Is Sterling the best english player at the moment?

mattsville

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
960
Location
Dublin
He has been very good but Greenwood, Gomes and Garner will outshine him over the next few years.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
5,980
Location
Between a rock and the Nou Camp
Simply put no he isn't. If roles were reversed with Kane I feel Sterling would just be another Alli at Spurs whilst Kane would dominate at City. Some players under the right manager tactics and team mates can look exceptional but may not be nearly as good in another side. I sometimes think you see the true ability of English players when playing with other English players
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
34,459
Location
Manchester
His England performances are a strange one. I think it comes down to him not being a leader or talisman, as a player. He's more someone that can shine in a set up that is perfect for him, rather than make it work by force and pull things out the bag in a less than perfect one.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
12,240
Location
Flagg
Kane's still the better player at the moment. Sterling scores lots of goals in a team where every attacking player gets chances at will. He also still likes to spoon open goals wide from about 2 yards out and has again started diving so much it actually has a negative effect on his performance.

Although saying all that him and possibly Rashford both have the potential to be all round better players than Kane. At the moment though Kane is scoring 30+ goals, often of his own making, for a 3rd placed (at best) team who struggle through large parts of games. Sterling couldn't do that. He'd still look a good player but I dunno, he's just still missing that killer instinct ability to suddenly change a game that players like Kane, Salah, Hazard etc. have.
 

markhughes

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
109
Location
Toronto, Ontario
He is a very talented lad playing in a very good team, like many before him he has yet to really produce for England but he is still a vital player for both teams IMO.

He is the type of player we need actually at 10, tricky, quick with great movement, hopefully Gomes can reach similar levels in a few years.
 

Raven

Full Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,243
Location
Ireland
Hes easily the best English player at the moment I reckon, best player in the league for me, even last season.
 

SquishyMcSquish

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
8,228
Supports
Tottenham
But you would be excited if spurs signed him though. Admit it. You think barca, etc, aren't putting in unbelievable bids for him behind the scenes? Pep won't sell him. Pep is the only reason he isn't playing for barca or real.

Probably. I mean I think he's a fantastic player at club level and he's clearly a massive upgrade on someone like Lucas so why wouldn't I be excited? He's not the kind of player I'd want us to throw 100m+ at though and I don't think he'd get close to his City numbers playing for us.

And no, I don't think Barca or anybody else are putting in any kind of bids, because City don't sell their best players and the super clubs know that.

Again, you can both think he's not the best English player but also rate him as a top class player in general. I don't think he's a better player than Kane but I do think he's one of the best wide men around.
 

SquishyMcSquish

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
8,228
Supports
Tottenham
Oh and in Kane's weakest season, where he experienced two horrible ankle injuries, he contributed to 21 goals in the league. Sterling contributed to 27, with Kane boasting a significantly better min per goal ratio. In Europe it was even closer, with Kane contributing to 6 and Sterling only one more at seven, again despite Kane missing a large host of games through injury. This is all whilst Kane played in a team which finished fourth and scored almost thirty less goals than City did in the league. Raheem Sterling got service from Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne and David Silva, with Kane it was Eriksen or bust because Alli was dogshit all season and our other midfielders were tidy and functional with zero creativity. The man had to drop so deep he was basically a cm at times because he saw none of the ball in many games, Sterling gets handed 5-6 opportunities a game because he plays in the best attacking system with some of the world's best midfielders/attacking players and he's still yet to contribute to 30 goals or more in the league in any season, with Kane smashing that all the way back in 16/17 with 36 contributions.

But yeah, Sterling is 'easily' the best English player and it's not even a debate anymore, according to some posters on here. Despite the fact that Kane also outperforms Sterling significantly when they play under the same conditions for the national side, with Kane scoring 22 for England in 39 games whereas Sterling boasts a pretty pathetic 8 in 51 for his country. Sterling is a creative force I hear you say? He boasts one solitary assist for England at any tournament, including the nations league.

Does that mean Sterling isn't a top player? No, because clearly he is brilliant for City and based on club performances he's right up there with Kane. But the very top players get judged on all their performances, not just at club level.
 

Goalfather

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
679
Does that mean Sterling isn't a top player? No, because clearly he is brilliant for City and based on club performances he's right up there with Kane. But the very top players get judged on all their performances, not just at club level.
So what is your verdict on Messi at international level?

I think Sterling is a better all-round player than Kane.
 

