Scott Sinclair!

Talking about Sinclair, not Forster.

 

Its also worth taking in to account that sterling gets a game for a better Man city than the one Sinclair didnt get a game for.

 

Lets be honest here, Sinclair is a level below a Sterling, or a Rashford and those players are still young. No way Sinclair has a chance of getting on a squad above those two, and quite rightly. Lingaard on the other hand, it's debatable, but he's the type of player who could star at the type of clubs Sinclair has had success

 

Nobody said he was better than sterling people pointed out he is better than Walcott and oxlaine our fans are not stupid we know their are better players than sinclair example sterling but their are players in that squad that sinclair is superior to in my opinion he deserves a place on their bench

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

He plays the position both Sterling and Rashford play so i will compare him against them and not players who play on the right.

 

Rash Ford is better played at cf his game came along better once zlatan got injured

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

Kane will play up top himself with wingers.

 

In which case rashford is less effective

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

They are completely different players, playing in completely different positions, with a completely different England Manager and completely different situations.

 

Your logic is Forster got a call up so Sinclair will?

It's all there in Southgates quotes. He has scored goals, torn teams apart, scored in the Champions League, won the player of the year. If he was in with a chance Southgate wouldn't be saying he's below the level he already has, what more can he do?

I'm not saying Sinclair isn't good enough, he should be considered, but he won't. That's the way it is. Bringing Forster into it means absolutely nothing.

 

There us * all reason he can't get a game jn a friendly.

With the way Rodgers has him playing lately he's deadly in attack and has a better defensive game then Sterling or Rashford.

Not to say he's better then those two but Sinclair's qualities in both departments should not be ignored.

It's similar to how we all think Paddy is the better player of Forrest, but we understand in some game Forrest is the better option as he tends to offer more defensively.

So as I say there * all cunting reason why Sinclair can't be given a go in * friendly

 

England are complete *, Paddy should probably be in the team as well.

 

He'd have to either have a personally incredible season, or continue to be a top performer in a Celtic team that goes deep in European competition.

It'll always be difficult for an English Celtic player to get international recognition. In spite of Joe Hart's struggles, it took a long time for Forster to even get a chance in a friendly. Van Dijk was ignored by the Netherlands until he signed for Southampton.

Sutton wasn't capped at all by England during his time here, and Alan Thompson was given a solitary cap in a friendly, but only after we reached a European final, he scored a winner vs Barcelona and hit a worldie free-kick when Sven & co came to watch him vs Rangers.

 

Daniel Sturridge is in the squad and he has hardly played at all the last few years. Hasn't done much since Brendan and Suarez left.

Sturridge is a great player when in form but out of the two Sinclair is playing week in week out and scoring goals. How can they justify picking Sturridge over Sinclair with out little Sturridge has played?

 

Don't think Sinclair signed for us with realistic international aspirations in his mind. He came to get his career back on track to play regularly and win things. It's a good debate and arguably he should be in the squad. But if he isn't then at least he won't get injured playing for that shower!

It won't affect his happiness with us!

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

Solid logic.