Which two seasons was Grealish supposedly good in?
Let’s stop rewriting history here—he never had “two good seasons.” At best, he had a decent three-month spell during the treble-winning year. Some might argue it was six months, but I’m sticking to three. Even during that period, he wasn’t world-class—just solid within a highly functioning system.
Let’s be clear: Grealish is a poor signing. No amount of goalpost-shifting, revisionism, or emotional justification will change that. You can huff and puff all you like—he remains a poor signing.
For the transfer fee paid and the massive salary he’s on, his overall contribution has been minimal, and his influence on matches is virtually non-existent. He doesn’t decide games, doesn’t create fear, and doesn’t elevate the team’s attacking edge and this is someone who's supposedly an attacker!
In fact, we’d have been better off signing a 34-year-old Lionel Messi on a free transfer and handing him £40M a season—at least Messi still offers world-class output and game-winning impact, even in the twilight of his career.
It’s not personal—it’s just the harsh truth: Grealish, for City, has been an underwhelming and overpriced luxury