Interesting. So you use Anderson as an example of a player who is three times as good as Garner and then use Garners goals and assists to crap on him despite Garner having more goals and assists in the league combined this season.
I thought Anderson has three goals in the league this season (he does). And in general he is far, far more involved in the final third than Garner. Even the most biased of Blues would agree with that. He's much more of an all-rounder, whereas Garner is a hard-working number six who occasionally forays forwards to little success.
He has 3 goals and 2 assists = 5.
The way assists are handed out nowadays I don't pay attention to them. Let's be honest, unless it's a killer pass (like Garner's earlier on in the season) or a tidy layoff or great cross, they really shouldn't count as assists.
Elliot Anderson > James Garner by a lot.
Forest are crap and Anderson is one of their standout players.
This is the same Nottingham Forest that have a genuine chance of playing in the Champions League next season, by the way.
We shouldn't be using Europe as a benchmark. Spurs finished 4th in the Champions League table. They are complete rubbish. It's quite clear that even the worst Prem teams are better than the majority of Europe because of the immense financial disparity.
They're obviously not rubbish; they've just had the most horrific list of injuries for over two consecutive years. I guarantee if they stay up, they get 25+ points more next season and obviously finish above Everton.
I still think Anderson is the better player though. Garner is playing in a better team. I like Garner but Anderson is braver on the ball and much progressive in his passing. Which is why he'll start for England. I actually think Anderson is a better play than Rice who is Jordan Henderson with Ronaldo's PR team.
