Has a better international record than Rashford and is a 20 goal-a-season striker in the Premiership. The stats speak for themselves.
Premier league stats don’t always equate to international pedigree. Kevin Davies, Beattie , Phillips and Bent were prolific scorers but never international quality
He’s scored against the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy and Wales (semi-finalists in 2016) with 7 goals in 24 caps, which is a goal every 3.4 games.
How many Spurs players have played for a top level club? Not many. What about Modric? He's better than Dembele
Peter crouch scored 15 international goals before Messi I think in terms of games played
Don’t fall into the Esrorica trap of statistical temple worship
Some strange logic going on with the assumption that Colombia will be a cakewalk but we must avoid decent opposition at any cost because we'll probably lose. You don't get this attitude with other quality teams.
Somone really needs to tell Sir Alex Ferguson.
'Momentum is the key.'
www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/momentum-key-says-alex-ferguson-3329598
Yeah, I know.What momentum did Portugal have two years ago? They only won 2 games in the whole tournament and they won it because they had an easy route to the final .
Yeah, I know.
As per usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle and not how Grendel says it.
Momentum can be key, but it is not everything. Has been proven that teams have achieved success without having momentum in competitions, but by the same token momentum can be vital and aid your fortunes due to it galvanising confidence and belief.
It's ridiculous to say momentum is meaningless. It can be key, but it is not everything.
No. The fact it was our second 11 should have no effect on the first 11.Hopefully no momentum would have been lost anyway. I don't think Belgiums first team will be too happy that their reserves beat our reserves and gave them a harder route to the final. I also don't think that England's first team will be affected by a reserve team loss.
Sterling’s England career has mainly played under Hodgson, which is possibly the worst England manager ever in major tournaments. No one played well under him — look at Kane now, who was on corners and 0 goals in 2016!
Rashford has played well for England when called upon, but that miss versus Belgium should raise concerns. That was a miss in a game with zero consequence, with little to no pressure — now imagine putting him in that same position in an important knockout game. Sterling miss v Panama was equally as bad, but he’s hardly known for his headers now. This is balanced with his link up play for Lingard’s goal. At this point in his career, Rashford neither has the link up play of Sterling nor the finishing ability of Vardy.
Sterling and Vardy have just come off impressive seasons for their clubs, whereas Rashford is still in the development stage of his career, and hasn’t been as good as the other two. The real debate should be Vardy or Sterling, and for me, Sterling edges it, just.
Rashford’s time will come.
Prefer Sterling over Vardy any day of the week.I almost feel that Sterling, with his pace and small stature, is more likely to earn us a penalty than score a goal. I know some don't like Vardy, but he offers more threat in terms of goals and will not let defenders settle. I'd stick him in the main line up at Sterling's expense-but I know Southgate won't.
Again, good post but I feel a few excuses for Sterling there again.
We are not under Hodgson now and all other 10 players in the team seem to be pulling their weight and doing well. Sterling has missed so many sitters, so many. Rashford has missed one and despite playing less games has a better goal ratio than Sterling now.
Rashford's time might be to come, but Sterling's has gone. If we persist with him I believe it will only hinder us.
I would like to be proved wrong but so far this tournament my predictions about him have been spot on.
What's he actually done at this world cup to deserve a place?it’s a mystery why Vardy seems to be playing 3rd choice to both of them.
What's he actually done at this world cup to deserve a place?
You’re talking about Sterling as if he’s 33, not 23. He’s certainly not past it, is one of our in-form players domestically and it’s in our interests to try and get the most out of him in the national team.
Rashford had his chance and didn’t take it. You shouldn’t be glossing over his 1v1 miss, it was a costly mistake and as good a chance he’ll get in this tournament. Alan Shearer and Peter Schmeichel rightly made that point, and if he scored that chance, I’d agree he should be starting. With all due respect, people are getting carried away with Rashford, he’s not a genuine wonder kid like Rooney was, and he’s still very much more potential than current ability. It’s not wise to pin our hopes on him in 2018.
If you want to talk goal scoring ratios, Vardy has a far better record than both and has scored against better opponents than either Sterling or Rashford. Hence, it’s a mystery why Vardy seems to be playing 3rd choice to both of them.
Sterling and Rashford have played better than Vardy, therefore they are ahead of him in the pecking order.what has Rashford, Sterling or Vardy done at this World Cup to deserve a place?
True colours are showing through a bit now.
You say Rashford has had his chance and it has gone. This is down to one miss and one game? Sterling has had the rest of the tournament, plus 6 and a half years putting on the England shirt. All has been a disappointment.
I would have started Vardy instead of Sterling but as that's not going to happen I still rate Rashford higher than him.
Sterling has been our worst player in both games. When we field a full strength team he shouldn't be a part of it. If it was any other player in any other team that's what you would do.
This World Cup? Yes, it has. Not his international career as a whole because his time will come eventually. Shearer and Schmeichel also think he's missed his opportunity. If you're not the first choice you have to take your chances, he didn't unfortunately.
Sterling hasn't been the worst player at all, that's nonsense.
Yeah, I know.
As per usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle and not how Grendel says it.
Momentum can be key, but it is not everything. Has been proven that teams have achieved success without having momentum in competitions, but by the same token momentum can be vital and aid your fortunes due to it galvanising confidence and belief.
It's ridiculous to say momentum is meaningless. It can be key, but it is not everything.
Personally i'd say Young has been worse than Stirling. If Stirling fails to deliver on Tuesday i'd take him off at HT and put Rashford on.It is not nonsense. Who has been worse than him?
The player ratings on the BBC agree with the view he has been the worst player in both the games.
You need to take the Sterling tinted glasses off.
World Cup: 'Picking and plotting England's route to the semis.' Shearer asks -'how can we be so arrogant?' -
World Cup: 'Picking England's route to the semis - how can we be so arrogant?'
It is not nonsense. Who has been worse than him?
The player ratings on the BBC agree with the view he has been the worst player in both the games.
You need to take the Sterling tinted glasses off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?