Rossa
Full Member
Too sensible mate, too sensible. Then again, I’ve always been a little fond of Tottenham.True, I'm a Spurs fan but I can admit Dele has been very disappointing.
Too sensible mate, too sensible. Then again, I’ve always been a little fond of Tottenham.True, I'm a Spurs fan but I can admit Dele has been very disappointing.
I thought England's attitude would determine the game's outcome. In the first half Sterling was absolutely integral to every England attack and his running and dribbling put Sweden firmly on the back foot. No other England player took the game to them like Sterling did, no disrespect to Kane but he barely got involved as he seemed to drop quite deep. Yes, Sterling could have scored but not many others influenced the game like him. Overall, I thought Trippier was also superb, and there were no real weak players. Your thoughts?
Kane was dropping deeper because of the daft formation, I thought Dele was still a bit of a ghost, Lingard and Tripper were the best of the attaching lot for me. For all Stirling's running and dribbling there didn't seem to have much of plan of product for it. England managed 2 shots on target the whole game despite controlling the game and having nearly 60% of the ball. 2 nice goals scored but again one was yet another set piece.
Too sensible mate, too sensible. Then again, I’ve always been a little fond of Tottenham.
I’m happy if we are this rubbish in the semi and still win 2-0!!
Maybe it's because you are 'staff' but for everyone else there is a phrase before you post which says 'criticise the post not the poster'. I'm afraid I have never seen you actually respond to a post that you don't like, your preferred option being personal abuse. I am, according to you, 'arrogant and unintelligent'. Meanwhile, you have not made a single response to any of the points I have made. So be it.
As an aside, you took great offence at a City fan describing posts as being of a Daily Mail standard, so much so that you keep repeating it. On another thread a United fan described anti-Sterling posts as being worthy of the Sun, I trust you took similar offence at that? Clearly not.
Finally, you accused BluemoonOutcast of making an accusation of racism. Your accusation was clearly erroneous and pretty shabby to be honest. Nowhere have I seen you have the balls to apologise.
Kane was dropping deeper because of the daft formation, I thought Dele was still a bit of a ghost, Lingard and Tripper were the best of the attaching lot for me. For all Stirling's running and dribbling there didn't seem to have much of plan of product for it. England managed 2 shots on target the whole game despite controlling the game and having nearly 60% of the ball. 2 nice goals scored but again one was yet another set piece.
It wasn't shabby and erroneous, he knew what he was talking about and so did you. I've no inclination to apologise to people who trivialise racism just because a player of the club they support has been criticised on a rival forum.
Bullshit. Again you're changing, you said the player who scores the goals offers more.
And Sterling was literally the only dangerous player, as I said earlier I should have offered from open play.
Everything in this garbled mess is irrelevant. Just give up like you said you were going to, FFS.When I posted in Alli was anonymous as I posted at half time, when you started your argument. Would you say Lingard offered nothing? I'd say in the second half he was probably our best player at least of the front 5.
In fact many posters in this thread said the exact same thing I did about Sterling first half.
Again your back to talking about goals. As I said earlier, John Stones has more goals than Messi in this WC, also Rakitic, Willian etc... has he offered more in an attacking sense? No he hasn't.
Goals aren't the simple measure of who offers what, if they are we would have all kinds of rubbish views like the above about Stones and Messi. If they are Paul Scholes and Iniesta had shocking careers as attackers... you know its not that simple, its just another stick to beat Sterling with.
Sterling has had a terrible world cup, but first half today he was Englands only attacker who performed and the only threat (from open play if it makes you feel better). 2nd half he was very poor in comparison and others stepped up (mainly Lingard, Trippier and Alli. Kane was pretty anonymous)
Show me where I said that. Now. Quote the post.
You don't know what 'literally' means. We have already established that.
Everything in this garbled mess is irrelevant. Just give up like you said you were going to, FFS.
Again, you said something stupid, you were called out on it. You have since spun, backtracked, lied, and everything in between. Suck it up and move on.
I thought his overall game today was decent to be honest. Best he's played in the World Cup.
His finishing is absolutely appalling though, we're getting into Welbeck at his absolute worst territory here.
