By my calculations England scored 1 goal in the tournament when Sterling wasn't on the pitch.
Sterling off for Rashford are the words of idiots.
Another weird way to justify a poor tournament. Want to stick to real stats like he only contributed to one goal all tournament. Against Panama
He wasn't poor though Tom was he? He wasn't great by any means either but let's have it right here, he was average, no better or worse than the bulk of the team.
Should retire from international football. Why should he bother, he could have got England to the final today by scoring 10 goals and he wouldn't get any credit.
Deluded as ever. He was poor, there’s not much difference between poor and average too. This isn’t about anyone else this is the Sterling thread. If there was a Dele Alli thread I’d happily post about him being our worst player. My reply was to more backwards logic to try and justify his performances. Just because others were poor to doesn’t mean you have to bury your head in the sand with Sterlings showings. Oh he runs though doesn’t he, Christ.
Let’s put it this way, he plays like that for us then he will be dropped for Mahrez quicker than bluemoon posters move the goalposts to suit their agendas.
Agenda? What the fuck are you talking about? Why would I have an agenda?
How many were poor then Tom? Made it to the semi final of a World Cup despite more than one of your regulars being poor, Southgate must be a fucking genius then.
I didn’t say you, it was a comparison of something quick.....
How many was poor? Alli was the poorest. Sterling and Lingard pretty similar level of average. Dier and Rashford bobbins each time they come on. Are you one of these who think England were fantastic or do you have half a brain cell and realise we played teams ranked below us and the second we came up against any one half decent we lost?
I thought overall they played well, nothing special but each one of them to a man, ran their bollocks off and gave everything they had.
I don't think any of them had a poor performance overall.
Then you’re biased and slightly deluded, love the loyalty though. Playing teams worse than you bar one then you’d expect to win them games.
It was just an interesting stat. Particularly for those that thought that Sterling in the team was holding England back.Another weird way to justify a poor tournament. Want to stick to real stats like he only contributed to one goal all tournament. Against Panama
Can you please not use words like antagonising on here half of us don't know how to say it never mind know the meaning of it hostile will suffice for future reference:)Ok Tom, seems the mods deemed this post as acceptable and deleted the rest, so let's start again and try to be civil eh?
I am Irish, so I have no bias or loyalty toward England, I viewed their performance from a neutral standpoint.
I also don't appreciate being called deluded, I find it antagonising.
I don’t think Sterling was particularly good all tournament, okay in some games, poor in others, but England only scored two goals from open play all tournament and Raz got an assist for one of them. All the rest were contributed to by crosses from corners or free kicks or penalties or deflectionsAnother weird way to justify a poor tournament. Want to stick to real stats like he only contributed to one goal all tournament. Against Panama
Fundamentally there was an issue with England creating any chances from open play, probably stemming from no midfield creatively.
No attacking player is going to thrive in a system that starves its attack, this isnt due to one player not performing, the tactics were wrong and Sterling playing like Messi wouldnt have changed it
![]()