mattsville
Full Member
He has been very good but Greenwood, Gomes and Garner will outshine him over the next few years.
This is baseless. They may not even make it as professionals at Man Utd. Slow down partnerHe has been very good but Greenwood, Gomes and Garner will outshine him over the next few years.
Barring injuries, enjoy it when it happens.This is baseless. They may not even make it as professionals at Man Utd. Slow down partner
Fan optimism is a beautiful thing.He has been very good but Greenwood, Gomes and Garner will outshine him over the next few years.
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.
I thought he was joking.This is baseless. They may not even make it as professionals at Man Utd. Slow down partner
So what is your verdict on Messi at international level?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.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.
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.Who will erase Rooney's England record? Him or Kane? Interesting..
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 SterlingSancho hasn't shown enough to be mentioned alongside Sterling and Kane imo.
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 clubOh 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.
Kane wouldn't score as often as he is if he played in a team that is less creative than Spurs.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.
last season Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6Kane wouldn't score as often as he is if he played in a team that is less creative than Spurs.
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.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 Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6
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.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.
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.last season Spurs had 1 player (Eriksen) who appears in the "big chances created" top 30. City has 6
Wiuth constant positive stories about Kane, about Salah thats the narrative. The stats say different.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.