Lowkey

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,178
Location
Behind You
Sterling. Easily one of the top players in Europe at the moment. Hard not to put him in the top 5 based on form and ability.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
5,046
Definitely the best English player around for me. If I were building a team and had to pick only one between him and Kane, it would be Sterling for me.
 

Br1_ovi

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
203
Location
Oviedo (Spain)
Supports
F.C. Barcelona
Kane is better IMO. How many n9 are better tham Kane? Probably none. But you have Hazard, Neymar, Mbappe, ... better than Sterling as a wide forward.
 

simonhch

Horrible boss
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
10,849
Location
Sartorial Guru
Supports
Urban Combat Preparedness
Sterling and Kane are clearly the best two English players but Sterling is that level above IMO. I like Kane, he’s obviously a fantastic number 9; but Sterling is just a little tornado buzzing all over the opposition half making runs through the middle, into the channels, creating lovely little patterns of play etc. He’s a consummate team player with a phenomenal work rate. His goal scoring numbers aren’t even far off Kane’s now, while offering so much more to overall play. Kane has an underrated ability to drop deep and build play, but it’s never close to Sterling’s level. If you had to pick one, it’s be Sterling every day of the week. Kane’s one big weakness - and I’m nitpicking here, so don’t shoot me for it - is his lack of pace. Which in this day and age is usually a big problem, but the rest of his forward game is so good, he gets away with it.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,962
Oh and in Kane's weakest season, where he experienced two horrible ankle injuries, he contributed to 21 goals in the league. Sterling contributed to 27, with Kane boasting a significantly better min per goal ratio. In Europe it was even closer, with Kane contributing to 6 and Sterling only one more at seven, again despite Kane missing a large host of games through injury. This is all whilst Kane played in a team which finished fourth and scored almost thirty less goals than City did in the league. Raheem Sterling got service from Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne and David Silva, with Kane it was Eriksen or bust because Alli was dogshit all season and our other midfielders were tidy and functional with zero creativity. The man had to drop so deep he was basically a cm at times because he saw none of the ball in many games, Sterling gets handed 5-6 opportunities a game because he plays in the best attacking system with some of the world's best midfielders/attacking players and he's still yet to contribute to 30 goals or more in the league in any season, with Kane smashing that all the way back in 16/17 with 36 contributions.

But yeah, Sterling is 'easily' the best English player and it's not even a debate anymore, according to some posters on here. Despite the fact that Kane also outperforms Sterling significantly when they play under the same conditions for the national side, with Kane scoring 22 for England in 39 games whereas Sterling boasts a pretty pathetic 8 in 51 for his country. Sterling is a creative force I hear you say? He boasts one solitary assist for England at any tournament, including the nations league.

Does that mean Sterling isn't a top player? No, because clearly he is brilliant for City and based on club performances he's right up there with Kane. But the very top players get judged on all their performances, not just at club level.
Why limit creativity to just assists? Check how many chances they create and how many take ons they complete.

Comparing them just on goals and assists is not a fair comparison considering Kane is 9 and Sterling is wide forward. Also Kane is first choice penalty taker and scored few goals from the spot.
 

HisDudeness

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
729
Supports
Rangers
well it's difficult to adjust as international games don't come along ever week. but lots of people disagree with you... "sterling is improving at a light speed..the consistency of him making those runs will terrify all the best full back in the world"

he has improved... for city and for international team



take sterling back to 2001, 2002, 2003... he would have terrorized any defence. he's world class now. pep has turned him into a world class player. he's not the same player he was at liverpool... he's better
Probably. I mean I think he's a fantastic player at club level and he's clearly a massive upgrade on someone like Lucas so why wouldn't I be excited? He's not the kind of player I'd want us to throw 100m+ at though and I don't think he'd get close to his City numbers playing for us.

And no, I don't think Barca or anybody else are putting in any kind of bids, because City don't sell their best players and the super clubs know that.

