Trending Topics

      Next match: LFC v Brighton [Premier League] Sun 31st Mar @ 2:00 pm
      Anfield

      Today is the 29th of March and on this date LFC's match record is P24 W11 D6 L7

      LFC Reds Poll

      Q. Should we sell or keep Sturridge? (Summer 2017)

      Sell.
      26 (25.5%)
      Keep.
      57 (55.9%)
      Not bothered.
      19 (18.6%)

      Total Members Voted: 97

      Daniel Sturridge (Contract Expired)

      Read 491529 times
      0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
      harrydunn08
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,915 posts | 957 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4554: Apr 13, 2018 08:48:44 pm
      I doubt any Insurance company would touch Sturridge with a barge pole  :D


      Pre-existing condition  :lmao:
      Robby The Z
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 9,034 posts | 2690 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4555: Apr 28, 2018 03:37:56 pm
      On the bench again today. This move doesn't seem to have worked out so well for him.
      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 12,989 posts | 3124 
      • Trust The Universe
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4556: May 09, 2018 09:36:44 am
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44046183


      When Daniel Sturridge - a striker with a proven record in front of goal - arrived at The Hawthorns on loan from Liverpool in January, it looked as though Pardew had found a promising solution to their problem.

      However, a hamstring injury picked up against Chelsea on 12 February meant that the England forward missed the next six games and has played just 21 minutes since as a substitute under Moore.

      A deal that was hailed as "big coup" for the club has thus far amounted to 99 minutes of football at a cost of around £3.8m for the club.


      £38,383.00 per minute on the pitch.
      bazspeedman
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 15,743 posts | 2436 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4557: May 09, 2018 09:44:53 am
      Any suckers out there willing to take Stu off us permanently?
      heimdall
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,818 posts | 2724 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4558: May 09, 2018 09:52:09 am
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44046183


      When Daniel Sturridge - a striker with a proven record in front of goal - arrived at The Hawthorns on loan from Liverpool in January, it looked as though Pardew had found a promising solution to their problem.

      However, a hamstring injury picked up against Chelsea on 12 February meant that the England forward missed the next six games and has played just 21 minutes since as a substitute under Moore.

      A deal that was hailed as "big coup" for the club has thus far amounted to 99 minutes of football at a cost of around £3.8m for the club.


      £38,383.00 per minute on the pitch.

      It was the most bizarre loan signing I've ever seen but typical of that fuckwit Pardew. I wonder if the club had insurance against numpty managers.
      ruthcity
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,868 posts | 1465 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4559: May 09, 2018 11:20:32 am
      Has a ton of talent, but wasted most in the physio room.
      7-King Kenny-7
      • Lives on Sesame Street
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 44,014 posts | 5760 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone!
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4560: May 09, 2018 12:07:51 pm
      Any suckers out there willing to take Stu off us permanently?

      At the moment we are the suckers for letting him go out on loan. Injury prone or not, it’s the game vs WBA, Stoke, back when we played the Bitters, the Chavs and Brighton where he could have proved vital. I fancy his chances of filling in and scoring a vital goal more than the chances of Solanke and Ings.
      I said earlier in the season we should keep him in the hope he can play at least some part of our season if we were in a period of an injury crisis/needing fresh legs at the run in. Injury prone or not, he’s a natural goal scorer and I’m 99% sure he’d have buried the good chances that have come the way of Ings and Solanke.
      Sell and replace him in the summer, but to loan him out mid season, when he’s a proven goal scorer was the wrong decision and Klopp took a big gamble there, which ultimately, hasn’t paid off as it stands.
      « Last Edit: May 09, 2018 12:12:03 pm by 7-King Kenny-7 »
      CT_LFC
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,782 posts | 1395 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4561: May 09, 2018 03:02:41 pm
      At the moment we are the suckers for letting him go out on loan. Injury prone or not, it’s the game vs WBA, Stoke, back when we played the Bitters, the Chavs and Brighton where he could have proved vital. I fancy his chances of filling in and scoring a vital goal more than the chances of Solanke and Ings.
      I said earlier in the season we should keep him in the hope he can play at least some part of our season if we were in a period of an injury crisis/needing fresh legs at the run in. Injury prone or not, he’s a natural goal scorer and I’m 99% sure he’d have buried the good chances that have come the way of Ings and Solanke.
      Sell and replace him in the summer, but to loan him out mid season, when he’s a proven goal scorer was the wrong decision and Klopp took a big gamble there, which ultimately, hasn’t paid off as it stands.

      Sturridge hasn't scored a league goal since before Halloween and could not even get a start for WBA the last few games when they were trying to fight off relegation. The only proven thing Sturridge is right now is an injury waiting to happen, and loaning him out was the right move to get his wages off our books and give him a chance at regular football, which his body did not allow him to take.

