Raheem Sterling - 2016/17 performances

[City_Sean]

Hazard is a fanny, someone who blows hot and cold. I should know i've watched him since his days at Lille. Yes he's having a fantastic season in perfect conditions in a team built around him. But he's also prone to going missing and has a very weak mentality. Sterling will eclipse him comfortably by the time he's his age because he is the opposite of that. He has an unbelievable mentality, he literally will play wherever he's told to play and he'll give it 100%. Coupled with his tactical intelligence, that makes him an equal player to Hazard already.

Absolutely spot on, why some people are so quick to write Raheem off is an absolute mystery to me. He's arguably been our best attacker this season and is continually improving with each passing game.

I've never seen someone so intelligent in terms of movement and positioning. He's everything that's good about this side.

 

[BillyShears]

Hazard is incredible at carrying the ball for 40-50 yards up the pitch, don't think Sterling will ever match him at that, it's debatable whether Sterling will ever match his finishing either, every other part of the game Sterling is arguably ahead.

Hmm, not sure there's much difference in their dribbling skills. He's definitely a better finisher and I don't know if Sterling will get there although I have some hope. Overall though my issue with Hazard is that he's fanny. His mentality isn't much different to Nasri's. As long as the wind's blowing his way he's brilliant. But when it begins to get difficult he has a tendency to hide.

 

[aguero93:20]

Hmm, not sure there's much difference in their dribbling skills. He's definitely a better finisher and I don't know if Sterling will get there although I have some hope. Overall though my issue with Hazard is that he's fanny. His mentality isn't much different to Nasri's. As long as the wind's blowing his way he's brilliant. But when it begins to get difficult he has a tendency to hide.

I'd say with dribbling Sterling is the better at beating a man in a tight space - he has that speed of turn and burst of raw acceleration that enables him to leave defenders for dead over a short distance, but Hazard has the better control over a longer distance and plots his run/uses his body better over a longer distance.

 

[BillyShears]

I'd say with dribbling Sterling is the better at beating a man in a tight space - he has that speed of turn and burst of raw acceleration that enables him to leave defenders for dead over a short distance, but Hazard has the better control over a longer distance and plots his run/uses his body better over a longer distance.

Yeah. It's weird with Sterling how he's such a tactically intelligent player and yet sometimes it feels like if he has too long to think about what he does next it can all go a bit haywire. It's why I find it hard to put a ceiling on how good he could be - because it seems like the inconsistencies in his game aren't necessarily ones that he will never be able to improve on (even his finishing).

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Why not? He's much younger than all. Sanchez is a lot more consistent but is 6 years older and failed once already at the highest level.
I think Sterling and Hazard are on the same level, just have different attributes. Outside of the penalties that Hazard has scored their stats are very similar and Sterling works harder for the team. Sterling is also 4 years younger.
He also doesn't have the all about me ego displayed by Hazard.

Age doesn't come into it, they are just better players. Sterling is not at the level of Hazard and if Sterling played for anyone else you would agree with me.

This is like when Liverpool sold us Sterling and their fans stated that it didn't matter because Ibe was better. He wasnt then, he isnt now and he never will be.......even though he is younger than Sterling.

Sterling is a good player with some great attributes but Hazard is a level or two above. There is nothing wrong with that, no team has ever had the best player in every position.

 

[aguero93:20]

Yeah. It's weird with Sterling how he's such a tactically intelligent player and yet sometimes it feels like if he has too long to think about what he does next it can all go a bit haywire. It's why I find it hard to put a ceiling on how good he could be - because it seems like the inconsistencies in his game aren't necessarily ones that he will never be able to improve on (even his finishing).

Most of it seems to come down to confidence and composure which is why the fucking clowns booing him piss me off so much - not a hope I'd ever do that to a promising young Irish player regardless of club allegiances - His finishing is fine when he has to hit it on instinct or running onto the ball (a bit like Dzeko) - it falls down when he has to take a touch or has too much time to think and this is where he starts looking for a cutback and can get caught in two minds.

He has similar issues with carrying the ball over long distances too - if someone comes wide to close him down he doesn't seem to think of doing what Sané and Navas constantly do well, which is stand the player up and cut inside to attack the space they've vacated, this is nearly always the best option as it pulls another player out of position to cover the initial presser and gives us room in central areas of the pitch, Chelseas frontline are all doing this brilliantly this season and it's the reason they're scoring so many smooth and devastatingly quick goals on the break.
Sterling's usual ploy is to knock it ahead of him down the line and try to burn off the opposition player, it's great if you pull it off but usually that type of ball can be easily cut out by a covering player and even if it isn't he's still in a position where he has to (a) cross to a load of shortarses (b) recycle the ball back into midfield and waste the break or (c) try to beat someone down the endline which is high risk.

 

[schfc6]

Age doesn't come into it, they are just better players. Sterling is not at the level of Hazard and if Sterling played for anyone else you would agree with me.

