State of some of the replies to matts article, the cult of siggy is a strange one, you'd think he was debruyne the way they go on.
I said as much to Mike yesterday.
He's obviously a decent player who hasn't played up to the standards that have been created for him - standards that had no reason being raised so high considering he'd only played well for Swansea and they'd been in trouble for some time.
But the article nails it, as much as people don't want to hear it.
He does operate too much on the peripheral as if he's shying away from being the main man in the middle. But then everyone then says he's the main man in the middle and it makes no sense. Are we, his detractors, watching a different game to his big fans? It seems so.
His really decent performance against Southampton came because he couldn't play to the side as Walcott and Richarlison were there. Then he had a sound game away at Bournemouth but he didn't influence in the middle once Rich was sent off. He wasn't up to snuff against Huddersfield. If he can't perform without the wingers, that's a problem. And now looking at it properly and sensibly, that seems to be the reason from him being so underwhelming last season too.
It's obviously best for us if he performs well but he'll be pushed by Bernard and even Gomes - giving Silva the option to bail a 10 and play a flat 3 behind the front line - and I can't see that competition being a bad thing at all even if, again, people don't want to hear that his place could be at risk going forward.