Again, you can both think he's not the best English player but also rate him as a top class player in general. I don't think he's a better player than Kane but I do think he's one of the best wide men around.
that is what your team is missing... that 1 player to make it all click. if spurs were to buy sterling you would be competing for titles. and yes, he would make that much of a difference.

it isn't just about assists his movement is hyper intelligent, and he's tricky and clinical

scored 3 against west ham. i have a feeling this season will be better than last season




would he be great in this barca side? yes. the way he is playing he would be a benefit to that team in the wings
 
Last edited:

Callum Ramsey

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
5
Oh and in Kane's weakest season, where he experienced two horrible ankle injuries, he contributed to 21 goals in the league. Sterling contributed to 27, with Kane boasting a significantly better min per goal ratio. In Europe it was even closer, with Kane contributing to 6 and Sterling only one more at seven, again despite Kane missing a large host of games through injury. This is all whilst Kane played in a team which finished fourth and scored almost thirty less goals than City did in the league. Raheem Sterling got service from Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne and David Silva, with Kane it was Eriksen or bust because Alli was dogshit all season and our other midfielders were tidy and functional with zero creativity. The man had to drop so deep he was basically a cm at times because he saw none of the ball in many games, Sterling gets handed 5-6 opportunities a game because he plays in the best attacking system with some of the world's best midfielders/attacking players and he's still yet to contribute to 30 goals or more in the league in any season, with Kane smashing that all the way back in 16/17 with 36 contributions.

But yeah, Sterling is 'easily' the best English player and it's not even a debate anymore, according to some posters on here. Despite the fact that Kane also outperforms Sterling significantly when they play under the same conditions for the national side, with Kane scoring 22 for England in 39 games whereas Sterling boasts a pretty pathetic 8 in 51 for his country. Sterling is a creative force I hear you say? He boasts one solitary assist for England at any tournament, including the nations league.

Does that mean Sterling isn't a top player? No, because clearly he is brilliant for City and based on club performances he's right up there with Kane. But the very top players get judged on all their performances, not just at club level.
I mean we can all make posts without much context to suit whatever points/agenda we want to make. I would expect someone who is their teams' main penalty taker and striker to have a better mins per goal ratio than a winger who doesn't take any. Without those penalties kane's goals contributions drop to 17 while sterling's remains 27. It's also ironic that you decided to highlight and compare the mins per goal ratio between the two and not the goals/assist per min ratio. In the champions league, kane played 778 mins compared to sterling's 871 which constitutes just about an extra game so again where are these 'large hosts of games' he missed compared to sterling in the champions league.

As for your point about Sterling playing in a better team. All the best players have always played in the best teams, they also happen to be key players for such teams and that doesn't devalue them but rather highlights their quality to shine in such a star-studded side. Despite sterling being 'blessed' to play with such attacking talents as you listed. No one in that team has contributed more goals than him the past two seasons and he is one of the first names on the sheet. He has led their goal contributions the past 2 seasons in a row in a team with the likes of aguero and sane. Contributed even more goals last season than the previous one despite de bruyne being injured for large parts of it and d.silva not performing anywhere near his best. Is that a player who is just benefiting from the team/system or rather one who's intelligence/tactical awareness and movement is a huge part of why they work. I mean that's like me saying Vardy must be a better player because he contributed more goals than kane last season despite playing in a much inferior team.

Lastly on your continued point about internationals. I guess the likes of Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney(outside of 1 tournament) must have never been world class players looking at some of their performances for the national team compared to their clubs. I mean if the very top players get judged on all their performances then these 3 must've been frauds being carried by the quality of their club sides. Now there are many arguments you can make as to why Kane is a better player than sterling without having to trot any of the points you just made which can easily be picked apart.

I mean on eye test alone kane is a better all round player than him technically(passing,shooting), vision and awareness(not much in it here). Where sterling lacks in those, he more than makes up for it in intelligence on/off the ball, movement and tactical awareness(play multiple roles at a high level). Add pace and decent finishing(which he continues to improve) to those and you have a lethal player on your hands not to add good technical ability on the ball. Both very different type of players who bring different things to their teams. An argument can be made for either but none of them is easily better than the other. If given the choice of one, I would pick sterling as his ability and tactical understanding to play multiple attacking positions at a high level is a rare quality for a winger to have. He can comfortably play either wing positions, false 9 or a 10 and there won't be much of drop of in quality while with kane I feel you would need to build the team around him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilentWitness

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
25,827
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I do expect Sterling's England goal scoring rate to improve for England. I think the team will start scoring more against lesser teams like we saw in the first two qualifiers of this campaign. With the attacking options coming through the team is much more dynamic in that regard now.