This is like when Liverpool sold us Sterling and their fans stated that it didn't matter because Ibe was better. He wasnt then, he isnt now and he never will be.......even though he is younger than Sterling.

Sterling is a good player with some great attributes but Hazard is a level or two above. There is nothing wrong with that, no team has ever had the best player in every position.

I simply don't agree. I watched Hazard yesterday and he offered nothing. To be a level above Sterling he needs to be producing every week. Sterling is making something happen every week. I can't think of the last game we played where he didn't contribute.
Last week he should have had a pen, West Ham he had two assists. Palace a goal. Spurs was shoved in the back clean through. Even Everton when most did nothing he was brought down for a clear penalty. It was probably Liverpool where he had no clear contribution.
His stats are comparable with Hazard out side of penalties. He works much harder for the team.

I'd agree that on pomp Hazard is better than Sterling but not by much.i actually think Sterling is a more consistent threat.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

I simply don't agree. I watched Hazard yesterday and he offered nothing. To be a level above Sterling he needs to be producing every week. Sterling is making something happen every week. I can't think of the last game we played where he didn't contribute.
Last week he should have had a pen, West Ham he had two assists. Palace a goal. Spurs was shoved in the back clean through. Even Everton when most did nothing he was brought down for a clear penalty. It was probably Liverpool where he had no clear contribution.
His stats are comparable with Hazard out side of penalties. He works much harder for the team.

I'd agree that on pomp Hazard is better than Sterling but not by much.i actually think Sterling is a more consistent threat.

Most weeks that I watch Chelsea, Hazard is the best player on the pitch and it isn't even close. He is far more consistent than Sterling and I don't mean individual moments in games like you have picked out, I mean a telling contribution over the full course of 90 minutes. For example, last week Sterling should have had a pen but he was poor for the majority of the rest of the game. The Palace game was his worst game in 12 months bar his goal. Against Spurs he was ok and Everton he was poor. The only game in those you have mentioned where he played well in addition to the individual moments was the West Ham game.

You mention Hazard yesterday and yes he was poor (after the opening 25 mins) and lo and behold they don't win the game. He is the heartbeat of that side. If he doesn't play well, they are nowhere as good a side. Unluckily for us, Hazard plays well most weeks. I would go as far as to say that if he wasn't at Chelsea they wouldn't be top of the league or at the very least they wouldn't be walking it. Sterling has nothing like this influence over our performances. I would swap them in a heartbeat.

 

[waspish]

Most weeks that I watch Chelsea, Hazard is the best player on the pitch and it isn't even close. He is far more consistent than Sterling and I don't mean individual moments in games like you have picked out, I mean a telling contribution over the full course of 90 minutes. For example, last week Sterling should have had a pen but he was poor for the majority of the rest of the game. The Palace game was his worst game in 12 months bar his goal. Against Spurs he was ok and Everton he was poor. The only game in those you have mentioned where he played well in addition to the individual moments was the West Ham game.

You mention Hazard yesterday and yes he was poor (after the opening 25 mins) and lo and behold they don't win the game. He is the heartbeat of that side. If he doesn't play well, they are nowhere as good a side. Unluckily for us, Hazard plays well most weeks. I would go as far as to say that if he wasn't at Chelsea they wouldn't be top of the league or at the very least they wouldn't be walking it. Sterling has nothing like this influence over our performances. I would swap them in a heartbeat.

Hazard went missing yesterday he is a player when it matters doesnt get a game by the neck and winning the game on his own.

 

[domalino]

Most weeks that I watch Chelsea, Hazard is the best player on the pitch and it isn't even close. He is far more consistent than Sterling and I don't mean individual moments in games like you have picked out, I mean a telling contribution over the full course of 90 minutes. For example, last week Sterling should have had a pen but he was poor for the majority of the rest of the game. The Palace game was his worst game in 12 months bar his goal. Against Spurs he was ok and Everton he was poor. The only game in those you have mentioned where he played well in addition to the individual moments was the West Ham game.

You mention Hazard yesterday and yes he was poor (after the opening 25 mins) and lo and behold they don't win the game. He is the heartbeat of that side. If he doesn't play well, they are nowhere as good a side. Unluckily for us, Hazard plays well most weeks. I would go as far as to say that if he wasn't at Chelsea they wouldn't be top of the league or at the very least they wouldn't be walking it. Sterling has nothing like this influence over our performances. I would swap them in a heartbeat.

Guardiola has singled Sterling out last week for his consistency, and said this week that he's playing amazingly (something he's said several times in the last month). He also said that Aguero is out because all 3 of Sterling, Jesus and Sané are playing brilliantly, and Aguero could come in when any of them aren't.

It's interesting, and amusing, to see how different Pep sees Raheem compared to the Sterling is Shit brigade. He sees consistency, you see him as inconsistent. He says he's been in amazing form, Guardiola thinks he's been amazing.