Welbeck is currently a better option than Sterling. I would have backed Welbeck to have put away at least one of the chances Sterling had today.
I didn't think you could dig yourself into a bigger hole. You proved me wrong. Jesus f*cking christ....There it is in black and white, you saying exactly what you've been denying afterwards. You flat out said it. Which is why I went with the rather silly Messi/Stones comparison because the player who scores is not always the best attacker or the one who offers most to the attack.
- You: What the hell are you watching?
- Me: Instead of laughing tell me whose been better or offered more. Kane did nothing, Lingard nothing, Alli nothing. Laugh all you want, easily Englands best attacker and the best on the pitch today.
- One of you tell me, who has offered more, who has made more chances, whose contributed more in an attacking sense?
- You: The player who actually scored, perhaps?
- Me: So Harry McGuire has been Englands best attacker, ffs... clutching at straws there much.
- You: It's a goal more than Sterling has contributed.
I've done none of those things, also it was no garbled mess, my ten year old could probably read and understand it.
I'll clarify it for you.
The bolded bit in the bottom, thats you. See the top of this post and first quote.
- You spouted shite about Alli being more effective. Alli scored the goal after my post and your response.
- You keep banging on about goals and assists. As I said in, and it's not fecking rocket science, a player doesn't need goals and assists to offer good attacking contibutions. If they did someone like, Iniesta would be regarded as a poor player.
You keep believing Harry McGuire offered more to Englands attack then Sterling... and I'll leave you with Gary Nevilles words.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11429283/neville-sterling-criticism-disgusting - Gary Neville talking sense on the issue.
I thought his overall game today was decent to be honest. Best he's played in the World Cup.
His finishing is absolutely appalling though, we're getting into Welbeck at his absolute worst territory here.
I agree with this, I actually thought this was his best performance in the WC but he wasn't the best outfield player for England today.
He does need to score more goals though, its puzzling that he can't seem to finish these chances for England considering some of the finishes for City last season.
I think it’s because the chances are coming to him more when he has to make a decision on how to finish, he is more central now and getting the chances a striker would finish on instinct rather that getting in the end of a ball in a more scorable one touch finish. I like sterling wide and coming in, when he is central tou can see him thinking, do I try a finish or do I pass.
So you concede that I didn't actually say that and you made it up. Thanks.
Now, you, on the other hand, said Sterling was literally the only danger England have offered. Despite the fact that someone else actually scored.
You also asked who offered more in an attacking sense than Sterling (0 goals, 0 assists). Both Maguire and Alli offered more because they actually scored. Which is the entire point of attacking.
You said something stupid, you got called on it. Suck it up and move on.
His finishing is appalling. However, he does get himself into those situations more than Kane, for example who has actually been a little below par throughout the tournament. Thought he was decent yesterday but he's playing as a striker and we're lucky his missed chances haven't cost us thus far.
It wasn't shabby and erroneous, he knew what he was talking about and so did you. I've no inclination to apologise to people who trivialise racism just because a player of the club they support has been criticised on a rival forum.
If an United fan did say that then he's as wrong as both you and Bluemoon outcast, I didn't read that post neither I don't need to justify my actions to you. You're free to think whatever you want.
I'd just like to jump in here to defend myself a little. My post made absolutely no reference to race, nor was the post racist in any way. Minutes after England triumphed over Colombia the Daily Mail published an article bashing Sterling when the rest of the country was celebrating. When I came on here and saw Sterling getting some heat I saw comparisons, that's all. I do not require an apology, nor do I think I deserve one, but please don't call me a racist.
Yeah Southgate should gamble on Rashford for a WC semi and drop the guy who's been doing the job he needs consistently.
What job is this. No one has explained what sterling has done in any game that actually helped the team.
Missing sitters and not playing a pass when a team mate is in a good position doesn't help the team. Even if another player wouldn't have made the run in the first place
Why was Rashford deemed not to have taken his chance when he missed one chance in a dead rubber vs Belgium when he was playing with the second string too?
There was nobody in the media saying he got into the positions and got behind them when nobody else did etc and rightly so. He should have scored that game.
But Sterling has literally had 4 90 minute games with Kane and done nothing. His pace worries teams but we're missing a trick not giving Rahsford more of a chance.