just looked it up there. he got 8 league goals his 1st year. second year he got 2. 3rd year got 1. 4th year he got 3. he wasnīt brought in as a goal scorer so he shouldnīt be judged on his goals anyway.
just to clarify my point. he was brought in for astronomical money (in everton terms) and didnīt live up to that tag for years. i actually couldnīt believe we payed so much money for him because he really didnīt look a 16 million pound player until a few years after he signed. maybe most of you will disagree with that but i distinctly remember every evertonian i spoke to at the time being disappointed in him, mostly because they were disappointed due to there espectation of what they thought we were buying with what was an absolute fortune at the time. i was merely pointing out the comparison of the hype compared to the reality. i think we all got a bit carried away with hype with felli ( well me anyway) as we did with sandro.
to put in simply, some players do live up to the hype ...after they settle. we should give sandro every opportunity. he might just surprise us.
Yeah, I think this is a revisionist history. His first year, his overall play was a bit disappointing, but he chipped in with a lot of goals, and I think most people were feeling okay about his performances. He then started playing in a much deeper midfield position, sometimes as a DM, were he excelled at times. Around the time he did his famous Maradona against City, he was getting rave reviews. Then, of course, his last season for us, we pushed him forward again (in part, I personally believe, b/c he was no longer as effective as a DM), and he scored a ton of goals. I never thought of him as a disappointment. And he was certainly never as ineffectual as Sandro has been. Not really comparable in my mind.
Topic: What is Sandro? (Read 18110 times)