      If he had gone to WBA and scored goals for them your point may have been valid, but he has done nothing for them just like he was doing nothing for us before going on loan. And i love Sturridge, definitely one of my favorite players and bought his jersey earlier this year, but loaning him out was not a gamble, it was the correct move.
      bazspeedman
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 15,743 posts | 2436 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4562: May 09, 2018 03:27:23 pm
      At the moment we are the suckers for letting him go out on loan. Injury prone or not, it’s the game vs WBA, Stoke, back when we played the Bitters, the Chavs and Brighton where he could have proved vital. I fancy his chances of filling in and scoring a vital goal more than the chances of Solanke and Ings.
      I said earlier in the season we should keep him in the hope he can play at least some part of our season if we were in a period of an injury crisis/needing fresh legs at the run in. Injury prone or not, he’s a natural goal scorer and I’m 99% sure he’d have buried the good chances that have come the way of Ings and Solanke.
      Sell and replace him in the summer, but to loan him out mid season, when he’s a proven goal scorer was the wrong decision and Klopp took a big gamble there, which ultimately, hasn’t paid off as it stands.

      Nah no gamble for me mate Sturridge is a total crock and his pace is shot. Ings is more of a goalscoring threat than Stu.
      Ribapuru
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 10,843 posts | 1371 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4563: May 09, 2018 06:07:03 pm
      At the moment we are the suckers for letting him go out on loan. Injury prone or not, it’s the game vs WBA, Stoke, back when we played the Bitters, the Chavs and Brighton where he could have proved vital. I fancy his chances of filling in and scoring a vital goal more than the chances of Solanke and Ings.
      I said earlier in the season we should keep him in the hope he can play at least some part of our season if we were in a period of an injury crisis/needing fresh legs at the run in. Injury prone or not, he’s a natural goal scorer and I’m 99% sure he’d have buried the good chances that have come the way of Ings and Solanke.
      Sell and replace him in the summer, but to loan him out mid season, when he’s a proven goal scorer was the wrong decision and Klopp took a big gamble there, which ultimately, hasn’t paid off as it stands.
      Sturridge has lost all his pace and is rusty. He relies on his his technique alone now, which is not a fit for premier league. He might be okay in a much slower league if he wen't so injury prone. His best option is to see out his contract and join Sky Sports pundits. He can't be any worse than what is already there.
      7-King Kenny-7
      • Lives on Sesame Street
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 44,014 posts | 5760 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone!
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4564: May 09, 2018 08:50:27 pm
      Sturridge hasn't scored a league goal since before Halloween and could not even get a start for WBA the last few games when they were trying to fight off relegation. The only proven thing Sturridge is right now is an injury waiting to happen, and loaning him out was the right move to get his wages off our books and give him a chance at regular football, which his body did not allow him to take.

      If he had gone to WBA and scored goals for them your point may have been valid, but he has done nothing for them just like he was doing nothing for us before going on loan. And i love Sturridge, definitely one of my favorite players and bought his jersey earlier this year, but loaning him out was not a gamble, it was the correct move.

      It’s irrelevant If he’s not scored for them, I’m not interested how he does for them, I’m interested in the fact that even when he’s looked shot with injuries, he’s still managed to grab a goal here and there. He got injured this time with them, he wasn’t injured when he left us. We don’t know how things would have gone had we kept him.

      So far Ings has 1 goal and Solanke 0, despite some good opportunities. Good to see you take the approach of his wages though...no doubt you will bash the owners for penny pinching in the summer though if we miss out on a target.
      Frankly, Mr Shankly
      • Guest
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4565: May 09, 2018 10:19:56 pm
      Do I think a fully fit Sturridge would do better than Ings and Solanke? Yeah. But I don't ever think he'd be fit. I still find his decision to take a loan move to West Brom incomprehensible. Stunk of a lack of ambition and you kind of felt he was throwing the towel in.   
      « Last Edit: May 09, 2018 10:31:04 pm by Frankly, Mr Shankly »
      LondonRed83
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,300 posts | 3869 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4566: May 10, 2018 08:05:51 am
      We needed him against Stoke and Everton big time. Solanke and Ings NEVER look close to scoring.
      Scotia
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 8,965 posts | 3047 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4567: May 10, 2018 08:29:44 am
      We needed him against Stoke and Everton big time. Solanke and Ings NEVER look close to scoring.

      To do what? Both better options that the current version of Studge.

      Plus he was injured at time of Everton game.

      LondonRed83
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,300 posts | 3869 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4568: May 10, 2018 10:48:51 am
      To do what? Both better options that the current version of Studge.

      Plus he was injured at time of Everton game.

      Like the poster said above, we have no idea if he would have been injured had he stayed. The fact is I don’t care about the wage bill and he is 100% a better finisher than Ings and Solanke put together.

