Daniel Sturridge

[Las7 951]

I never said they would ever be as good but that they have the same fucking roles! Which they do basically. If you try and deny that you're crazy. Mikel was signed to be groomed to replace Maka imo and Ramires probably signed to be groomed to be a replacement for Essien too imo due to their similar physical and technical attributes. There are differences in quality but they are in the team to effectively do the same roles.

I think you totally misunderstood what I wrote...

No I said that Robben; Duff and J.Cole never had to be criticized or scrutinized because in the system we had we had two world class players who provided cover for them and Lampard. You said we have the same type of players right now - something we clearly don't we are not talking about roles we are talking about quality. We don't have a World Class defensive midfield - not many clubs do. We don't have a World Class box to box player - not many clubs do. If you stick Robben; Duff and J.Cole of old into this system they will also not provide defensive cover, because you can't expect a player who plays a certain way to adopt to a philosophy which has not been groomed since very early on. The way Barca have a system which grooms offensive players into knowing how to constantly pressure the opposition from a very early age. Stick Sturridge or Hazard in the old system where they had defensive cover and only had to worry about creating chances and you would end up with a lot more effective players because they would only need to concentrate on what they excel in rather than be expected to get "stuck in"

[OneMoSalah 8,883]

No I said that Robben; Duff and J.Cole never had to be criticized or scrutinized because in the system we had we had two world class players who provided cover for them and Lampard. You said we have the same type of players right now - something we clearly don't we are not talking about roles we are talking about quality. We don't have a World Class defensive midfield - not many clubs do. We don't have a World Class box to box player - not many clubs do. If you stick Robben; Duff and J.Cole of old into this system they will also not provide defensive cover, because you can't expect a player who plays a certain way to adopt to a philosophy which has not been groomed since very early on. The way Barca have a system which grooms offensive players into knowing how to constantly pressure the opposition from a very early age. Stick Sturridge or Hazard in the old system where they had defensive cover and only had to worry about creating chances and you would end up with a lot more effective players because they would only need to concentrate on what they excel in rather than be expected to get "stuck in"

I was on about the roles, I know the quality of both pairs isn't the same. Robben and Duffs defensive work back in the days is also extremely underrated I see. Mourinhos teams were always defending as a unit, Inter defended deep as a unit, Chelsea did, Porto did and the only team really that hasn't is really his Real Madrid side.

Just because certain players weren't groomed in tracking back and defensive work, doesn't mean they should have to avoid it, if your two wingers aren't tracking back that gives the opposition a whole load of space to expose as the full back has two players to deal with. He can either go with their full back if he overlaps or go to the player with the ball to prevent a cross/dribble to cut inside or ultimately stand still like a spare prick allowing one of them things I just said to happen.

[Las7 951]

So Robben's defensive qualities are underrated now, I've read all I needed to read from you. You're obviously having a laugh at my expense

[Sheva. 5,373]

Random but does anyone think Sturridge is better than Walcott? I'm not sure.

[Muzchap 8,966]

Random but does anyone think Sturridge is better than Walcott? I'm not sure.

I think about even IMO

Walcott is hit and miss and so too has Studge in the past - but they both have bags of potential... And pace

[Corner 456]

Random but does anyone think Sturridge is better than Walcott? I'm not sure.

Ability-wise I think they're fairly even, in my opinion. But I think Walcott has a slight edge as a player because he has more experience and his attitude is better.

[Sheva. 5,373]

Reason I asked this is because a lot of people say Walcott is average (including myself - although I admit he's improved recently) and I don't see Sturridge as better than him.

[Corner 456]

Reason I asked this is because a lot of people say Walcott is average (including myself - although I admit he's improved recently) and I don't see Sturridge as better than him.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. Walcott has improved recently and has shown a lot of determination. He seems to have matured a lot. But he's the type of player who plays well when the team is playing well. He disappears for a lot of games and isn't going to grab the game by the scruff of the neck.

