As I've said, I don't see them banging on your door trying to get him back. His goal count has increased substantially as he plays with Suarez, who occupies most defensive attention. I would get Lukaku back, if I were Mourinho. I think he's going to become something special. Bitter? That's a classic coming from a Mouser..... have you heard the one about the pot and the kettle?...
They'd look really stupid if they came back for him, when they sold him for 12million only a season and half back. And the price would be three times that. It's pretty clear your bitterness masks your judgement. Sturridge is a much better player than both Lukaku and Eto. As his scoring record proves. Any Neutral would agree on that. And He's scored more goals when Suarez isn't playing than when he's on the pitch. So you're making no sense. In Suarez's absence early on Sturrigde was scoring at almost a goal a game.
The reason they didn't come back for Sturridge is because they don't want him. Which, incidentally, is why they sold him in the first place! So, Sturridge is better than Eto?? All I can say to that bit of red tinted spectacled nonsense is, bring me Sturridge when he's achieved even half of what Eto has. When he's won the CL with two separate clubs, when he's scores over 100 La Liga goals in 5 years, as he did with those nobodies, Barcelona. In fact, when a club as big as Barca even show any interest in him. Then I might believe he's fit to be even mentioned in the same sentence as Eto. As for Lukaku, it's all about potential. At the moment, he's still a kid, but in my view will go on to be one of the best strikers in Europe. Having said all that, I do actually believe that Sturridge is a good striker. I thought that we should have gone for him at that time.
As expected, you ignored my point entirely. As a striker, Sturridge was a poor fit for the way Chelsea play. Drogba is the type of striker who fits the way they play, holding up the ball so their midfielders could come in and tonk the loose ball into the net - which is exactly what Lampard, Mata, Hazard, Oscar et al have done for them season upon season - and if all else failed he was adept at winning convenient penalties in the last five minutes, which is where Torres fits in. Sturridge was never going to be a first-choice up front, and even if they played him out wide he had various players ahead of him (Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Kalou, Malouda etc) so from that standpoint there is no reason for them to regret selling him, because Hazard, Oscar, Schurrle and Lampard have all chipped in with plenty of goals - which, as I stated, is how Chelsea play, and the reason why they are more likely to regret selling Mata. So, no, it's not "bitterness" as you like to tell yourselves, just an understanding of how teams play.
Mr T's a Scouser? Who knew? Sturridge isn't a Mourinho player, so he was a poor fit for Chelsea, but selling him to Liverpool was stupid. I said as much at the time. It'll be interesting to see how he does if/when Suarez goes in the summer, though.
I never called you bitter. But I think you're blinkered if you don't believe Sturridge would slide straight back into the Chelsea side in place of Torres or Etoo (who's had a handful of good games). Sturridge was never played in CF position at Chelsea, god knows why. And even with the bit part they gave him he was still their top-scorer (17 goals I believe) a season or so ago. For some reason there's something about Sturridge that means people will never truly rate him, and that goes for our fans too - he doesn't even get a bloody song and he's tonked in plenty of goals for us, some really important ones too. He's a great all round CF
As I've said, I do believe that Sturridge is a good striker. However, he has never scored even half this amount of goals in a season before. So, at the moment, he's a one season wonder. If he can continue in this vein, if or when Suarez goes, and other Prem teams have Sussed out a bit more about the way Rodgers has you set up, then maybe he can be classified as something more.
One season he was their joint top scorer in the league, with Lampard, but overall Lampard was their top scorer which, again, points to how important goals from midfield are to Chelsea. The next season saw Hazard and Oscar arrive, and they've replaced the goals that Sturridge scored and then some. Teams like Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs or Newcastle would regret selling Sturridge and see him go on a scoring streak as they rely on their forwards to score the majority of their goals - but it would have less effect on Chelsea or Arsenal or West Ham as they are set up in a way that their strikers are there to bring their midfielders into scoring opportunities (and it's no coincidence that Arsenal's form plummeted as soon as Ramsey and Wilshere got injured) As for why people don't rate Sturridge, I'd say part of it has to do with his habit of club-hopping, and partly because the media and the England team only think players are worthy if they play for certain clubs (case in point, Wes Brown getting 23 England caps when playing for Man Utd, and 0 once he moved to Sunderland)
Style of play is very important and having players at the right club is more important than ability. Just because Sturridge is having a great season at Liverpool it doesn't mean it would be replicated elsewhere, or even next season at Liverpool. Chelsea like strong, arrogant players that can boss games and Sturridge isn't that type. Whether Sturridge would get into the Chelsea team is up for debate but I don't think anyone would disagree that he's having a better season than any Chelsea striker.
Very true. Think the problem for Chelsea is if Sturridge grows into that player when he's 26-30 and in his peak.
Because he was never given a good run of games like he's had at Liverpool when he was at Chelsea. He was scoring at a similar rate when he was given a run of games at Bolton and during the 2nd half of last season when he joined us.
Sturridge is the classic case of a fringe player at a top team improving upon going to a lesser team (certainly at the time) where he's got more game time and had less pressure on him to perform. He has taken his chance well and been very good for Liverpool. Great signing for them. But you can't sit around regretting the odd player that does improve after he's left because there will be many examples of players that leave and don't. Scott Sinclair, Calton Cole, Borini etc are all young players we developed, sold and have never hit the heights that would be required for us. Sturridge and Matic are the exceptions recently. Probably most of the big clubs have let fringe players go who they couldn't develop properly (mainly due to established players already in their position). United have had Morrison, Pogba, Rossi and Pique in the last few years. I remain convinced he still wouldn't be the right type of forward for us and he's at the right club now given how Liverpool set up. Do you think he'd get that many goals in a Mourinho side?
I dont think anyone would score as many goals ina Mourinho side. He now plays for an attacking side, where Mourinho is more defensive. Hence us scoring and conceding lots more goals than you.
He would score a fair few for you if you played in him in a CF role, not like you would miss Torres or Etoo's goals (or lack of), it's the rest of your team that has to do the scoring tbh. And about letting players go, I can't think of one player we have voluntarily let go who has then gone on to really succeed, the only one that comes close is Ince, and tbh he hasn't set the world alight.
Very True. Look at Torres, excellent record for us, crap at Chelsea. or alternatively Robbie Keane, excellent record for Spurs, comes to us and is crap. The right player for the right club is a skill that the best managers have and is why so many owner buys, (Shevchenko, Torres etc) End up being a complete waste of money.
mikel San jose and gabriel Paletta have not done bad in recent years, but we certainly havent voluntarily let someone go who has gone on to be massive....(Except of course when Pacheco finally breaks through and becomes the next Messi.)
