Media persecution of Raheem Sterling

[Tom_mcfc]

[QUOTE="Tom_mcfc, post: 11082326, member: 330".



You're welcome mate, if you are going to have such a strong opinion on something at least be consistent with it.

A strong opinion on what exactly?[/QUOTE]

You randomly in a thread about Sterling asked if anyone mentioned Vardys snapshot just inside the area yesterday. Quite weird however you like many defended Sterlings misses and performances so far in the tournament. People broke down the ball falling to him and how the earth tilted slightly which put him off to miss. Something along them extreme lines anyway. If you can defend them missed chances then I am sure you can let Vardy off for his one half chance missed? Or are we now doing to other players what we dislike people doing to Sterling?

 

[Rolee]

So you think he was more than ok? Sterling wasn't in the heart of everything how fucking deluded can you be? We also created very little to be fair but we controlled the game. If you are happy to ignore the countless times he lost the ball, countless times he couldn't control it that's fine. I can happily say there was glimpses of good play from him but due to having eyes and not a biased head I can see when he balls up to. He wasn't the worst out there by any stretch but to have the balls to try and claim he is one of the best performers is beyond me. It seems Sterling is the only player in the world who is judged on here without the ball, his running and movement is great which is where there are no arguments but then you all completely disregard what he does when he actually has the ball. You may as well just have an athlete out there if you aren't arsed how they play with a ball. Be balanced, be fair. He is a starter, doesn't deserve to be dropped and I am hoping he can make a significant difference in the next game(s) and I would love that to ram it down the medias throats.

Walker fucked up on that chance, nothing to do with not expecting it he had the ball and took far too much time to pass it.

They're not countless Tom. In fact a site called Whoscored count them. Look it up.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

I take your point but he's certainly not weak

He held that up brilliantly. Kane aside their defenders did bully our players for physicality though but that wasn't Sterling alone.

 

[Utter bobbins]

So you think he was more than ok? Sterling wasn't in the heart of everything how fucking deluded can you be? We also created very little to be fair but we controlled the game. If you are happy to ignore the countless times he lost the ball, countless times he couldn't control it that's fine. I can happily say there was glimpses of good play from him but due to having eyes and not a biased head I can see when he balls up to. He wasn't the worst out there by any stretch but to have the balls to try and claim he is one of the best performers is beyond me. It seems Sterling is the only player in the world who is judged on here without the ball, his running and movement is great which is where there are no arguments but then you all completely disregard what he does when he actually has the ball. You may as well just have an athlete out there if you aren't arsed how they play with a ball. Be balanced, be fair. He is a starter, doesn't deserve to be dropped and I am hoping he can make a significant difference in the next game(s) and I would love that to ram it down the medias throats.

Walker fucked up on that chance, nothing to do with not expecting it he had the ball and took far too much time to pass it.

If Messi or Ronaldo played along side a midfield of Dier Henderson Lingard and Alli or equivalent they would look shite oh wait a minute th

 

[Rolee]

A strong opinion on what exactly?

You randomly in a thread about Sterling asked if anyone mentioned Vardys snapshot just inside the area yesterday. Quite weird however you like many defended Sterlings misses and performances so far in the tournament. People broke down the ball falling to him and how the earth tilted slightly which put him off to miss. Something along them extreme lines anyway. If you can defend them missed chances then I am sure you can let Vardy off for his one half chance missed? Or are we now doing to other players what we dislike people doing to Sterling?[/QUOTE]

Please be so kind as to show me where I defended Sterling's misses.

I just asked the question because Sterling's effort that didn't matter anyway was the subject of a football talkshow so I was wondering was it the done thing now to criticise players for misses that are offside anyway or is it just exlusive to Sterling?

In other words, is it an example of media persecution of Sterling?

 

[waspish]

Thought sterling did ok and we did look worse when he went of Kane was brilliant but he gave the ball away twice as many time as sterling and he gets praise because of his all around Play and commitment! Sterling doesn’t get that luxury one miss placed pass and it’s embossed in the minds of the sterling haters mind. Kane miss places missed controlled one ball it’s ignored or not even noticed that’s the big difference and it’s the hating on sterling in the media since he left Liverpool that’s done that.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I love this. "People who don't understand first edition pieces are updated".

So his defence for the article was that he didn't know England were going to go through on penalties when he wrote the scapegoat piece.

Poor bloke has been caught out by England winning.

To be fair Dom, Lawton is a quite brilliant sports news reporter, as his pieces on Team Sky have exposed.

There's a difference between a scapegoat and being accused of racism, and IMO there is no racist undertone to the 'runner' as it is called, in terms of a first edition.

