don't see why Sterling would get a pass for his ability to score goals going missing in an England shirt.
Aye man, you’re the last person to say someone made something up, you been going on about “but calling Kane a fraud” despite the post which contained that tweet explicitly stating the inflammatory troll statement should have been disregarded, now you turn around and try to dismiss people acting as if Kane plays in a vastly inferior team when compared to Sterling, despite his team being in a title race. Your objectivity is shot, no matter how many “the system!!!” you can throw at me.
If Sterling is outperforming and outproducing Hazard, then yes, he is better than Hazard. This is literally how people come to consensus when it comes to footballers, why are we reinventing the wheel with all these qualifiers about needing to be seen with lower quality team mates, different systems, playing with a blindfold, training without eating, etc? Moreover, if Pep didn’t think Sterling was best in class or close to, he would not feature let alone be such a core part of his team, I mean, this guy and City have no qualms about replacing/rebuilding entire sections of their team.
“b-but Engerrrland”
Kane had a poor World Cup that was propped up by a bunch of pens, dude lowkey scammed his way to an MBE.
Is Paul Scholes all of a sudden not one of the best English midfielders ever because he didn’t do it for England?
If Sterling is outperforming and outproducing Hazard, then yes, he is better than Hazard. This is literally how people come to consensus when it comes to footballers, why are we reinventing the wheel with all these qualifiers about needing to be seen with lower quality team mates, different systems, playing with a blindfold, training without eating, etc? Moreover, if Pep didn’t think Sterling was best in class or close to, he would not feature let alone be such a core part of his team, I mean, this guy and City have no qualms about replacing/rebuilding entire sections of their team.
“b-but Engerrrland”
Kane had a poor World Cup that was propped up by a bunch of pens, dude lowkey scammed his way to an MBE.
Is Paul Scholes all of a sudden not one of the best English midfielders ever because he didn’t do it for England?
Spurs are on pace to have 87 points this is enough points to win the premierl league a lot of season it's just that City and Liverpool are having freak seasons. I'm not sure why you are trying to undersell how good Spurs have been this year.
And while it's true Sterling plays for a team the scores goals more freely I don't think it's solely his scoring and assist tally that has lead to this thread. Sterling this season when he gets the ball you get excited, you think something is going to happen here. This feeling isn't due to the team he plays for, but for his own talent. He is completely destroying it down the wings, cutting inside, crossing it into the box. And now when he shoots you are no longer hoping it goes in but thinking it will.
Yes Harry Kane is an elite striker one of the best in the world, but recently Sterling has crept into the category of elite wingers as well and at the moment is in the conversation of best English player.
The whole original point was that I don't see why you posted a stupid fecking tweet. The guy who wrote it was a bitter little Arsenal fan who dislikes Kane. Again, nobody is saying Kane plays in a 'vastly inferior team', you're massively exaggerating what has been said in order to try and make some weird point. What I have said is that Kane plays in a side who aren't as good going forward and don't create as many chances, which is blatantly fecking true since we score 20 goals less and they score the most in Europe.
Wow yeah, people when debating footballers have never tried to use context, we've always just looked at the cold hard stats and decided who is better. Sterling is better than Hazard and we'll ignore the fact one plays for an ultra attacking side who score more than anyone else in Europe, and the other plays for a top 4 contender. That makes sense and appears entirely objective. Again you've gone off on some weird tangent which would be relevant if people were arguing Sterling wasn't a very good player (they aren't) but is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he's better than Kane. Yes, he's a good player and yes, he's good enough to start for City.
Kane was MOTM against Colombia and won us the game Tunisia, and whilst far from his best, still managed to offer far more than Sterling who scored zero goals and spent most of the tournament missing sitters, that's without including the fact he can barely score in fecking qualifying games. I don't think Kane has been great for England but his goalscoring ability has carried over to international level whereas Sterling looks frightened of putting the ball in the net when in an England shirt.
At this point I feel like you're just trolling because you don't like Kane, I literally said that Sterling is still clearly a great player despite his poor international performances. Scholes was still great because he was fantastic for his club, but yeah plenty of people will argue Gerrard is better because he did it more at international level, which is entirely fair. You're judged both on your performances for club and country, this has always been the way with players and Sterling is no exception, if he continues to fail horribly for England it will count against him.
It's close between Sterling and Sancho in my opinion.
We've been having a great season .. but for like 100 times in this thread, that doesn't change the fact City are much better going forward than we are. This is a fact. They have a ridiculous number of creative minded midfielders and are the top scoring side in Europe with 20 more than us in the league.
I don't disagree with any of that, Sterling has been fantastic. I just think that statistically he's boosted heavily by the fact he plays in such a free scoring side, I don't see anything controversial in suggesting that. Would he score/assist more than Hazard if he played at Chelsea? Maybe, but I don't think he would. He'd still be very good for them but City wide players seem to rack up very impressive goal/assists tallies and I don't think this is purely because they're very good players, you have to look at what is around them as well.
