Liverpool legend Roy Evans has criticised Brendan Rodgers' decision to leave Daniel Sturridge's on the bench during the first half of this afternoon's 2-1 defeat to Manchester United.
Liverpool started with Luis Suarez alone up front, and the Uruguayan was totally isolated for most of the first half. Raheem Sterling was muscled out of the game and barely made an impact, and Stewart Downing also barely registered.
Analysing the game on LFC TV, Evans - who managed one of the most entertaining and exciting Liverpool teams of the last twenty years - praised the team's second-half revival, but bemoaned the 'really poor' first half performance, and the omission of Sturridge from the starting line-up. He observed:
"You give them [Man United] an advantage by not playing him [Sturridge] . Bring him in from the start and put them on the back foot.
"When he came on in the second half, we were such a different team. I certainly would've started with him, and not doing so, I think that's cost us".
Ex-Reds defender Jason McAteer agreed with his old boss, adding:
"I think Daniel Sturridge should've started after his goal against Mansfield last week. He [Rodgers] made a mistake. Suarez at times was an isolated figure, and we gave the ball away far too easily in dangerous areas".
I totally agree with this. Sturridge may not be 100% match-fit, but that hasn't stopped Rodgers playing Gerrard in every league game this season, even when his fitness was not at optimum level.
I really don't understand the logic behind paying £12m for a striker (after complaining all season we don't have enough strikers); starting him a couple of days after that, but then dropping him for the biggest game of the season (!)
The idea that Sturridge isn't match-fit enough to start is nonsense. If that's true, how could he be fit to play the entire second half?! Does player physiology somehow transform in the second half of games?
Sturridge transformed the game in the second half with his direct running, great close control, and effective positioning, and if he'd been on in the first half, the result might have been different.
What's the difference between starting Sturridge and subbing him in, say, the 55th minute, and bringing him on at half time? Ultimately, time on the pitch ends up being the same.
Just go for the throat from the first kick: play the strongest possible attacking line-up and then make changes later, if necessary.
Jaimie Kanwar
Liverpool started with Luis Suarez alone up front, and the Uruguayan was totally isolated for most of the first half. Raheem Sterling was muscled out of the game and barely made an impact, and Stewart Downing also barely registered.
Analysing the game on LFC TV, Evans - who managed one of the most entertaining and exciting Liverpool teams of the last twenty years - praised the team's second-half revival, but bemoaned the 'really poor' first half performance, and the omission of Sturridge from the starting line-up. He observed:
"You give them [Man United] an advantage by not playing him [Sturridge] . Bring him in from the start and put them on the back foot.
"When he came on in the second half, we were such a different team. I certainly would've started with him, and not doing so, I think that's cost us".
Ex-Reds defender Jason McAteer agreed with his old boss, adding:
"I think Daniel Sturridge should've started after his goal against Mansfield last week. He [Rodgers] made a mistake. Suarez at times was an isolated figure, and we gave the ball away far too easily in dangerous areas".
I totally agree with this. Sturridge may not be 100% match-fit, but that hasn't stopped Rodgers playing Gerrard in every league game this season, even when his fitness was not at optimum level.
I really don't understand the logic behind paying £12m for a striker (after complaining all season we don't have enough strikers); starting him a couple of days after that, but then dropping him for the biggest game of the season (!)
The idea that Sturridge isn't match-fit enough to start is nonsense. If that's true, how could he be fit to play the entire second half?! Does player physiology somehow transform in the second half of games?
Sturridge transformed the game in the second half with his direct running, great close control, and effective positioning, and if he'd been on in the first half, the result might have been different.
What's the difference between starting Sturridge and subbing him in, say, the 55th minute, and bringing him on at half time? Ultimately, time on the pitch ends up being the same.
Just go for the throat from the first kick: play the strongest possible attacking line-up and then make changes later, if necessary.
Jaimie Kanwar
It was a joke matey.
ReplyDeleteI tried to make it obvious.
Them blue noses must be laughing their heads off..Southampton! need I say more??
ReplyDeletesuarez had a poor game while sturridge inspired us but missed a number of chances as he is still rusty and starting suarez was the right choice. he had a bad game but given his recent form, it is clear why suarez started
ReplyDelete