      I genuinely believe he would have made a difference
      HScRed1
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 20,172 posts | 4401 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4569: May 10, 2018 10:51:35 am
      Like the poster said above, we have no idea if he would have been injured had he stayed. The fact is I don’t care about the wage bill and he is 100% a better finisher than Ings and Solanke put together.

      I genuinely believe he would have made a difference

      The chances are he would have been injured, I’m sure you know that deep down.

      Scotia
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 8,965 posts | 3047 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4570: May 10, 2018 11:10:45 am
      Like the poster said above, we have no idea if he would have been injured had he stayed. The fact is I don’t care about the wage bill and he is 100% a better finisher than Ings and Solanke put together.

      I genuinely believe he would have made a difference

      I can’t see it mate. Even without an injury he seemed so physically impaired he was a shadow of the player from 13/14.

      CT_LFC
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,782 posts | 1395 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4571: May 10, 2018 02:46:16 pm
      Like the poster said above, we have no idea if he would have been injured had he stayed. The fact is I don’t care about the wage bill and he is 100% a better finisher than Ings and Solanke put together.

      I genuinely believe he would have made a difference

      have you not seen his injury history the past few years? i think we all have a pretty good idea.....
      CT_LFC
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,782 posts | 1395 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4572: May 10, 2018 02:58:21 pm
      The chances are he would have been injured, I’m sure you know that deep down.

      Chances are he would have been injured, his history tell us that, but it is weird how people are so desperate to find something to complain about and look back at our game log to find games where we dropped points and say "We could have used him in X and Y game".

      We are talking about a guy who has not scored a league goal since before halloween and who since the start of the calendar year has been part of only 5 games, 3 of those as a substitute. It's very telling that a team who was fighting for their life in the PL chose to keep Sturridge on the bench, and we think this guy somehow would have been a difference for us?
      waltonl4
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 37,585 posts | 7139 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4573: May 10, 2018 07:06:45 pm
      that season with Suarez and Stevie he was simply awesome it must be so frustrating for the lad to know himself he is so far away from his best form and unlikely to get anywhere near it again.
      Amazing talent but just too fragile.
      7-King Kenny-7
      • Lives on Sesame Street
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 44,014 posts | 5760 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone!
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4574: May 10, 2018 11:00:41 pm
      but it is weird how people are so desperate to find something to complain about and look back at our game log to find games where we dropped points and say "We could have used him in X and Y game".

      It's not that at all, find that desperate from you if I'm honest. It's because we are crippled with injuries in midfield at the moment, our front 3 are looking tired, Salah keeps getting slight knocks and at the most crucial time of our season, we are producing relegation form with our 2 current rotation options having a combined total of 1 goal between them, not just in this crucial period, but over the whole season. You are right to raise the injury issue with Sturridge, it's clear as day to see and I'm not denying that. But the fact is, he has played less games than Solanke, virtually the same as Ings and he has more goals than the 2 combined. So you can call it complaining and looking back at games all you want, but that simply isn't the case. It's saying how despite being injury riddled his whole career, he always has been and probably always will be a better goal scorer than Solanke and Ings.

      We all moan about Sturridge' injury record, but it was Ings who went what was it, 2-3 years without a goal because of injuries. Yet people are happy to pretend that didn't happen? Just because Sturridge is injured again.
      Sturridge has very questionable work rate when playing, but when Ings came on against Roma, in the first game, out on the right, he looked like he couldn't have given a damn and was making no effort at all tracking back to help out TAA.

      Don't get me wrong, he has to go and be replaced in the summer, but for the run in, I'd have rather have taken our chances with Sturridge than Ings. But that's just my opinion, not asking you to agree with me.
      « Last Edit: May 10, 2018 11:11:38 pm by 7-King Kenny-7 »
      Ebieahi
      • Forum Ronnie Moran
      • ***

      • 382 posts | 45 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4575: May 11, 2018 08:40:57 am
      Nope im not having it. Loaning Sturridge out was the right decision, he is too injury prone and cannot play in our high intensity style of football anymore. His record at West Brom shows clearly that we made the right call.
      I think that someone like Origi may have had a different impact as he actually managed to play in JK's system and scored a few goals when the chips were down...this one i can view as potentially a missed opportunity but not Studge.
      Alfie2510
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,572 posts | 351 
      Re: Daniel Sturridge Player Thread
      Reply #4576: May 12, 2018 12:13:05 pm
      Quite amazing that this time last year Daniel Sturridge started one of Klopps most important games as LFC manager at home to Middlesbrough. He also started the Europa Final in 2016 - can’t say he’s not had his chances
      Penny for his thoughts thinking he’d be involved in a CL final if he’d kicked about instead of having been relegated with WBA

      Quick Reply