He was excellent in the build up, but his shooting and reaction to balls into the box was very poor. There were at least 2 balls in the first half which went right across an open goal with Sturridge there and he just didn't react.
He was good, but poor at the role he was meant to do, if that makes sense. Question is, is he a player we should adapt to a different game with someone else doing the main striker role, or is the team just better fit without him starting?
Yeah I noticed one (can't remember the other) where the ball was flashed across by one of the full backs, fantastic ball in, and he was just on his heels and didn't react at all. Not really what you want from your "clinical" striker. He linked the play to good effect at times yesterday, there was that one time he nearly got away in the box with some neat footwork and a rare turn of pace, but overall he looked at odds with the rest of our players. Though to be fair, it was far from a vintage team performance.
I just can't help but feel it's too easy to defend Sturridge these days. He's predictable, and he used to have the quality/physicality to pull it off anyway, but now it feels like defenders handle him with relative ease. Do players come away from the match knowing they've been in a game? I'm not sure they do. Maybe he needs games to find a rhythm but he's never going to get that here, so what does that leave us with?
I actually though Solanke looked really promising in his brief cameo yesterday - pace, power, held the ball well and nearly scored out of nothing. Hopefully he'll get a start midweek and we can see what he does. Leaving quality and pedigree out of the conversation (historic or current) and you have to say he looks a lot more suited to the way we play...