I still have little faith in Sterling making the difference in big games though. I sincerely hope he can but he just never seems to for England.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
23,898
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Oh and in Kane's weakest season, where he experienced two horrible ankle injuries, he contributed to 21 goals in the league. Sterling contributed to 27, with Kane boasting a significantly better min per goal ratio. In Europe it was even closer, with Kane contributing to 6 and Sterling only one more at seven, again despite Kane missing a large host of games through injury. This is all whilst Kane played in a team which finished fourth and scored almost thirty less goals than City did in the league. Raheem Sterling got service from Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne and David Silva, with Kane it was Eriksen or bust because Alli was dogshit all season and our other midfielders were tidy and functional with zero creativity. The man had to drop so deep he was basically a cm at times because he saw none of the ball in many games, Sterling gets handed 5-6 opportunities a game because he plays in the best attacking system with some of the world's best midfielders/attacking players and he's still yet to contribute to 30 goals or more in the league in any season, with Kane smashing that all the way back in 16/17 with 36 contributions.
Youre better than the fecking 'quality by the numbers' route, man. Down that road, Kane is better than Zidane was and before you know it you're reducing to mumbling whataboutisms regarding Messi and Ronaldo.

Sterling is a winger, who plays alongside a proven goalscorer in Augero, who has managed to make himself close to the main source of goals for his team, is quite creative and good in the buildup and has way more individual quality than Kane.

I know who I'd build my team around if I had to. Spoiler alert, he's an illoyal little scrote.
 

1966

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
144
Location
UK
Supports
England
Sterling would need about 275 caps at his current rate of scoring! Kane is nearly halfway there already. I’d not like to make a bet on it though as I was sure Owen would smash it back in the day.
I think the question must've been a joke. Kane's the only player with an England cap right now who seems likely to break the record. Nobody else looks like they'll bother it.

To add on to the "Sterling for England" debate, a lot of Sterling's England success over the past year or so has been because of Kane's fantastic playmaking for us. Kane has at least two or three assists to Sterling, which is no joke when the latter has only scored about four goals in that time.

Kane for England often plays as a true 10 where he ruins any myth that he's just a goalscorer (or worse: a "poacher") with phenomenal playmaking performances against the likes of Spain in recent memory. Kane is easily as versatile as Sterling, even if they have completely different skill sets. Sterling can play on the wing but Kane often finds himself as far back as CM, hunting for the ball and starting off moves with his underrated passing and his more fairly rated hold up play.

Sidebar: Anyone who reckons Sterling is "much" better than Kane at anything except running fast either doesn't understand football or doesn't watch enough of it. I can imagine some people being hoodwinked by Sterling's much "flashier" style of play but that's just an illusion in terms of actual effectiveness. And I only support England, even if I watch a lot of PL, so they both play for my team ultimately and I can be as objective as possible.
 
Last edited:

Hawks2008

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
3,988
Location
Melbz
Sancho hasn't shown enough to be mentioned alongside Sterling and Kane imo.
Yeah but Sancho is a caf darling and he is more likely to join us so we have to put him on a pedestal and make ridiculous comparisons to Kane and Sterling :houllier:
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
5,980
Location
Between a rock and the Nou Camp
Oh and in Kane's weakest season, where he experienced two horrible ankle injuries, he contributed to 21 goals in the league. Sterling contributed to 27, with Kane boasting a significantly better min per goal ratio. In Europe it was even closer, with Kane contributing to 6 and Sterling only one more at seven, again despite Kane missing a large host of games through injury. This is all whilst Kane played in a team which finished fourth and scored almost thirty less goals than City did in the league. Raheem Sterling got service from Bernardo Silva, De Bruyne and David Silva, with Kane it was Eriksen or bust because Alli was dogshit all season and our other midfielders were tidy and functional with zero creativity. The man had to drop so deep he was basically a cm at times because he saw none of the ball in many games, Sterling gets handed 5-6 opportunities a game because he plays in the best attacking system with some of the world's best midfielders/attacking players and he's still yet to contribute to 30 goals or more in the league in any season, with Kane smashing that all the way back in 16/17 with 36 contributions.

But yeah, Sterling is 'easily' the best English player and it's not even a debate anymore, according to some posters on here. Despite the fact that Kane also outperforms Sterling significantly when they play under the same conditions for the national side, with Kane scoring 22 for England in 39 games whereas Sterling boasts a pretty pathetic 8 in 51 for his country. Sterling is a creative force I hear you say? He boasts one solitary assist for England at any tournament, including the nations league.

Does that mean Sterling isn't a top player? No, because clearly he is brilliant for City and based on club performances he's right up there with Kane. But the very top players get judged on all their performances, not just at club level.
I agree mate. If I had a choice I'd take Kane at Utd all day ahead of Raheem. As you said it's all well and good getting 5 one on ones per game. If you put Kane and Sterling at Real I feel Kane would be a hit and Sterling could go either way and same for many top clubs. Kane would be leading scorer at Arsenal or any club
 

Santoryo

ripping the reward
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
3,955
Kane is clearly a better player. He'd do better in any team compared to Sterling. Put Kane in that City team and he'd score gazillion. Put him and Sterling in any team and he'll outshine him.