[Tomo 21,751]

Random but does anyone think Sturridge is better than Walcott? I'm not sure.

About the same, although i think Danny has a much higher ceiling.

[Madmax 9,219]

I doubt he'll get his chance at CF at Liverpool (Suarez) tbf.

12mil + 60k pw in wages saved is a good deal for us. The key issue now is who is he replaced with.

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

If he is indeed off to Liverpool then it's a good news! Not that I want him to leave but it simply means we've already signed someone better.

[Ankit 3,176]

Liverpool would need 3 balls to play with. One each for Suarez and Danny and the 3rd one for the rest of the team.

[The Skipper 20,609]

I genuinely think an on form Sturridge is better than Walcott.

[ja1 1,166]

Sturridge-Suarez-Sterling will be a very good front three.

We are selling the wrong striker as well. People saying Sturridge isn't good enough to start for us at CF - he was more than good enough for Bolton, good enough for Great Britain there, and even then he hasn't been given a fair chance really for Chelsea yet after all this time.

People mention how he tailed off last season, Romeu did the same but doesn't nearly come to the same amount of criticism for it by the typical Sturridge hater.

His so called attitude is hyped up beyond comparison. People act as if he has a major physiological problem, like Balotelli. Sturridge is obviously a self-confident player. He believes in himself. This is apparently seen as a positive when Torres does it (how often have people praised Torres for 'at least' shooting first time), but when Sturridge does it, it's negative. Off the pitch while he was injured the first time this season he was promoting Meningitis charities. When he recovered from meningitis to go to the Olympics, he thanked the doctors not once, but twice for allowing him the oppurtinity to play for GB (unlike Bale who couldn't even be bothered). He has shown gratitude on more than one occasion for the belief that Coyle and AVB put in him, which he justified.

There was a game last season where Torres was his usual terrible self - Sturridge post match interview and he was saying how Torres was one of our best players that match. Maybe people missed it as Sturridge only cares for himself. How people can judge a personality based on pitch performance is beyond me. Otherwise would Tevez and Bellamy be hard working grafters who never give up? This may be how they play football, but this only goes so far.

People let this myopia about his head get in the way of the fact he is actually quite a good player. For a greedy player who never passes, he got 7 assists last season. Does anyone remember his pass for Drogba's goal against Leverkusen? I doubt it as it was Sturridge doing something good (people only talk about the negatives to his game seemingly). He was also the one that went outside and crossed for our first penalty in that United game. Now he made a mistake later in that game. Which is the one remembered more? The mistake because some people just want to criticise Sturridge.

Going back to this line I've read over the past few pages 'Sturridge isn't good enough to start anyway so it's ok', who is saying he should be our starter long term? As that would be myopic on my sense. All people have said is that they want him started over Torres which is fair enough. Torres is crap and Sturridge isn't so it is logical. But realistically, Sturridge could simply be a good backup for us. He would press for a starting place as he improved. He's versatile. Homegrown. If his ego was such a problem it would be a negative impact in the dressing room when it clearly isn't. If you want to look at this Chelsea squad for egos, Lampard and Torres stick above the rest.

And really, I don't blame Sturridge for wanting to leave. He's got a goal every 180 minutes at Chelsea on average. This is even excluding his Bolton performances. This is not the same as a goal every 2 games, due to the amount of Sturridge subs that count as appearances. Remember under Carlo? 10/11, first half, Anelka was terrible, Sturridge was in the reserves scoring 5 goals a game and in training scoring hat tricks against the first team. Was never given a chance.

He could have done a Lukaku and complained. He was well in his right. But he bided his time, waited till January, got his chances at Bolton. Sturridge has never complained about position or playing time contrary to popular belief. Like I said earlier he has only said that he sees himself as a CF, but enjoyed playing on the wing. Ivan sees himself as a CB, (according to his agent), Kalou saw himself as a CF as well, but it seem as something Sturridge can be held against for simply because it is Sturridge.

Sturridge will do well at Liverpool - we'll regret this.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Top top post.