Raheem Sterling | Arsenal Player (on loan)

Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
I always supported Raheem when he was here, because I felt he'd been outrageously treated not only by the scousers, but by every other crowd in the country. Which left me nonplussed. And I was not particularly offended by his interview, frankly. Life's just too short. He wanted game time. He got it.
Very reluctantly, I am being forced to see that he was made to look quite a lot better than he actually is as a footballer by our superb midfield. He hasn't scored since August for Chelsea, apparently, barely had touches on the ball yesterday and gave it away more than any other player. After a brief honeymoon, Chelsea fans are starting to get on his case.
Ah well, Raz. At least you got some medals.
Click to expand...

Like I’ve said at the time whilst here,stats only play out half a story,but that’s all was thrown about on here to hide away the fact he was below average,certainly last few years.

The final nail in his coffin is when the pace dries up,which there is imminent signs of that happening,he’s proper finished then.

I’m not surprised he’s being questioned,as like I’ve said, below average performances will come back to haunt him.

Truth is it’s all been about money,fancied a stint at Madrid didn’t he a while back hahaha -he may as well have gone back to Liverpool he’d fit in well there as they’re all below average as well
 
I suspect we all knew sterling wasn't the best we could have when we had him. He was good because City are good.

The best bit though, is that he thought he was better , that he would be missed. And it's clear he's only a little bit better than average.
 
The City team was perfect at covering his weaknesses. If he fucked up a one on one it was fine because we would create 20 more chances to score, if he gave the ball away by dribbling straight into a defender or from his shite first touch it was fine as the rest of the team would press like fuck to immediately win it back. He had more space to run into because the opposition defenders also had to worry about our other attacking players.

At Chelsea he gets none of that. He was signed as the main man, the responsibility is on his shoulders to win them games, opposition defenders focus on stopping him all game and his weaknesses are magnified. Moving to Chelsea may have been great for his bank balance and getting to live closer to his family but from a footballing perspective it was an idiotic move.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I suspect we all knew sterling wasn't the best we could have when we had him. He was good because City are good.

The best bit though, is that he thought he was better , that he would be missed. And it's clear he's only a little bit better than average.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you say but let's not forget his first season with us was disappointing, it was only when Pep turned up that he delivered.
 
vincent said:
It amazes me nobody seems to question his place in the England team. The debate always seems to be around Saka, Foden & Mount. Meanwhile Sterling just gets picked and puts in mediocre performances and rarely criticised by the mass media.
Click to expand...
Lol, you have clearly not seen his england stats or heard him being ripped into by the pundits and media , till he spoke up about racism then they felt they had to stop
 
I don't think it's the case that City masked Raheem's true weaknesses or anything like that. It wasn't like he chipped in with the odd goal because we were just that good - Raheem frequently created goals himself and those goals were often the difference between one point and three.

I do, however, think it's the case that a guy who's been playing top-flight football since he was 16 is just slowing down prematurely. It's happened to a lot of players who broke through before their 18th birthday - Torres, Lukaku, Rooney, Owen, etc. They hit 400 games (roughly) and start to decline.

Sterling has played nearly 600 games of football (for club and country) and he's only 27. To compare him to some of our other legends, David Silva hit 600 the year he left (when he was 34) and Aguero hit about 600 in 2018 (when he was 30). Basically Sterling is ahead of schedule.

It was the right decision to let him go. He hadn't quite been the same for 18 months. We're doing just fine without him. But to pretend that he only looked any good because of everyone else is a lie. If that were the case, the likes of Nolito and Sané would have stayed around a lot longer.
 
Not only will he be in the squad but he will start every game. Which is fine with me as I couldn't care less about internationals. If we get our england boys back unscathed after a group stage elimination I'll be buzzing.
 
His problem at Chelsea is that he has nothing in the bank for them. They are getting the Sterling we had for the last couple of seasons but he doesn’t have the 17/18 and 18/19 seasons to fall back on for them. Most of the arguments between fans on here were “he can’t beat a man, can’t control a football, isn’t scoring etc”. The flip side was “he was brilliant for a couple of seasons, form is temporary…”. There is little to no argument at Chelsea, they only have the shite version of him to go on.

I think he is finished at the very top level and we did excellent business to get rid when we did.

Also, his Gillette advert has just been on and every time I watch it I sit here wondering how many takes it took for that bicycle kick at the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.