The Liverpool FC Thread XII
Scroll to see replies
Naismith on £30k or Sterling on £120k haha. Liverpool should tell the overatted runt to **** off
Luke Shaw is on like £100k+ a week, footballers wages are just messed up nowadays.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Naismith on £30k or Sterling on £120k haha. Liverpool should tell the overatted runt to **** off
Naismith is ****e though to be fair.
Standard of teams in the EL is so **** this year.
Easy winnable. Liverpool are favourites. Everton 4th ffs says it all
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Gob Bluth
Naismith is ****e though to be fair.
At the moment, hes the better footballer than Sterling. Sterling has a lot of potential but hasnt shown much so far.
A even better example would be Koke. One of the best young players in the world, only slightly older than Sterling and actually producing on the big stage week in week out.
The standard of the EL isnt ****. You had a relatively easy CL group and were lucky to win any games at all. I wouldnt be surprised if you went out straight away.
The EL knockout stages don't start until mid February, plenty of time to find some form.
Lol at comparing Sterlings situation to Naismith.
Koke yes that's a fair situation to compare with but not Naismith.
Koke yes that's a fair situation to compare with but not Naismith.
http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2013/2014/raheem_sterling/126/64/534/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/eden_hazard/126/64/454/0/p#assists/goals_scored/shot_accuracy/interceptions/tackles_won/successful_take_ons#90
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Original post by JamesR12
http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2013/2014/raheem_sterling/126/64/534/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/eden_hazard/126/64/454/0/p#assists/goals_scored/shot_accuracy/interceptions/tackles_won/successful_take_ons#90
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Hazard carried our team from around December to March last year then fell off because he was injured and had to lug the likes of Ramires and Mikel around. Sterling was playing in the most confident attacking team in the league and it's obvious Suarez lifted everybody's game considerably - including Sterling.
Hazard's better defensively now anyway. Not that that is something you should be judging an attacking player on anyway. This myth that he has no defensively ability is pretty much just based on one mistake v Atletico in the CL semi finals last year, bar that he's pretty good.
You're forgetting that penalties still need to be scored, self-adjusting the figures because Hazard takes penalties and Sterling doesn't doesn't make that a fair comparison. Not that it ever really was tbh.
Original post by The Shed End
Hazard carried our team from around December to March last year then fell off because he was injured and had to lug the likes of Ramires and Mikel around. Sterling was playing in the most confident attacking team in the league and it's obvious Suarez lifted everybody's game considerably - including Sterling.
Hazard's better defensively now anyway. Not that that is something you should be judging an attacking player on anyway. This myth that he has no defensively ability is pretty much just based on one mistake v Atletico in the CL semi finals last year, bar that he's pretty good.
You're forgetting that penalties still need to be scored, self-adjusting the figures because Hazard takes penalties and Sterling doesn't doesn't make that a fair comparison. Not that it ever really was tbh.
Hazard's better defensively now anyway. Not that that is something you should be judging an attacking player on anyway. This myth that he has no defensively ability is pretty much just based on one mistake v Atletico in the CL semi finals last year, bar that he's pretty good.
You're forgetting that penalties still need to be scored, self-adjusting the figures because Hazard takes penalties and Sterling doesn't doesn't make that a fair comparison. Not that it ever really was tbh.
It's not supposed to conclusively say who was the better player. (the whole attacking team thing isn't really fair because Hazard should theoretically have better defensive stats, and Sterling ****s all over him).
The only point of that comparison was that suggesting 100-120k for a player with that level of performance is perfectly reasonable.
For the record, Hazard is 4 years older and a much better player than Raheem of December 2014.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by JamesR12
http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2013/2014/raheem_sterling/126/64/534/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/eden_hazard/126/64/454/0/p#assists/goals_scored/shot_accuracy/interceptions/tackles_won/successful_take_ons#90
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Last season, Eden Hazard vs Raheem Sterling, per 90 statistics
Assists: 0.22 vs 0.20 Haz - marginal
Non penalty goals 0.31 vs 0.37 RS (self adjusted figures because squawka doesn't give NPG)
Key passes 2.65 vs 1.87 Haz
Shot accuracy% 59 vs 67 RS
Interceptions 0.59 vs 0.81 RS
Tackles won 0.56 vs 1.30 RS
Successful take-ons 4.11 vs 3.73 Haz
These are generally the statistics that you would want from an attacking wide player. 4-3 to Raheem, one of Hazard's wins near-as-no-difference
In clearances and blocks, Sterling wins again, comfortably. Pass completion goes Hazard's way by 1%.
This is what you can say conclusively - Raheem is much better defensively than Hazard. And then you can say that it's pretty close in an attacking sense.
At 19 years of age he was on a par with 'star winger' of the league. Statistics don't tell you everything but it's clear that he was putting out a remarkable level of performance last year. One that can't be understated.
100-120k is not much at all for that.
Tbf to Sterling he doesn't really have players who are good enough next to him. Sturridge ofc and Coutinho on his day but the rest are pretty average at best. He looked better than he was last season with Suarez and Sturridge affording him more space on the ball.
I think he can hold you to ransom looking at that point of view. I don't think it's worth giving him that contract yet though.
Original post by jam277
Tbf to Sterling he doesn't really have players who are good enough next to him. Sturridge ofc and Coutinho on his day but the rest are pretty average at best. He looked better than he was last season with Suarez and Sturridge affording him more space on the ball.
I think he can hold you to ransom looking at that point of view. I don't think it's worth giving him that contract yet though.