Do people seriously think Sterling would come anywhere near a good volume of goals of a play in a team that doesn't create at will like City? City is a chance creation factory and with Sterling good movement which is to his credit make that team suited to him because even with poor or average convertion rate he'd still bang in a lot of goals.

In a team that doesn't create as much as City to hide Sterling above average conversion rate, he wouldn't be scoring loads. Whereas Kane would still manage to score plenty in a team because of being a better goalscorer and also being a better player.

Sterling = System player.
 

::sonny::

Full Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
12,758
Location
Milan
Performs well only at city, like aguero

Both are irrilevant in the National team
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
77,048
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
Kane is clearly a better player. He'd do better in any team compared to Sterling. Put Kane in that City team and he'd score gazillion. Put him and Sterling in any team and he'll outshine him.

Do people seriously think Sterling would come anywhere near a good volume of goals of a play in a team that doesn't create at will like City? City is a chance creation factory and with Sterling good movement which is to his credit make that team suited to him because even with poor or average convertion rate he'd still bang in a lot of goals.

In a team that doesn't create as much as City to hide Sterling above average conversion rate, he wouldn't be scoring loads. Whereas Kane would still manage to score plenty in a team because of being a better goalscorer and also being a better player.

Sterling = System player.
Kane wouldn't score as often as he is if he played in a team that is less creative than Spurs.
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
77,048
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
last season Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6
Point still stands, Kane is a great player but he also benefits from a coach who set his team up to get the best out of him and rightly so. In a team worse than Spurs, he will obviously score less, just like Sterling on another team. I'm not saying something revolutionnary I think.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,962
last season Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6
But Eriksen was the not the only player who was creating chances for Kane.

Last season Kane scored 17 goals and his xG was 16. So he scored goals expected from the chances he got. Same with Sterling.

Apart from this, Sterling creates more chances and completes more take ons.

He is a wing forward who contributed 27 league goals without taking penalties, that's superb record.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
15,451
Location
Scotland
Supports
Everton
I think they're both quality players and it's difficult to choose between them but I think Sterling needs an elite team around him more than Kane does. Does that mean I think Kane is a better player? I'm not sure as I think at their very top level I couldn't decide.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
7,890
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Point still stands, Kane is a great player but he also benefits from a coach who set his team up to get the best out of him and rightly so. In a team worse than Spurs, he will obviously score less, just like Sterling on another team. I'm not saying something revolutionnary I think.
This is just such a dumb argument. Every team sets up to get the best out of every player. Sterling benefits from this just as much as Kane does.
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,634
last season Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6
City have more creators but also more goalscorers. It's not like all those creators set up only Sterling and Aguero. City had 3 players last season who scored 20+ goals and 7 with 10+ goals. In other words, while Spurs attacking play revolves around Kane and/or Son, City's attacking play isn't focused on any single player: the goals come from everywhere.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether Kane or Sterling is better. The argument, though, that Sterling benefits from City's creators is a bit flawed because City's attacking game isn't organised around 1-2 key players like it is at Spurs and even Liverpool. If it was centered on Aguero and Sterling, they'd have better numbers but the team would be less efficient overall.
 

Blueman

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
83
Supports
Man City
Kane's still the better player at the moment. Sterling scores lots of goals in a team where every attacking player gets chances at will. He also still likes to spoon open goals wide from about 2 yards out and has again started diving so much it actually has a negative effect on his performance.

Although saying all that him and possibly Rashford both have the potential to be all round better players than Kane. At the moment though Kane is scoring 30+ goals, often of his own making, for a 3rd placed (at best) team who struggle through large parts of games. Sterling couldn't do that. He'd still look a good player but I dunno, he's just still missing that killer instinct ability to suddenly change a game that players like Kane, Salah, Hazard etc. have.
Wiuth constant positive stories about Kane, about Salah thats the narrative. The stats say different.

Player Apps Goals Assists SpG PS% MotM
Eden Hazard 32(5) 16 15 2.5 84.3 14
Raheem Sterling 31(3) 17 10 2.3 85.8 8
Mohamed Salah 37(1) 22 8 3.6 75.9 8
Harry Kane 27(1) 17 4 3.6 73.1 6