Comments on: Scott Sinclair’s move to Manchester City could damage his football career

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:49 +0000

It won’t work out. Sinclair had a good home at Swansea, an important spot in a team clearly going places. It’s sad that he’s given into the financial lure of City and the demands of his WAG other half rather than wanted to progress his football career. Can’t blame him really but nobody’s treating this as a good move for his career and nobody should be surprised if we hear much less from him in the next couple of seasons.

By: charlie jax

charlie jax — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:32:12 +0000

im sorry but do even watch football or have any decent knowledge of the game scot sinclair did not come to swansea on a free the fee was half a million and another half million when we got promoted to the premiership,the only thing you have right in this article is a move to man city would ruin his career yes it would simply because he is not good enough the sooner he leaves the better scot plays when he wants to when he is in the mood or when his mrs wants to move back to manchester if it was up to me i would pay both their train fares to manchester but only one way good riddance thats what i say from a life long swans season ticket holder ta ra scot

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:29:55 +0000

While it is true that city has done Hart well, to compare Barry Milner and Lescott, who all moved to city after being well established stars in the premier league for a few seasons with Scott Sinclair is ridiculous.

Barry at the time had just been courted unsuccessfully by Liverpool and joined City when he was 28. Lescott joined at the age of 27.

Milner, after being Aston Villa’s player of the year, starring in a central playmaking role never really played the role for city consistently, shunted to the right wing, where he was dropped after failing to impress, and used as a utility player all round, even at right back.

This article is hardly city bashing, but is mainly pointing out the danger of a young player, moving to a top club, where expectations are a lot higher. You can expect that even if Sinclair has the chance to become a top level player, if he cannot perform at that level immediately, he will find his gametime restricted as Johnson has.

Johnson may be inconsistent and have an attitude problem, but inconsistency and mentality can change as a player grows older and plays more.

By: Win Soon

Win Soon — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:03:50 +0000

There is no one to blame for Johnson’s loss. The winger was frustrating at times and in sinclair Mancini has found some one else who can surpass what Johnson has achieved. Furthermore, City seem to be without out and out wingers and he can offer a new dimension to the attack. I expect him to be used more frequently as a game changer rather than a bench warmer

By: Bob the Baker

Bob the Baker — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:39:10 +0000

City have hardly been a bad move for Hart,Barry,Milner,Lescott & Richards. These have thrived under Mancini, instead of City bashing, why not ask yourselves why Johnno has left.

Mancini has given Johnson many last chances. He is a great player at times,but tends to go missing during matches. Also,it is heavily rumoured that his social life has a detrimental effect on his performances.

By: J.M

J.M — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:52:22 +0000

City were hardly detrimental to Johnsons career. He was a decent young player going nowhere with nobody willing to take a risk on him. He joined City and now he’s had England caps and goals and a glowing reputation. The only reason he didn’t play more at City is because he doesn’t listen to instructions and doesn’t work hard enough for a top team.

By: Wayne Rugney

Wayne Rugney — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:45:22 +0000

This laughable article is utter piffle. The person who did most to damage Adam Johnsons career was the man himself. He was given lenty chances to shine but having the ability is not enough without the application. Maybe if he spent less time in bars he might reach his potential.