Media persecution of Raheem Sterling

[Marvin]

I have a mate who's a Barnsley S/T holder - he's usually quite sensible on football, hates the rags and Leeds and has always been genuinely pleased about City's recent success. Talking to him yesterday, he'd swallowed the Sterling narrative hook line and sinker so I felt obliged to put him right about Sterling's role in the England setup being very different to his City role and that he was the best one in the squad for that job and despite the odd missed chance he had actually done well for the team. After about 5 minutes arguing he sort of grudgingly accepted that I may have had a point. It's hard work though, some have been totally brainwashed by the original media hatchet job.

The media killed him pre-tournament, but I think a few City fans are just putting a tick where media reports stick a cross

There are two separate issues.

1. The criticism and what underlies it - now and in the past.
   
   
2. His form for England which has been poor at the World Cup.

If was an England fan, I'd probably want Vardy starting or Rashford. England have a fantastic set-piece routine going on. That doesn't suit Sterling. They also lack midfielders who can play the little one-twos around the box that Sterling thrives on.

Nothing gave me greater pleasure last season than to see Sterling score goals for City, but I think some of the disappointment from England fans at Sterling's performance is genuine and without any angle or side to it. If I were Southgate I'd be torn about whether to carry on playing Sterling hoping that a goal would kick start him and lift him, or play someone like Vardy or Rashford. Rashford's finishing is also poor, but he is fearless and reasonable in the air. Let's face it 75% of the balls going into the England forwards are high crosses or free-kicks and corners. This does not suit Sterling.

Sterling had a mixed game against Sweden. it was possibly his best game of the tournament, but in no game did he come close to the level he reached at times for City.

 

[2sheikhs]

The media killed him pre-tournament, but I think a few City fans are just putting a tick where media reports stick a cross

There are two separate issues.

1. The criticism and what underlies it - now and in the past.
   
   
2. His form for England which has been poor at the World Cup.

If was an England fan, I'd probably want Vardy starting or Rashford. England have a fantastic set-piece routine going on. That doesn't suit Sterling. They also lack midfielders who can play the little one-twos around the box that Sterling thrives on.

Nothing gave me greater pleasure last season than to see Sterling score goals for City, but I think some of the disappointment from England fans at Sterling's performance is genuine and without any angle or side to it. If I were Southgate I'd be torn about whether to carry on playing Sterling hoping that a goal would kick start him and lift him, or play someone like Vardy or Rashford. Rashford's finishing is also poor, but he is fearless and reasonable in the air. Let's face it 75% of the balls going into the England forwards are high crosses or free-kicks and corners. This does not suit Sterling.

Sterling had a mixed game against Sweden. it was possibly his best game of the tournament, but in no game did he come close to the level he reached at times for City.

Sterling has been winning said set pieces for the team. Rashford running into 2 or 3 defenders and getting dispossessed all the time isn’t fearless, it’s clueless.

 

[mosssideblue]

Racism is definitely a part. No matter how uncomfortable that may feel. 93.20 podcast boys called it out weeks ago. Time to get of the fence and acknowledge what it actually is. Your linekers etc finally begun to acknowledge this a month or two agoband since within many media outlets the focus on sterling has softened but be in no doubt racism is playing a part.

And you have evidence of this? If racism was a factor, this would have been nipped in the bud months ago

 

[lancs blue]

If was an England fan, I'd probably want Vardy starting or Rashford.

Why? Vardy was on for ET against Colombia - England were ineffective as an attacking force after he replaced Sterling. Rashford had his chance against Belgium's shadow squad and fluffed it. I disagree about Sterling being poor so far, he's doing the job that Southgate wants him to do which is to drag defenders all over the place with his movement and also act as a link between midfield and attack. The odd goal would just be a nice bonus.

Why are you expecting him to reproduce his City form when he's being asked to play a different role for England?