Sterling has had his issues and hasn't helped himself at times (I actually squarely blame Liverpool fans for most of that), but I see it here as nothing more than lazy journalism- most reporters are already prepared for matches with a couple of potential lines, certainly makes the job easier when on deadline and a game can change in a dying second (even some of it written in advance)

It was reported the day before that it would by 999 days without a Sterling goal for England, so it's an easy one to have in the can on the laptop, should it be easy to top and tail it.

A lot of confirmation bias is now going on with regards Raheem, it has seeped into the public conscious and unites tribal footballing loyalties and becomes topical enough for lazy media narratives.

I used to see the bad in everything Richard Edgehill did in a City shirt - I never looked at his race - it was me convincing myself that he was shit at everything.

On a slightly different tangent, the public get what they deserve. They have created the driving down of journalistic standards across the world, based on nothing more than laziness created through a dependence on the internet.

The media are giving them what they want because of the commercial reality to exist.

 

[aguero93:20]

They're not countless Tom. In fact a site called Whoscored count them. Look it up.

I make it 3 times, the least of all England's starting players. Kane, Trippier, Young, Henderson all in double figures. Unsurprisingly the 3 City players were best at retaining the ball.

 

[dickie davies]

It's been a relief not having to watch Skysports News during this World Cup summer. Jim white is one of those people who just makes me turn off the TV or Radio when he comes on. Wouldn't it be great if someone launched a 24-hour radio station with intelligent coverage of Sport instead of just tabloid garbage? I think most football fans would appreciate it.

They have, it's called Talk Sport 2 and there's an unbelievable difference between this station and its big brother

 

[Rolee]

I make it 3 times, the least of all England's starting players. Kane, Trippier, Young, Henderson all in double figures. Unsurprisingly the 3 City players were best at retaining the ball.

And Lingard, to give him his due, where pass accuracy is concerned.

 

[Father Paul]

So you think he was more than ok? Sterling wasn't in the heart of everything how fucking deluded can you be? We also created very little to be fair but we controlled the game. If you are happy to ignore the countless times he lost the ball, countless times he couldn't control it that's fine. I can happily say there was glimpses of good play from him but due to having eyes and not a biased head I can see when he balls up to. He wasn't the worst out there by any stretch but to have the balls to try and claim he is one of the best performers is beyond me. It seems Sterling is the only player in the world who is judged on here without the ball, his running and movement is great which is where there are no arguments but then you all completely disregard what he does when he actually has the ball. You may as well just have an athlete out there if you aren't arsed how they play with a ball. Be balanced, be fair. He is a starter, doesn't deserve to be dropped and I am hoping he can make a significant difference in the next game(s) and I would love that to ram it down the medias throats.

Walker fucked up on that chance, nothing to do with not expecting it he had the ball and took far too much time to pass it.

Sterling was a solid 6/10 nothing special but he did show for the ball and we saw a few glimpses of his potential. The overall standard from both sides was extremely low and neither deserved to progress tbh. Walker fucked up imo the ball was poor but he had plenty of time to react. England were fairly good until the substitutions ,if they can win the WC bringing Mupets like Dier and water carriers like Vardy on it will be astounding.

 

[chesterguy]

Yeah I cheered it like a goal, was the moment of the match for me, closely behind was another open net miss. You have no logic either, I am not a City fan because yet again I believe Sterling played shit for England? If a United fan rightly said De Gea was shit for Spain are they not United fans anymore? Sensitive fool

Tom this is your reaction to Sterling being substituted and "missing" a chance against Tunisia a chance which was pointed out to you several times had been already flagged as offside against Lingard. Interestingly you dont seem to have reacted the same way about Vardy's "miss"

The point of this thread as has been pointed out several times is to highlight the media persecution of Sterling which has been going on since 2016 after the Iceland match. You have acknowledged within this thread he is not held to the same standards as other players and that he does receive poor treatment from the media

The interesting thing is that many people from a variety of clubs on social media have identified that this seems to be a crusade by a few papers against Sterling and they seem to have had enough of this treatment

My question to you is why did the writer within moments of the final whistle write a piece about Sterling? was this pre-planned? Why has the paper pulled the piece? This isnt about how good or bad Sterling played this thread is about why are the media highlighting just him when in many of the media reports http://www.anorak.co.uk/451357/ he was not anywhere near the worst player on the pitch. So many of us are wondering why sections of our media are picking on a City player and why are you surprised to think that City fans would not react to the issue that one of our own is being unfairly picked on

 

[Tom_mcfc]

I make it 3 times, the least of all England's starting players. Kane, Trippier, Young, Henderson all in double figures. Unsurprisingly the 3 City players were best at retaining the ball.

