Sterling v Walcott

Lex wrote:

Don't call me James wrote:Sterling is gonna be world class at the rate he's going, something Walcott never achieved.

hard to believe this sentiment was laid down barely a year ago

A year ago when Liverpool almost won the league. Yeah, things change in football. The rate at which Sterling was improving a year ago was insane.

He was benched a hardcore until December and was barely producing. And then he turned into one our important players in a span of a few weeks. By May (Man City/Norwich) matches he was our most important player behind Suarez. So given the circumstance when the comment was made, it was perfectly reasonable.

His development has completely stalled this season for whatever reason.

Hindsight is great isn't it you pleb.

What games have you been both watching this season? The few games Sterling has played in, he's been utter garbo, with a capital G. Aimlessly running into cul-de-sacs, holding on to the ball for an eternity, playing Hollywood passes that have no hope of reaching his team-mate. Plus, his attitude stinks to high heaven. The "big impact" he causes is instantly negated with his pea brain and awful decision making, which has been obviously apparent this term

Oh, and for those saying Sterling is better than Walcott aged 20, I beg to differ



A 20 year old Walcott already had better ball control, better decision making, better awareness and better shooting. This season has shown what sort of character Sterling is, both on and off the pitch.

Don't call me James wrote:His development has completely stalled this season for whatever reason

Because whatever miniscule talent he may have is overshadowed by the fact he's a bit of a nob, another plus Walcott has over him

Don't call me James wrote:Hindsight is great isn't it you pleb.

Hey, don't get sand in your vagina because your delusions of grandeur for Sterling were stopped in their tracks like a Leichttraktor with a dodgy belt

Oh I agree with you Lex, he utter shit this season.

I'm talking about my comment from last season and how it was reasonable to make such a comment given the circumstances.

Now, Raheem would be lucky to reach pre-injury Walcott level.

I remember when Sterling made his first few appearances for Pool, most of you were bashing at how bad he was.

El Shaarawy wrote:I remember when Sterling made his first few appearances for Pool, most of you were bashing at how bad he was.

He had a tendency to try to dribble all the time, but kept losing the ball countless of times. It was so clear that that was something he had gotten used to at youth levels, where he no doubt had the pace and the technique to beat teenage defenders for fun. When he first got into the first-team he thought he could do the same in the Prem. Once he realized he can't, he improved, but he's still losing the ball too often.

There is no point talking about performance. Walcottt has been injured for most of the season.

And Sterling is obviously having problems off the field which is giving him problems on it.

The fact he has played so poorly this season but still attracts interest from all the big teams tells you more.

He's only attracting this sort of attention because the entire galaxy knows he'd rather be anywhere else other than Liverpool and, thus, can be snapped up for FAR cheaper than if he had to be persuaded to leave

Thats true, but there are many players who these big clubs can get and they are choosing Sterling for some reasons.

I believe the same teams would be interested either way, I think after last season they were already interested, but now he is clearly available they aggressive i going for it.

People really rate Walcott as one of the best RW in Europe?

He's a striker, not a winger. And no, they don't

Lex wrote:He's a striker, not a winger. And no, they don't

He has played much more as a winger than striker. And a couple of people said that he is one of the best RW in Europe, and he is, if you mean like top 20 RW..

Art Morte wrote:

Sterling's progress hasn't been what I was expecting this season. He's still only 20, though.

This. A great year of development followed by a very poor one. The caveat being of course that Sterling is only 20 and development is not linear. The talent is there for him to be as good or better than Walcott, but it feels like he doesn't have the mentality or fortitude to reach the heights he could accomplish. I think Walcott has a more competitive personality and since he's currently better when healthy anyway I would say he has a better shot at being the better of the two when all is said and done.

As far as the rumours of a Walcott + cash deal for Sterling go...I would do it in a heartbeat. I would probably trade Sterling for Walcott straight up if I'm being honest.

Also kind of interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/may/24/how-does-raheem-sterling-score-against-ronaldo-messi-age-20

free_cat wrote:

Lex wrote:He's a striker, not a winger. And no, they don't

He has played much more as a winger than striker. And a couple of people said that he is one of the best RW in Europe, and he is, if you mean like top 20 RW..

Being played out of position doesn't mean you automatically assimilate whatever position it is you're being played in. When Van Gaal sticks Di Maria up top, it doesn't mean Di Maria is now officially a striker. And I don't think any one person on this website has (seriously) called Walcott one of the best right wingers in Europe.