I finally watched Sancho properly when Dortmund played Hoffenheim. He's going to be a great player. The scariest thing watching him was that it's clear he still has so much room for improvement/development, while still having a huge influence on the game already.
I posted the tweet because I agree with the overall sentiment, it being Sterling is the best English player right now.
I don’t know if you’re being purposely obtuse but someone outperforming and outproducing someone else (consistency and peaks plus consistency over peaks), is context. Besides, Hazard has been part of title winning teams and his personal best doesn’t stack up to Sterling’s. What else do you want? Speaking of “xyz” formation or “abc team is pragmatic” become crutch like arguments because the variables will never truly be on an even playing field when comparing said players.
You’re the one off in weird tangents like me no liking Kane despite repeatedly calling him a good player, at one point you said something about me making these claims because Kane is injured, despite the thread and my opinion predating said injury by a long shot.
Kane, imo, had a weird World Cup, he was poor, but due to being a penalty merchant he ended up with a decent goal tally. Similarly, I thought Sterling had a weird World Cup, in a couple of matches I thought he was the biggest attacking threat but he missed good chances. But much like Scholes, he’s fantastic, and has been for a while, for his club, so much so that I think his performance for City is enough to cement him as the best English player right now.
Sterling >
The overall sentiment is I'm a wanky Arsenal supporter who doesn't like Kane so fancy having a dig at a bloke for scoring the same amount as one of the best players in the league who plays for the highest scoring side in Europe.
Context is looking at why the teams they play for may impact their statistical return. If Hazard is getting half as much service at Chelsea as Sterling is at City, then fecking obviously he's going to score and assist less than Sterling is. You watched the 6-0, right? City are on another level, they create far more chances for their attacking players thus it's totally unfair to go 'Sterling is outproducing Hazard, he's automatically better!'.
Kane had a pretty poor world cup, but he was still able to win us a crucial opening game with two poachers goals, and was excellent against Colombia. He's also been very good in qualifiers/nation league games, he's produced the goods for England without being spectacular. Sterling looked threatening in a couple of games but overall has been utterly dire for the NT with a terrible goalscoring record.
His performances for his club side would be enough if I didn't think Kane was playing equally well (if not better) at club level. Since I certainly don't think Sterling is blowing away Kane with his club level performances, I think their respective England performances are entirely relevant.
Kane > .. See, I can do this too and it's equally as meaningless when I do it.
Saw that game too, thought he was excellent but Hoffenheim were utterly incompetent defensively. Some of them looked like they'd never dealt with a fast, tricky winger in their entire careers.
For sure he's got a long way to go, but he's so impressive at Dortmund. No offence, but that was such a good career move to get away from City to the Bundesliga.
I also think that Sterling has still plenty of room for improvement, while Kane has reached his peak. Will Sterling become even better than he currently is, and who will be more consistent throughout career, remains to be seen.
100%. He simply wouldn't have got the same opportunities at City, which is a shame but it's the unfortunate reality. The Bundesliga is really becoming a great destination for young English talent. Similar quality league but they're far happier to trust young players without the ridiculous finances the Premier League has. Lookman went there before Sancho I believe, but there may have been someone before him who I'm forgetting.
Reece Oxford? Can't remember when he went. He's at Monchengladbach (on loan) at the moment with Egbo.
People have been saying this for seasons now. I remember a couple of seasons ago people arguing Lukaku would be better because Kane had no room to improve.
Kane is remarkably determined and hard working and constantly looking to develop his game, in particular his ability to hold the ball up and passing game has come on leaps and bounds in the last season or so. I don't see any reason why his game wouldn't continue to improve, he's only 25 and I wouldn't say he's necessarily hit his peak yet.
No, Kane is.
Sterling is a step above Kane for me. Potential Ballon D'or winner, wouldn't put gurning Haz in that bracket.
Last edited:
Made the difference again. the amount of times he’s come up with important goals for them.
Got the last goal but was one of his quieter games overall.
Nice to see him having a playful swipe at the press.
Some of the banter he's having with the fans is great
"Lazy Raheem doesn't score for 89 minutes" I would say that he is. Guy is one of the best wide players in the world, and time and time again he’s dug City out of trouble.
For me there isn’t much between him and Kane in terms of the best English player. You could make a case for both of them quite easily. With that being said, if I were building a football team and I could absolutely only include one of them, it would be Sterling.
For me there isn’t much between him and Kane in terms of the best English player. You could make a case for both of them quite easily. With that being said, if I were building a football team and I could absolutely only include one of them, it would be Sterling.
He better start finishing like this for England. If we get to the Euros and he's still deciding to miss every time he's a few metres away from goal I'll be absolutely fuming.
All just to annoy upstanding British citizens!
in the immortal words of Marshawn Lynch, "you know why i'm here"