He lost the ball the first two times he received it, that was in the first few minutes. He had two shots blocked as well. Is this stat just passing? Does it not count running into defenders and losing it I presume? I said he done ok which is as far as it goes. He wasn't amazing but he wasn't dreadful. It's these very normal average displays which bluemooners seem to lord I don't get it. Imagine if he genuinely has a stormer like he has for us this season.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Sterling was a solid 6/10 nothing special but he did show for the ball and we saw a few glimpses of his potential. The overall standard from both sides was extremely low and neither deserved to progress tbh. Walker fucked up imo the ball was poor but he had plenty of time to react. England were fairly good until the substitutions ,if they can win the WC bringing Mupets like Dier and water carriers like Vardy on it will be astounding.

Well said, a bit of sense finally.

 

[Father Paul]

And Lingard, to give him his due, where pass accuracy is concerned.

Sterling and Lingard appear to link up well and to be fair the manager seems to realise this unlike most of the great uninformed.

 

[domalino]

To be fair Dom, Lawton is a quite brilliant sports news reporter, as his pieces on Team Sky have exposed.

There's a difference between a scapegoat and being accused of racism, and IMO there is no racist undertone to the 'runner' as it is called, in terms of a first edition.

Sterling has had his issues and hasn't helped himself at times (I actually squarely blame Liverpool fans for most of that), but I see it here as nothing more than lazy journalism- most reporters are already prepared for matches with a couple of potential lines, certainly makes the job easier when on deadline and a game can change in a dying second (even some of it written in advance)

It was reported the day before that it would by 999 days without a Sterling goal for England, so it's an easy one to have in the can on the laptop, should it be easy to top and tail it.

A lot of confirmation bias is now going on with regards Raheem, it has seeped into the public conscious and unites tribal footballing loyalties and becomes topical enough for lazy media narratives.

I used to see the bad in everything Richard Edgehill did in a City shirt - I never looked at his race - it was me convincing myself that he was shit at everything.

On a slightly different tangent, the public get what they deserve. They have created the driving down of journalistic standards across the world, based on nothing more than laziness created through a dependence on the internet.

The media are giving them what they want because of the commercial reality to exist.

So you're saying that before the match was finished, he would have planned an article slating Sterling for not scoring ready to go on full time in case nothing else happened in the game?

He included lines about how Sterling was "hooked on 88 minutes" and bailed out by his heroic teammates, so obviously the piece was submitted after the penalty shootout.

I'm just struggling to see how that isn't evidence of an agenda against Sterling. If England had lost yesterday and not forced a hasty re-write, the lead article on England's exit, from the Daily Mail's Chief Sports Writer would have been a premeditated attack on Sterling, decided on before the event.

 

[aguero93:20]

He lost the ball the first two times he received it, that was in the first few minutes. He had two shots blocked as well. Is this stat just passing? Does it not count running into defenders and losing it I presume? I said he done ok which is as far as it goes. He wasn't amazing but he wasn't dreadful. It's these very normal average displays which bluemooners seem to lord I don't get it. Imagine if he genuinely has a stormer like he has for us this season.

Attempted 0 dribbles, dispossessed twice, level with Walker, better than Trippier, Young, Lingard and Alli to name a few.

You see what you want to see.

 

[Rolee]

Sterling and Lingard appear to link up well and to be fair the manager seems to realise this unlike most of the great uninformed.

They do, they work their bollox off, always looking to be involved, both are guilty of lacking with their final ball at times though.

Compare that to Alli who is peripheral for the most part, doesn't do a lot wrong but then doesn't take any risks.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Tom this is your reaction to Sterling being substituted and "missing" a chance against Tunisia a chance which was pointed out to you several times had been already flagged as offside against Lingard. Interestingly you dont seem to have reacted the same way about Vardy's "miss"

The point of this thread as has been pointed out several times is to highlight the media persecution of Sterling which has been going on since 2016 after the Iceland match. You have acknowledged within this thread he is not held to the same standards as other players and that he does receive poor treatment from the media

The interesting thing is that many people from a variety of clubs on social media have identified that this seems to be a crusade by a few papers against Sterling and they seem to have had enough of this treatment

My question to you is why did the writer within moments of the final whistle write a piece about Sterling? was this pre-planned? Why has the paper pulled the piece? This isnt about how good or bad Sterling played this thread is about why are the media highlighting just him when in many of the media reports http://www.anorak.co.uk/451357/ he was not anywhere near the worst player on the pitch. So many of us are wondering why sections of our media are picking on a City player and why are you surprised to think that City fans would not react to the issue that one of our own is being unfairly picked on

I'm sorry did Vardy miss an open net? No, he then didn't miss a header from a few yards out which he should have buried against bin men.

Why do you only go in on me when I am talking about his performances in here? I came on and MANY were discussing the match. I then had my input. It is odd you pick and choose my posts to pull up, my first post was saying what a disgrace that article was. Ignore that though if you want.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Attempted 0 dribbles, dispossessed twice, level with Walker, better than Trippier, Young, Lingard and Alli to name a few.

You see what you want to see.

Specsavers are calling you