Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
He didn't fail at City, he was just a very young player at the end of his first real contract at a time when City were spending 20-40mil per striker at a rate of 2-3 a year. They were looking for big names rather than bringing youth through. As for Chelsea, he was rarely ever played as the lone striker and had Drogba and then Torres to contend with, the former at that stage easily deserving to start ahead of Sturridge, the latter not but the owner/manager generally starting him because he cost 50mil and they hoped he would find form.
Chelsea as a unproven young striker was only a marginally better situation than City and their heavy spending years. If he'd chosen Arsenal/Pool/Spurs instead of Chelsea he'd likely be a better player currently and have played LOADS more in the past 4 years. Oh well.
Looking up his stats even his City years were impressive. First year he hit the first team was 2 starts 1 sub and he had a goal and an assist. Second year only 3 starts, 13 sub appearances but 4 goals and 3 assists is pretty exceptional for so few minutes in your first consistent appearances in the league. For me you could see almost instantly how much talent he had and at that age insane potential. That's why Chelsea wanted him.
Chelsea as a unproven young striker was only a marginally better situation than City and their heavy spending years. If he'd chosen Arsenal/Pool/Spurs instead of Chelsea he'd likely be a better player currently and have played LOADS more in the past 4 years. Oh well.
Looking up his stats even his City years were impressive. First year he hit the first team was 2 starts 1 sub and he had a goal and an assist. Second year only 3 starts, 13 sub appearances but 4 goals and 3 assists is pretty exceptional for so few minutes in your first consistent appearances in the league. For me you could see almost instantly how much talent he had and at that age insane potential. That's why Chelsea wanted him.