I think he can hold you to ransom looking at that point of view. I don't think it's worth giving him that contract yet though.
For sure - being tripled up on every game is not helping his productivity at all, and it's part of the reason why there's the accusation that he 'slows things down'. If he had the level of players that Hazard has around him then we'd be seeing similar stats this season too - no doubt.
The truth though, is that we have a remarkable young player. The best teenager in Europe. If Luke Shaw gets 100k then he's perfectly entitled to 150, but 100ish is what it should be really.
I'm not too worried by the contract demands - Raheem knows that Brendan has had such a huge influence on his play.
Original post by JamesR12
For sure - being tripled up on every game is not helping his productivity at all, and it's part of the reason why there's the accusation that he 'slows things down'. If he had the level of players that Hazard has around him then we'd be seeing similar stats this season too - no doubt.
The truth though, is that we have a remarkable young player. The best teenager in Europe. If Luke Shaw gets 100k then he's perfectly entitled to 150, but 100ish is what it should be really.
I'm not too worried by the contract demands - Raheem knows that Brendan has had such a huge influence on his play.
The truth though, is that we have a remarkable young player. The best teenager in Europe. If Luke Shaw gets 100k then he's perfectly entitled to 150, but 100ish is what it should be really.
I'm not too worried by the contract demands - Raheem knows that Brendan has had such a huge influence on his play.
Tbf I think Hazard gets the same treatment. He gets no help from the left flank on the overlap with Azpilicueta there so people just narrow it up. If anything Hazard gives the other players like Costa, Ivanovic and Willian more space to play as they're usually the most advanced players.
Sterling would be great at Real Madrid where he's not the main focal point of the team but one of many focal points and they get a lot of space to play. I think if you had a better quality team attacking wise you could afford to give Sterling a lower paid contract around 80-85k.
To make things simple. Relative to the team he probably deserves above 100k, relative to his actual ability probably around 80k.
(edited 9 years ago)
Sterling rejected contract? How long does he have left on the current one?
Original post by Gob Bluth
Naismith is ****e though to be fair.
Standard of teams in the EL is so **** this year.
Easy winnable. Liverpool are favourites. Everton 4th ffs says it all
Standard of teams in the EL is so **** this year.
Easy winnable. Liverpool are favourites. Everton 4th ffs says it all
Roma are favourites
Original post by JamesR12
The best teenager in Europe.
Lol. Thats one of the dumbest things ive ever seen on here. Sterling isnt even a teenager any more and if you are talking only of players who are the same age or younger then Memphis Depay is probably the best in Europe. I wouldnt even say Sterling is near the top of the list either.
If you extend the category just a little bit then Pogba, Varane, Gotze, Neymar, Koke are the best.
Walcott was better at Sterlings age and he hasnt and wont reach the height of the Neymars and Gotzes of the world.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Lol. Thats one of the dumbest things ive ever seen on here. Sterling isnt even a teenager any more and if you are talking only of players who are the same age or younger then Memphis Depay is probably the best in Europe. I wouldnt even say Sterling is near the top of the list either.
If you extend the category just a little bit then Pogba, Varane, Gotze, Neymar, Koke are the best.
Walcott was better at Sterlings age and he hasnt and wont reach the height of the Neymars and Gotzes of the world.
If you extend the category just a little bit then Pogba, Varane, Gotze, Neymar, Koke are the best.
Walcott was better at Sterlings age and he hasnt and wont reach the height of the Neymars and Gotzes of the world.
So your argument basically hinges on the fact that James was out by 4 days?
Original post by Fideo
Roma are favourites
Liverpool 10/1
Roma 12/1
Not to say Liverpool won't get anywhere near it the way they're playing.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
The standard of the EL isnt ****. You had a relatively easy CL group and were lucky to win any games at all. I wouldnt be surprised if you went out straight away.
Yes it is. There's very few quality sides this time. Liverpool favourites ffs
I think everyone agrees on current form there's not much hope for Liverpool
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Gob Bluth
Liverpool 10/1
Roma 12/1
Not to say Liverpool won't get anywhere near it the way they're playing.
Yes it is. There's very few quality sides this time. Liverpool favourites ffs
I think everyone agrees on current form there's not much hope for Liverpool
Roma 12/1
Not to say Liverpool won't get anywhere near it the way they're playing.
Yes it is. There's very few quality sides this time. Liverpool favourites ffs
I think everyone agrees on current form there's not much hope for Liverpool
There are other decents sides tbh and now that winner gets CL, teams will start taking it seriously and put out stronger sides.
Liverpool have until February to sort their **** out, Sturridge coming back will certainly be a boost provided he doesn't get injured again. Rodgers needs to get his head together too and start getting his starting line ups and subs right.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- HELP !! Deciding whether I should do an apprenticeship or go to university for chem
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- What is Your Favorite Football Club
- Bundesliga
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Liverpool vs Bristol for history
- UCAS Éducation Section
- Whats everyone up to?
- Latin Scansion in the Aeneid
- What team do you support and why?
- School Transcripts for UCAS Application- CBSE
- A Levels 2023 Personal Blog
- diary of a first year medic
- Year 13 Latin resources
- Make it More Princess-ey !!
- Cambridge requirements for Indian students
- Indian cbse student gets stuck on UCAS
- do i need to take an english test?
- Things EA Sports FC Needs To Change From FC 24
- rosarian v a-levels. ~r's gyg 2024⭐
