1.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 06:15:02
Well said.

2.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 07:00:57
Come on.

3.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 07:54:49
The difference, which isn't necessarily Sturridge's fault at all, is expectation management. Flan had a massive injury that we knew would keep him out for ages. People get frustrated with Sturridge cause he keeps being 'almost' back and then is absent for another month. Also we've (arguably) missed Sturridge more than we've missed Flanagan. But you're right - the reality is very little is different aside from media scavanging.

4.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 07:36:46
The Scouse Cafu is not injured every 5 minutes!

5.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 07:41:15
Flanagan is a Scouser while Sturridge was bought from another club.

6.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 07:30:31
I think the difference would be, flannagan has had one major injury that kept him out a long time, Sturridge doesn't even need to play a game to get injured again and so people are questioning the severity of his injuries as it seems every time he moves something happens to him.

Hardly rocket science is it?

7.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 08:38:04
Based on Klopp's comments and what certain ex players have said about him. You get the feeling Sturridge's injuries aren't as severe as he probably makes out. I personally have doubts over his mental fortitude to play through any pain.

8.) 05 Feb 2016
05 Feb 2016 06:11:06
The difference is the players both are. One is a striker which we desperately need as we score nothing these days while RB isn't a big priority.
We are solely depended on Sturridge.