jayfx
Well-Known Member
Do people not read the title of this thread or do they struggle with grown up words like 'persecution'?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media persecution of Raheem Sterling
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Blue Whale
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 789
To be fair he was pants. So were a few others. What’s not fair is the constant press hounding. It’s seems like it’s a tabloid tradition with football - usually managers. That’s not going to end...period.
YaYa's Left Peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,478
If we ignore him, he’ll go away.
If only that were true mate!
Callum Ramsey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 405
There can be no middle ground with sterling at times because of how heightened everything he does is by the media/fans.
The first 25 minutes of the game him and the whole team were on fire with great link-up play and movement all around but as the game went on after that he got progressively worse, nothing he was doing was working or coming off and he started to lose confidence and barely showing for the ball most of the second half. On the balance of play it was the right decision for him to be subbed for Rashford as he became the least influential of all the attacking players imo. In all honesty it was probably one of his worse games for england and I felt he was better in all the friendlies leading up to it including even the nigeria game so on a performance level he was poor and there's really no excuse and I'm sure he himself knows that.
With that said Rashford isn't better than sterling even for england. No amount of clamour for him and runs he makes that leads to nothing will change the fact that England's best period of play in the whole game and pretty much in any major tournament I can think of the past decade was with sterling on the pitch playing a part. Rashford just doesn't link up with his teammates as well as sterling does nor does he find space and makes runs as well as he does. Southgate knows that and I'm certain even if the game ended a draw he would have stuck with the same eleven for the next game. Rashford is the golden boy for a lot of the media and english fans so it was always gonna be the case that if sterling didn't perform well there would be clamour for him. Most city fans that have watched raheem week in and out know he's much better than what he showed yesterday and is just an all round better player than all the england attackers bar kane so hopefully the real him will show up the next game and prove his naysayers wrong and perform to the level we all know he's capable of for the full 90 minutes.
The first 25 minutes of the game him and the whole team were on fire with great link-up play and movement all around but as the game went on after that he got progressively worse, nothing he was doing was working or coming off and he started to lose confidence and barely showing for the ball most of the second half. On the balance of play it was the right decision for him to be subbed for Rashford as he became the least influential of all the attacking players imo. In all honesty it was probably one of his worse games for england and I felt he was better in all the friendlies leading up to it including even the nigeria game so on a performance level he was poor and there's really no excuse and I'm sure he himself knows that.
With that said Rashford isn't better than sterling even for england. No amount of clamour for him and runs he makes that leads to nothing will change the fact that England's best period of play in the whole game and pretty much in any major tournament I can think of the past decade was with sterling on the pitch playing a part. Rashford just doesn't link up with his teammates as well as sterling does nor does he find space and makes runs as well as he does. Southgate knows that and I'm certain even if the game ended a draw he would have stuck with the same eleven for the next game. Rashford is the golden boy for a lot of the media and english fans so it was always gonna be the case that if sterling didn't perform well there would be clamour for him. Most city fans that have watched raheem week in and out know he's much better than what he showed yesterday and is just an all round better player than all the england attackers bar kane so hopefully the real him will show up the next game and prove his naysayers wrong and perform to the level we all know he's capable of for the full 90 minutes.
I don't get why he is expected to replicate his club form when he isn't played in the same position. If he is made to play elsewhere then surely he is just doing a job same could be said for Walker and Alli. People are having a go at him but if you don't play him where he performs best then he can't shine like he does for City. I think that Southgate thinks he's supporting Sterling but it's backfiring. For me either play him where he can do the most damage or drop him and let a better equipped player to do what you want take his place. This situation is helping no one imo.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Ok ok the media are being unfair in terms of apportioning blame. He was poor though.The issue isnt that he was poor the issue is that the media are singling out Sterling as being poor hence the reason for this thread. As for poor the great hope that is Rashford dribbled into players and gave the ball away but he is seen as the saviour. I have heard little to no criticism of Lingard Alli or Young all who were as bad as Sterling yet its all over the media about Sterling
Poorer I thought (only just) than those you mention.
Needs a stormer for England to end these debates.
jayfx
Well-Known Member
I don't know which posts you are replying to, however, were they defending his performance or (in line with the thread) questioning why the media chooses to only criticise Sterling's performance?I couldn' care less what the media and pundits make of it. I was responding to posters on here defending a poor performance on the basis he was as shit as Lingard.
Edit: I just read your comment above. That's it mate, he was poor and I don't think anyone can dispute that. It's the media choosing to single him out that most people have a problem with.
A good reason never to watch an England game in the pub. Full of fucking morons.Sterling wasn't great last night tbf
But he suffers from lack of ball retention and movement from others in the squad, I will admit henderson was ok yesterday, but his 84% accurate passes the scousers are raving about were not exacalty cutting and effective, I didn't see any clue where lingard was supposed to be positioned, just running around and misses as clear a cut a chance as sterling.
People on here @Tom_mcfc are pissed off that sterling is singled out, no one is saying he played a blinder but lingard was worse.
I was in a pub that was moaning from the start a d chanting for rashford (who did fuck all also when on) and the place cheered louder for his aubbing than for the goals.
Whether he was poor or not, the constant negative press has done it's job and most will be mentally set to say he played shite before a ball is kicked.
He could have a storming game and people will slag him, they have been conditioned to.
aguerooooo
Well-Known Member
Despite his memorable season for us. he is still treated with distain. not just by some quarters of the media but fellow blues alike. His 20 plus goal feat has rightly been a major plus and is always been belittled by " yes but how many could he have got" Nobody was more pissed off when he never killed the rags off and he missed chances which looked easier to score The obvious defence is that he is NOT a natural finisher in the way Kane and Aguero are . which makes his and no doubt Peps hard graft a major plus in his improvement
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Everytime it's mentioned he had a poor game it's but but but he wasn't as shit as.........I don't know which posts you are replying to, however, were they defending his performance or (in line with the thread) questioning why the media chooses to only criticise Sterling's performance?
Fact remains he was disappointing, that's all.