Probably just overhyped and overrated.
I've never seen him play but when you're supposedly the best player in a team and they finish sixth with you, but jump to second after you leave, then you're probably not all that valuable to a team
Probably giving myself away as a nerd here but there was an interesting article in the New Scientist about this recently. It's long and waffly but I pasted the start of it below.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-best-to-make-things-better.html#.UyJPDfl_uSo
42nd St paradox: Cull the best to make things better
Bench your best player to win the series. Close roads to get everyone home faster. Can we harness the power of Braess's paradox?
IT IS the second game of the 1999 US National Basketball Association play-offs – the New York Knicks vs the Indiana Pacers. The eighth-seeded Knicks are holding their own against the number 2 seeds when their best player, Patrick Ewing, tears his Achilles tendon. All seems lost with the Pacers heavily favoured for the rest of the series. Yet against all odds, the Knicks go on to win the series 4-2 and qualify for the finals.
The Knicks's success against the Pacers was so unexpected that the story behind it has since become a legend, even gaining its own name. The so-called "Ewing effect" has been evoked by pundits to explain sporting victories in which an underdog inexplicably triumphs.
The question is why. Surely science has little to say about such tales. After all, it's only to be expected that occasionally the underdogs should win, through simple luck. Or perhaps there are psychological factors that strengthen the resolve of teammates who have lost a colleague or that weaken the determination of the opposition, who expect to triumph easily.
But there may be more to it. According to the emerging science of networks, there are good reasons why some systems perform better in seemingly disadvantageous conditions. It's just a natural property of certain kinds of networks, albeit a paradoxical one.
Could this explain why teams suddenly missing their best players somehow do better?
It's an intriguing idea and one that could have broad implications. Since our world is increasingly tied together with complex networks, physicists are using the same network-style approach to make all kinds of similarly counter-intuitive predictions about other systems. Their studies show that everything from road, power and
wireless networks to food webs and the metabolic systems behind disease demonstrate similar properties. Theorists say that if we're careful, it may be possible to exploit these properties to reduce traffic jams, prevent power outages and even fight disease in new ways.
There's 3 pages of scientific analysis on this and they admit it's a bit speculative but I find it interesting that the phemonenon has a name. I'd probably summarise it by saying it tries to prove that if you take away your most obvious form of attack the defence doesn't know what to expect.
It could explain why Sturridge can't stop scoring whilst Suarez is on a lean spell.
