Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Daniel Sturridge: A man in desperate need of his missing mojo - by Jason Harris


tlw content
 Share

Recommended Posts

He's flown home because of a virus

Which rapper is performing in London this weekend ?

 

His all round style and attitude is what makes some people dislike him. He got a painting commissioned by some bandana over the face down wiv da yoof artist Endless. Probably as in endless injuries.For charity of course.

It is our Daniel dressed as a soldier no less. To depict his " commanding nature " on the pitch.

 

If his body was half as strong as his ego he would be playing rugby league and regularly winning the Iron Man Trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is an out and out striker to you?

 

Inzaghi?

Chicharito?

Jesus?

Lukaku?

Carroll?

 

Haven't seen enough of Jesus to say, but my definition would be a player whose prime responsibility is to put the ball in the back of the net, so the rest would qualify on that basis. I guess my question is, if we signed a player with a 1 in 2 ratio, but they were less capable of influencing play without the ball, would we be looking to compensate in other areas - like a proper DM etc. - or would we forego the number 9 in favour of a Firmino type who's more active, but won't be as predictably effective in goalscoring?

 

It seems more like we've been happy to make up for a weak midfield by increasing players with similar responsibilities. A top striker brought in would be great, but they may also highlight the deficiencies elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inaki Williams to go into the front three. Pace and power, and the goals will come. Teams will be terrified with him on one side and Mane on the other. Anything we get for Sturridge can go towards this signing.

 

Keita for the midfield, probably another central defender to be a long term partner for Matip, and we are well on the way. Handanovic in goal, sell Mingo. Get a left back better than Moreno to compete with or displace Milner (he will have to be really good if it's the latter).

 

Anyway, the scope of my post is too wide. Sell Sturridge, he's done here. Put the money to another striker, but probably a wide forward with pace to burn. Inaki Williams could be the right sort - talented, still a bit raw for Klopp to shape, but not as if he is totally unproven. Stick with Firmino in the middle as I agree with the view he leads the press very well and helps link up our attacking play.

 

We won't get much for Sturridge, but as everyone says, we might get a few bob if he's interested in China. I doubt he will be, as he seems to like the lifestyle and culture, or the trappings, that go with being a rich footballer in the Premier League. If Dembele leaves Celtic he could go there but I can't see a team in Scotland getting anywhere near his wages, even if the Dembele money might mean they can afford the transfer fee.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the talk of Sturridge's sale makes me wonder what we'll be like if we ever do sign an out-and-out striker. Is it just Sturridge, or does our system not suit such a specialist player?

I reckon Klopp will adjust the system if needs be for his own man. Probably fair to assume that he never thought Sturridge had earned that privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen enough of Jesus to say, but my definition would be a player whose prime responsibility is to put the ball in the back of the net, so the rest would qualify on that basis. I guess my question is, if we signed a player with a 1 in 2 ratio, but they were less capable of influencing play without the ball, would we be looking to compensate in other areas - like a proper DM etc. - or would we forego the number 9 in favour of a Firmino type who's more active, but won't be as predictably effective in goalscoring?

 

It seems more like we've been happy to make up for a weak midfield by increasing players with similar responsibilities. A top striker brought in would be great, but they may also highlight the deficiencies elsewhere. 

 

 

I think that is what I am saying - Suarez and Berbatov both have/had putting the ball in the net as their prime responsibility. Or look at Sanchez vs Giroud. Only one would make our team better so for me it is more about the particular player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the new Football manager a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty telling that he's even shite on there. 13 for pace. Yikes.

 

I still feel pretty bad for him despite his millions. I'm sure they provide some comfort but in 10 or 20 years time I doubt he'll be looking back and thinking 'at least I've got my money.' Whether you think he's a shit-house or not, it must take some tole on a person mentally to have your body knackered at 26 and be a constant source of ridicule and abuse.

 

I just don't see what's next for him. Maybe he'd work out better as number 10 for somebody.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the new Football manager a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty telling that he's even shite on there. 13 for pace. Yikes.

 

I still feel pretty bad for him despite his millions. I'm sure they provide some comfort but in 10 or 20 years time I doubt he'll be looking back and thinking 'at least I've got my money.' Whether you think he's a shit-house or not, it must take some tole on a person mentally to have your body knackered at 26 and be a constant source of ridicule and abuse.

 

I just don't see what's next for him. Maybe he'd work out better as number 10 for somebody.

 

 

No chance. He isn't mobile enough anymore. He should stay parked in the middle as he is still the best finisher at the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you need to be all that mobile as a number 10. It would depend on who he had around him though tbf. He's not gonna work as a 9 or 10 here, but in he could still do a job for a team breaking into the top 6.

 

I could see him going to a West Ham and getting 15-20 goals, but it's different there. Less pressure and less playing against teams with 10 men behind the ball. Whatever happens we're never getting that old Sturridge back so best for everyone if he's moved on. If we have any sense we'll ask for some first dibs on some talented youngsters from wherever he ends up because we're probably not gonna end up with that 30-40 million..even in today's market

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is what I am saying - Suarez and Berbatov both have/had putting the ball in the net as their prime responsibility. Or look at Sanchez vs Giroud. Only one would make our team better so for me it is more about the particular player.

 

I agree, but the problem is we've got little chance of finding such a player who's capable of doing everything, which leaves the choice of an adaptable Firmino type - capable of playing across the front three - or a traditional centre forward who works almost exclusively in the width of the box. Even Sanchez is arguably more of an adaptable forward than an out-and-out number 9, as he's played across a front three and been close to a traditional winger at times. 

 

I'd like to find some info about what strikers Klopp had at Dortmund at the start of his time there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen enough of Jesus to say, but my definition would be a player whose prime responsibility is to put the ball in the back of the net, so the rest would qualify on that basis. I guess my question is, if we signed a player with a 1 in 2 ratio, but they were less capable of influencing play without the ball, would we be looking to compensate in other areas - like a proper DM etc. - or would we forego the number 9 in favour of a Firmino type who's more active, but won't be as predictably effective in goalscoring?

 

It seems more like we've been happy to make up for a weak midfield by increasing players with similar responsibilities. A top striker brought in would be great, but they may also highlight the deficiencies elsewhere.

I think saying that a players main responsibility is to put the ball in the net is over simplyfying it. Of course you expect goals from an attacker or a striker. But equally, or even more, important is that they're part of a unit, both in attack and defensively. The days of the lurking striker whos only job is to finish are long gone, especially if you wanna be a top team. Look at Ian Rush, especially in his last spell with us. First defender on the pitch for us, excellent at pressing the opposition defence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think saying that a players main responsibility is to put the ball in the net is over simplyfying it. Of course you expect goals from an attacker or a striker. But equally, or even more, important is that they're part of a unit, both in attack and defensively. The days of the lurking striker whos only job is to finish are long gone, especially if you wanna be a top team. Look at Ian Rush, especially in his last spell with us. First defender on the pitch for us, excellent at pressing the opposition defence.

 

I'm not sure I agree. Italian football, for instance, is practically built on the idea of such specialist players. It's commendable when one does more but when they're a CF they're judged largely on their ability to score. The player doesn't need to be an Inzaghi type, sitting offside with his hands in his pockets, but someone like Dzeko for instance won't spend large amounts of time pressing or out wide, he's expected to be in the right place when the opportunity arrives, and the team are built to fashion that opportunity for him. That, to me, is a traditional CF rather than a general forward. I just wonder whether we'll go for such a player, or if we'll stick with adaptable figures that give us more options, but might be masking other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...