I've seen it said a fair amount on here tbh. I wouldn't be pushing for us signing him but I wouldn't be dead against it either. But I do think bluehammer is missing the point. I don't think this is about city fans hating rashford or about rashford being a united player. It is merely about the difference in the way the two are treated relatively by both England fans and English pundits. The ridiculous way that shit things rashford does are turned into something to praise is just another way to shit on Sterling imo and pretty fucking snidey way at that. I can't find it in myself to want anything other than England to get utterly destroyed at the soonest opportunity purely because of the way Sterling is treated and rashford being constantly praised for fuck all is part of the equation.
No don't whisper it.
Delph was ok.
I think Sterling played reasonably well against panama. Movement off the ball was good, set up one goal, another goal was scored after his attempt was well saved, held the ball up well and saw a fair amount of the ball compared to the other forwards and had a pass completion of 92%. So certainly wasn't bad but difficult for him or any other forwards to be brilliant when the players behind them are so lacking in creativity from open play. It bothers me what the media say because your average **** in the street doesn't have the wit to think for themselves and they just lap it up. And I care that huge parts of the population of England unfairly judge Sterling in every single aspect of his personal and professional life because he is an important player for the club I love and if didn't give a shit about the players who represent city, really what would be the point?Why you care what the media think?
All that counts is what Southgate thinks.
Personally i think they've both been equally ineffective and that's a problem for him.
The post you responded to didn't mention anything about how rashford should be slated as far as I remember (may be wrong can't be arsed checking) just that it was unbelievable that he was getting lavish praise. If you aren't missing the point then you'll know why city fans are pissed off at the relative coverage of the two players. And if you understood that then you wouldn't be having a go at city fans for being mystified at the over the top praise rashford got for a poor performance. It's all about the context you see and your response to the other poster certainly suggested to me that you didn't fully get the context of their post.I’m not missing the point.
You’re missing the point.
Sterling gets hammered by the press for a poor performance.
Rashford doesn’t.
So that means we should all get on Rashfords back and slate him so the media can pick on him instead ?
F*ck the media. Just support em all is my only point.
Why did he invest £67,000 of his wife's savings in a computer company Vigle?Pot & kettle spring to mind.
How I saw it too, but what exactly was his role in that game ?Sorry blue... I love Delph... but he wasn't ok tonight. Gave the ball away 2 or 3 times in really dangerous positions
I've seen it said a fair amount on here tbh. I wouldn't be pushing for us signing him but I wouldn't be dead against it either. But I do think bluehammer is missing the point. I don't think this is about city fans hating rashford or about rashford being a united player. It is merely about the difference in the way the two are treated relatively by both England fans and English pundits. The ridiculous way that shit things rashford does are turned into something to praise is just another way to shit on Sterling imo and pretty fucking snidey way at that. I can't find it in myself to want anything other than England to get utterly destroyed at the soonest opportunity purely because of the way Sterling is treated and rashford being constantly praised for fuck all is part of the equation.
The post you responded to didn't mention anything about how rashford should be slated as far as I remember (may be wrong can't be arsed checking) just that it was unbelievable that he was getting lavish praise. If you aren't missing the point then you'll know why city fans are pissed off at the relative coverage of the two players. And if you understood that then you wouldn't be having a go at city fans for being mystified at the over the top praise rashford got for a poor performance. It's all about the context you see and your response to the other poster certainly suggested to me that you didn't fully get the context of their post.