19Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
He was hyped up to be better than he actually was - but he was vey good. Bad move to Chelsea 'tho and his confidence was thenb shattered.
But don't feel sorry for him. He made a lot of money.
He was hyped up to be better than he actually was - but he was vey good. Bad move to Chelsea 'tho and his confidence was thenb shattered.
But don't feel sorry for him. He made a lot of money.
I mainly watched Torres in Liverpool era and provide my few thoughts based on this.
Torres had good pace and excellent first step at that tie. Vidic always had hard time to match him. Liverpool mainly played counter attack. There were more space at front for him to run. Kuyt, who had great chemistry with Torres, was a very hard player and gave Torres a lot of help. Torres had good faith at that time, and always tried to dribble past opponent one on one. Probably, after some injuries, his first step may be slowed. Just a little difference on this can harm his game a lot.
He was only good if Gerard was feeding him
I agree with cookizzz. It's about way whole team plays. Strikers are specific players, they couldn't play effective in every club, no matter how good they are. Look at Sturridge, similary story as Torres (only opposite transfer). Chelsea though that he isn't good and useful for them so they got rid of him. He scored 36 goals in first 50 matches for Liverpool.
Is Chelsea a club which destroys Strikers ???Originally Posted by t11_fan
No one said that. Look at Diego Costa. He is type of attacker which Chelsea needed since Drogba.
For example look at Bayern M., Mandžukić was effective under Jupp Heynckes, but useless under Guardiola.
Last edited by t11_fan; 09-16-2014 at 01:46 PM.
I think the 50 million(player price from reds to blues) presure destroyd him
And the mintilaty of the player
He looks a weak person
Reply With Quote