Isa Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge is better is virtually every way. Not even remotely close. Welbeck is better physically - faster, stronger, taller etc. Not sure he is faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge for me even if I hate him but it would be interesting to see how he would do at a different club. Doubt he would score nearly as much. At a team not as good? Stating the obvious. Sturridge scored 8 in 12 at Bolton don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 At a team not as good? Stating the obvious. Yep. Ronaldo wouldn't score 60+ goals playing for Levante for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge by a long, long distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geni Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I swear he looked offside for this goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2014 I genuinely clicked on this topic thinking it was going to be a joke. It's not even close. Sturridge by an absolute country mile. Wellbeck would never be as prolific as Sturridge, mainly for the reason they're not the same kind of player. Sturridge is an out and out striker where as Wellbeck is more of a deep lying forward, imo. So even if he played every game I'd wager Wellbeck would never score as many as Sturridge, even if he was a better player. But anyway, I can't really believe this question is being asked. Sturridge is mile miles better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoD Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I'm disappointed this isn't a joke thread based on the title. How anyone could argue that Welbeck is better is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge is better is virtually every way. Not even remotely close. Welbeck is better physically - faster, stronger, taller etc. Not sure he is faster. Plus Wellbeck is only an inch taller, which doesn't mean a great deal. Peter Crouch is 9 inches taller. So what? I don't know how you can measure strength, but Sturridge looks the stronger of the two to me, based purely on stature. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 At football, I'm not going to bother stating what should be obvious. Maybe Wellbeck is better at other things though. Like knitting or making love... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge is miles better. Welbeck looks gangly and not sure of what he is doing. I still think that "cryuff" goal he scored was a fluke and he was tryin to control it. Sturridge is very assured in himself, a proper out and out goalscorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted March 10, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2014 How is the answer to this question not Andros Townsend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Welbeck has better hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge is better is virtually every way. Not even remotely close. Welbeck is better physically - faster, stronger, taller etc. Yeah he'd probably win in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Welbeck has better hair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 all depends what type of player your looking for. If you want a team player that will track back and mark the opposition winger then you will pick Welbeck. If want a goalscorer who doesn't really offer much else you go Sturridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Sturridge every day of the week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 all depends what type of player your looking for. If you want a team player that will track back and mark the opposition winger then you will pick Welbeck. If want a goalscorer who doesn't really offer much else you go Sturridge So basically then, if you want to score goals thus increasing your chances of winning games, you pick Sturridge. If you want attackers to track back and mark people, then you're Alex McLeish and I claim my winnings from a 0-0 final score bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) If want a goalscorer who doesn't really offer much else you go Sturridge That's not very fair at all and you are speaking about him as if he is Darren Bent. Sturridge has many strings to his bow including his link-up play, technique, dribbling, ability to play as a wide forward etc. Edited March 10, 2014 by Isa 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't understand why Chelsea let him go...and Mourinho says he needs another striker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts