Niang had the same type of game you criticize Bonaventura about. He scored but had a shit game. Now if you're going to tell me he had a good game then that's blind fanboyism; the same one you accuse those Bonaventura fanboys of.
did i say he had a good game? did you read the first line of my post? I said Niang on the ball was quite bad yesterday... but off the ball he was amazing. But who here rates off the ball movements? Definitely not you and definitely not Gazzetta, nor whoscored nor any of these websites who people use like a bible to refer to to just prove a player had a good game (#necrotactics).
you're right, Niang had a performance very similar to Jacks bad games but he still won a penalty and scored one, still got in plenty of good positions to score, played in three different positions in the same game.... What did Jack do yesterday? He was awful, atrocious actually. Didn't do anything positive for his team the whole match.. his team mates put him in the right positions on a couple of occasions and he just wasted the attack like he usually does. And the sad thing is, Jack has been consistently shit for 1 full year now, even when the goals+assists where coming in for him this time last year. The game is played over 95 minutes and not just incidents which you take out of context.
And that's the difference between Niang and Bonaventura. Niang makes the team a whole lot better even when's bad... Jack just suffocates the teams creativity because he's selfish. He could not create anything for our other players and even when is in a good position to assist, he always choses to dribble and shoot and he has never had a dangerous shot on target from open play in the last year. His shots are all either off-target or straight at the keeper. But yet, you rate Jack a whole lot higher than Niang who already is a better player than Bonaventura ever was and he's 5 years younger.....
Last edited: