Media persecution of Raheem Sterling

[Neville Kneville]

This game was against a v poor Costa Rica who just got a 24 hour flight and really couldnt be arsed from what I saw. Rashford also had a good game though tbh (1 good game!) The first thought into pundits heads was "he should replace Sterling". Automatically it is Sterling that has to go and I really dont know why they choose him. fkin annoying

Because Sterling is being set up as the villain & that panders to the rag/dipper masses plus the general brain dead.

Hoddle has been on this for ages. Fuck all to do with what is the best 11. Tabloid tv. Hoddle knows how it works, he's seen it close hand.

 

[BlueAnorak]

To be fair,Rashford did well last night,he will scare to death most teams with his pace,does get a bit wayward I must admit,but that performance last night should earn him a start in the first game,at whose expense,only Southgate knows.....but does he ?

I'm more optimistic this time than I have ever been,I'm usually thinking we be shite,but I'm seriously optimistic this time,although our resident Scotch and Irish residents will be hoping different.

Earn him a start? Compared with Nigeria, Costa Rica are gash. Sterling shouldn't be under threat - Ali and Lombard should be. Both were poor

 

[waspish]

Think Rashford brings something different as in he shoots often from any distance and brings there unpredictabliyy sometimes you need against top sides.

 

[meeesh]

I have no idea why ten minutes early on v Costa Rica should earn him a start but I don't care either way. Fabien Delph skinned 3 of them just the same, when he moved centrally.

Nobody in the team, had any problems against any of them, in the whole game. Even Jordan Henderson managed to play several forward passes.

Sterling hasn't scored for a while for England, so if Southgate feels the extra pressure being applied to him is likely to make him less likely to score than Rashford, sure, play Rashford.

If it was a Premier League game, without the added persecution, he'd be a fucking dick, to Start Rashford, as Sterling would betwice as likely, to produce something.

But this is England & Sterling is being set up, so grat, play Rashford, or Dany Wellbeck, the original Rashford.

That's the England set up for you though,I agree (without my blue tinted specs on) that Delph was fantastic,so in control of the ball,in fact looked the only one who was comfortable on the ball,city esque kind of thing,and should also earn a start.....but he won't

 

[Neville Kneville]

So if your logic is correct even if that’s the reason rashford produces more surely you go with the player that does produce more? Or should blind loyalty mean go with sterling no matter how average he is for England. If I’ve ever questioned him for city people throw stats in your face to argue it, check his England stats out. Fucking awful

I don't give a fuck.

This thread is about Sterling. He is being set up, & the treatment Rashford (who has done pretty much fuck all in most games for England other than lose the ball) is getting by contrast, is proof.

If it's all about England being at their best, then the whole country would be desperate to give Sterling as much confidence as possible (such as a regular job in the team rather than the 'in & out' player, shifeted around, he has always been.

Simple rason being: Sterling has been miles better, proven 100%, than Rashford. So therefore, if all this was about, was what is best for England, the 6 weeks ago, Glen would be talking about getting Sterling to play for England, as he does for City.

But no, all he said, right in the middle of Sterling's run of form, was 'drop him' because he hasn't scored.

This isn't about what's best for England, it's about keeping angry blokes happy, in front of their tvs, with blingy, breakfast eating, gun tattooed Sterling, as the bloke being lined up, to take the shit.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Think Rashford brings something different as in he shoots often from any distance and brings there unpredictabliyy sometimes you need against top sides.

Isn't that what we have Harry Kane for ?

 

[Rolee]

So if your logic is correct even if that’s the reason rashford produces more surely you go with the player that does produce more? Or should blind loyalty mean go with sterling no matter how average he is for England. If I’ve ever questioned him for city people throw stats in your face to argue it, check his England stats out. Fucking awful

Very similar to Rashford's in games that matter.

 

[Neville Kneville]

That's the England set up for you though,I agree (without my blue tinted specs on) that Delph was fantastic,so in control of the ball,in fact looked the only one who was comfortable on the ball,city esque kind of thing,and should also earn a start.....but he won't

And maybe he shouldn't, as it was v Costa Rica, who weren't even trying.

 

[meeesh]

Earn him a start? Compared with Nigeria, Costa Rica are gash. Sterling shouldn't be under threat - Ali and Lombard should be. Both were poor

I'm not suggesting Sterling will be under threat am I ? All as I'm saying is Rashford will have probably earned a start,if the Sterling protectors think it's him who will be sacrificed then so be it,but Southgate constantly plays Sterling out of position for England anyway,usually in the middle,so should be no worries...................................

 

[Tom_mcfc]

I don't give a fuck.

This thread is about Sterling. He is being set up, & the treatment Rashford (who has done pretty much fuck all in most games for England other than lose the ball) is getting by contrast, is proof.

If it's all about England being at their best, then the whole country would be desperate to give Sterling as much confidence as possible (such as a regular job in the team rather than the 'in & out' player, shifeted around, he has always been.

Simple rason being: Sterling has been miles better, proven 100%, than Rashford. So therefore, if all this was about, was what is best for England, the 6 weeks ago, Glen would be talking about getting Sterling to play for England, as he does for City.

But no, all he said, right in the middle of Sterling's run of form, was 'drop him' because he hasn't scored.

This isn't about what's best for England, it's about keeping angry blokes happy, in front of their tvs, with blingy, breakfast eating, gun tattoed Sterling, as the bloke being lined up, to take the shit.

And I will repeat all sterling has done for England is lose the ball yet you’re moaning at it being pointed out. You’re the one bringing rashfords treatment into things. You’ve even admitted rashford produces more yet you are saying if he started it would be to keep angry blokes happy? You’re losing it.