I think most people do. The main criticism of him as far as I can see is that he doesn't do enough to influence the game - he has too few touches and 'hides' from the ball - which suggests that people don't really dispute that he doesn't receive a lot of passes.
I think there's some truth in it personally. Sometimes I think he needs to demand the ball more, and drop into areas where he can influence the game. The amount of ground covered doesn't really address whether he's doing that or not. One of the main criticisms of the team so far has been that we don't play any through balls for the strikers. Most people would think Sigurdsson was the best option to do this, so why isn't he? It may well be tactical to a point, but when you're losing with ten minutes to go do you think a top quality player just carries on doing exactly what their manager told them to do with no deviation whatsoever, or takes a bit of initiative and says i'll sort this out? I would like to see him get on the ball in those situations and try to create things, but he seems to carry on playing the same way, so even if he is playing to instruction, he's still taking the easy option of hiding behind the managers plan rather than doing what it takes to win the game.