 

[Marvin]

Sterling has been winning said set pieces for the team. Rashford running into 2 or 3 defenders and getting dispossessed all the time isn’t fearless, it’s clueless.

Sterling is still operating at way below the level he shows for City, and there's no good denying that.

If City were in the climax of the season and Sterling was in a deep goal drought and playing like he does for England, he'd have been dropped. of course parallels aren't quite so easy to make as for City we have Silva, and De Bruyne on his wavelength and the City fans support him, but all the same for whatever reason he isn't producing for England. I agree Southgate does not have many options. England's strength is an outstanding defence and defensive midfield.

 

[Marvin]

Why? Vardy was on for ET against Colombia - England were ineffective as an attacking force after he replaced Sterling. Rashford had his chance against Belgium's shadow squad and fluffed it. I disagree about Sterling being poor so far, he's doing the job that Southgate wants him to do which is to drag defenders all over the place with his movement and also act as a link between midfield and attack. The odd goal would just be a nice bonus.

Why are you expecting him to reproduce his City form when he's being asked to play a different role for England?

We probably agree then. I defend him against critics but on more general terms that he has got the talent but he's playing under pressure and lacks the midfield supply. We've seen his finishing for City blow hot and cold.

The national team are having a great world Cup. Individually Sterling is struggling with his game though. I think he's got a lot more to give, but really his game does not suit the way england are playing. At the moment the decision to go with Sterling over vardy or Rashford must be quite marginal.

I think some elements of the media criticism of his game is quite valid and some blues are being overly defensive about it. it's quite possible to accept that he's playing poorly, and support him at the same time and believe that he has great potential which is my position.

I have a funny feeling that he maybe destined to score a crucial goal in the semi-final or final. That would be wonderful for him. The ideal scenario for Southgate would have been for him to get his eye in early on against Tunisia/Panama.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

England's strength is an outstanding defence and defensive midfield

What a crock of shit.

 

[Claytop]

I'm just praying to God he's not still on the field if we go to another Penatly shoot out, I don't think I could watch if he had to step up and take one...

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Sterling is still operating at way below the level he shows for City, and there's no good denying that.

If City were in the climax of the season and Sterling was in a deep goal drought and playing like he does for England, he'd have been dropped. of course parallels aren't quite so easy to make as for City we have Silva, and De Bruyne on his wavelength and the City fans support him, but all the same for whatever reason he isn't producing for England. I agree Southgate does not have many options. England's strength is an outstanding defence and defensive midfield.

Nah I dont think he would have been drtopped. His movement is good enough to produce some very good scoring situations. The goals will come, how long it takes dont know but Pep dropping him because he hasnt scored? No.

In fact I think Pep would make the most of it and galvanise the team into getting him a goal.

 

[2sheikhs]

Sterling is still operating at way below the level he shows for City, and there's no good denying that.

If City were in the climax of the season and Sterling was in a deep goal drought and playing like he does for England, he'd have been dropped. of course parallels aren't quite so easy to make as for City we have Silva, and De Bruyne on his wavelength and the City fans support him, but all the same for whatever reason he isn't producing for England. I agree Southgate does not have many options. England's strength is an outstanding defence and defensive midfield.

It can be applied to anyone though Marvin. I realise that Kane has scored a few penalties and a deflection but he plays better for spuds. In fact, the only ones who have shown any improvement over club form are rags because Southgate is more positive than mourinho.
You may be right about being dropped by us but that is because we have alternatives. England doesn’t. Nobody else can combine pace, movement and intelligence in the England set up. It’s noticeable how stale and predictable the England attack is once Sterling has been subbed off.
I suppose we could still win the tournament if we just kept him out altogether but that would mean relying solely on set pieces and penalties. It’s obvious that we’ve done a lot of work in this area but it’s not very forward thinking to play the game in such an agricultural manner. Greece managed it though I suppose.
Sterling is valuable in the same way that dickov, walsh and bellamy were. None were prolific but defenders hated playing against them.