Daniel Sturridge

[banditos]

We're talking about a guy who has only been available for 45 league games over the last 3 seasons due to a multitude of soft tissue injuries. Due to these he has clearly lost the searing pace that made him such a goal threat (just as Torres and Owen did).

A single goal against a poor Hammers side doesn't change anything for me. 2013-2014 Sturridge would justify the wage he's on, but he'll never get back there. Best to move him on and use the wage on an improvement who can be relied upon to be regularly available.

[Fredo]

I'm glad you're not the one making the decision.

[BG1973]

It's fine to keep him as long as we do so as a luxury only.

I.e we don't need the money to bring in the striker(s) we all know we really need.

[banditos]

I'm glad you're not the one making the decision.

So am I Doesn't change the fact that he's a crock and **** value for the coin he's on.

[Fredo]

So am I Doesn't change the fact that he's a crock and **** value for the coin he's on.

Do we care really? That's for the club to decide. I don't.

[Red_Polo]

Yeah, stop talking about things you aren't deciding. Nobody else has the temerity to do that on here!

[Alex]

That's classic banditos though. Always talking about things he isn't deciding. Classic.

[dom9]

[ronanm]

I think he adds something different to what we have and is one of the top strikers in the PL on his day. But his injury record is so bad that we should offload imo.

[EwarWoo]

I think he adds something different to what we have and is one of the top strikers in the PL on his day. But his injury record is so bad that we should offload imo.

banditos?

[dww]

Personally I'd rather take my bet one someone who has just been very unlucky breaking his legs twice (haha sounds ridiculous just writing it), over someone that's chronically been having small injuries for 3 years now. Sturridges problem won't go away, Ings just might.

If I thought they were comparable talent-wise I would be inclined to agree. We have seen that Sturridge 'still has it' and was always the better player. We have no idea how good Ings will be when he comes back. Personally I would look to loan him out next season in the hope he becomes either a more saleable asset or a better bet within the squad.

I just don't think there are many viable options with Sturridge's performance ceiling on the market. I think if we get another pacy attacking player (ideally in the mould of Mane who can also add width) then we would have a viable set of options without changing style with or without Sturridge.

[Roboklopp]

Yeah, stop talking about things you aren't deciding. Nobody else has the temerity to do that on here!

That's classic banditos though. Always talking about things he isn't deciding. Classic.

[banditos]

banditos?

He's spot on though. I hung up my boots at 23 after doing both ACLs. Us crocks know another crock when we see one!

[red g]

He's spot on though. I hung up my boots at 23 after doing both ACLs. Us crocks know another crock when we see one!

Sorry to hear that mate. I gave up about the same time, not ACL's i was just ****.

[banditos]

Sorry to hear that mate. I gave up about the same time, not ACL's i was just ****.

I wasn't that good either . At least I didn't ruin a promising footballing career.

Back on topic, my main concern with keeping Sturridge is that it may mean we wouldn't be able to afford a top striker who can actually play regularly. It's not as if we have owners who are happy to piss away their money on player wages like City, Chavs and United do.