He spends most of the game lying down.
Exactly. Imagine if you spent £100 million to sign a player who, instead of taking his man on, just falls to the floor crying like an embarrassment.
He did the exact same at Villa too and has always done it for England.
The guy is a myth.
Do you remember was it World Cup 18 or euro 20, when the commentators kept saying ‘saviour of England’
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 28 seconds ago
Do you remember was it World Cup 18 or euro 20, when the commentators kept saying ‘saviour of England’
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The saviour of England's grass, because when Grealish is in town it can never get burned by the sun.
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sancho is better than Grealish and i'm not even kidding. At least you know he can beat his man and create chances.
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 5 seconds ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and we’ve got a billionaire Brexit owner who’s to cheap to spend his own money on a stadium and wants the public to pay for it. Compete and Utter caant. . We’ve no high ground on this
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 39 seconds ago
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said this at the time we bought them.
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 5 seconds ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and we’ve got a billionaire Brexit owner who’s to cheap to spend his own money on a stadium and wants the public to pay for it. Compete and Utter caant. . We’ve no high ground on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 seconds ago
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For how poor he's been, I still think it's crazy that for £100 million he isn't being labelled the flop of the decade so far.
When we were winning everything, the likes of Veron were still labelled flops despite winning trophies regularly. Then again I suppose that just shows how small City are in comparison to us.
Even Rooney was called a flop pre 2007 title too.
He's been terrible for them, is a diving clown but the media and pundits pretend he's world class.
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
He would have been a legend at United
Grealish pre-Guardiola was kind of like Joe Cole pre-Mourinho
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
He would have been a legend at United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? For diving??
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
Antony wouldn't get 20 goals a season in my work 6 aside league pal.
Grealish is a miles better player than that Muppet will ever be.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
Antony wouldn't get 20 goals a season in my work 6 aside league pal.
Grealish is a miles better player than that Muppet will ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify I mean 20 goals and assists combined, not each.
Antony is better than Grealish.
The goal Antony got against Liverpool is a bigger individual moment of quality than anything Grealish has done on the pitch for City.
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
He would have been a legend at United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? For diving??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Unlike he does at Man City, he would have fitted in at United. A Man Utd type player if I ever saw one.
Anthony is better than Grealish....
LOL
Quality player who maybe needs more of a free role to get the best out of him
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we agree that Grealish hasn't been worth his fee, but you just feel he's been more of a flop than I have.
However, as soon as you come out with the Antony statement..................
Regardless of their fees, Grealish is way better than Antony. I would rather have Dan James than Antony if I'm honest
......but but but, greasy Jack still keeps ending up on the winning side !
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 5 minutes ago
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a bit late for April Fools.
Sign in if you want to comment
Jack Grealish: When The Media Love You
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 4/4/24
He spends most of the game lying down.
posted on 4/4/24
Exactly. Imagine if you spent £100 million to sign a player who, instead of taking his man on, just falls to the floor crying like an embarrassment.
He did the exact same at Villa too and has always done it for England.
The guy is a myth.
posted on 4/4/24
Do you remember was it World Cup 18 or euro 20, when the commentators kept saying ‘saviour of England’
posted on 4/4/24
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 28 seconds ago
Do you remember was it World Cup 18 or euro 20, when the commentators kept saying ‘saviour of England’
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The saviour of England's grass, because when Grealish is in town it can never get burned by the sun.
posted on 4/4/24
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sancho is better than Grealish and i'm not even kidding. At least you know he can beat his man and create chances.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 5 seconds ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and we’ve got a billionaire Brexit owner who’s to cheap to spend his own money on a stadium and wants the public to pay for it. Compete and Utter caant. . We’ve no high ground on this
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 39 seconds ago
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said this at the time we bought them.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 5 seconds ago
We paid 80 mill for a guy who does his best work on PlayStation and sleeps it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and we’ve got a billionaire Brexit owner who’s to cheap to spend his own money on a stadium and wants the public to pay for it. Compete and Utter caant. . We’ve no high ground on this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 4/4/24
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 seconds ago
You always get a free ride when your team is winning most weeks and sweeping up the trophies.
They'd be like vultures pulling apart every single thing he does if they weren't winning. That's how our gutter press work.
I think he's a decent player but he was never right for City. He used to be exciting to watch and Pep has slowly coached that all out of him where he plays percentage football now.
He'd have been a better fit for us ironically and Sancho would have been better for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For how poor he's been, I still think it's crazy that for £100 million he isn't being labelled the flop of the decade so far.
When we were winning everything, the likes of Veron were still labelled flops despite winning trophies regularly. Then again I suppose that just shows how small City are in comparison to us.
Even Rooney was called a flop pre 2007 title too.
He's been terrible for them, is a diving clown but the media and pundits pretend he's world class.
posted on 4/4/24
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
posted on 4/4/24
He would have been a legend at United
posted on 4/4/24
Grealish pre-Guardiola was kind of like Joe Cole pre-Mourinho
posted on 4/4/24
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
He would have been a legend at United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? For diving??
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
Antony wouldn't get 20 goals a season in my work 6 aside league pal.
Grealish is a miles better player than that Muppet will ever be.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂
Antony wouldn't get 20 goals a season in my work 6 aside league pal.
Grealish is a miles better player than that Muppet will ever be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify I mean 20 goals and assists combined, not each.
Antony is better than Grealish.
The goal Antony got against Liverpool is a bigger individual moment of quality than anything Grealish has done on the pitch for City.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 2 minutes ago
He would have been a legend at United
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? For diving??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Unlike he does at Man City, he would have fitted in at United. A Man Utd type player if I ever saw one.
posted on 4/4/24
Anthony is better than Grealish....
LOL
posted on 4/4/24
Quality player who maybe needs more of a free role to get the best out of him
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Grealish is a decent enough player, but quite simply isn't worth his transfer fee.
However, he didn't decide his transfer fee, but it will be round his neck for the rest of his career. Ultimately, he has got his medals and will probably get a few more.
The media will always have their favourites, and tend to over-rate home grown stars, that's just the way it is. However, I think they have their favourites regardless of how much they cost.
Football has always been full of big-money flops. I don't think Grealish is anywhere near the worst of these, and in many ways, no matter how good he was, it would be difficult to be 'value for money' for such a big fee.
As a side-note, perhaps the whole issue of transfer fees needs to be looked at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I disagree with this.
As an attacking player in that City team, you have to be poor if you aren't getting at least 10 goals and 10 assists per season.
To go even further, as a £100 million pound attacking player in that City team, you have to be seriously poor if you aren't getting at least 15 goals and 15 assists per season.
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we agree that Grealish hasn't been worth his fee, but you just feel he's been more of a flop than I have.
However, as soon as you come out with the Antony statement..................
Regardless of their fees, Grealish is way better than Antony. I would rather have Dan James than Antony if I'm honest
posted on 4/4/24
......but but but, greasy Jack still keeps ending up on the winning side !
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Pierrepoint Strangeways (U9489)
posted 5 minutes ago
Antony would easily get 20 goals and assists for City every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a bit late for April Fools.
Page 1 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9