Best Striker in Europe?

[AnfieldEd]

I think Dzeko is quality but because he is not main stream i.e. not in biggest 3 leagues in europe he doesn't get the attention that is warranted.

 

[Trequartista]

I think Dzeko is quality but because he is not main stream i.e. not in biggest 3 leagues in europe he doesn't get the attention that is warranted.

yeah but Anelka getting one vote,same with Raul and Noone mentioning Dzeko,IMo he is one of the best 5 all around attackers in the world

 

[MoFroBo]

Because this poll is obv. is more likely "who you like more"

 

[Interista]

Both Drogs and Villa 've a well-rounded game. They are not about goalscoring alone.

And although you've a compelling argument in Zlatan's favour, the fact that his heading(an imp component of a striker) is below par standards and his underwhelming showing in Europe has it going against him.

I know, but I'm saying Villa and Drogs are also top when it comes to pure goalscoring.

As for the arguments against him: I can agree he needs that Cl tournament performance to put the final nail in the coffin, but plenty of legends never won the CL. As for the heading argument, I can't really agree because every striker has his strengths and weaknesses. One could argue a strikers key component is to withstand challenges and hold up the ball. Drogba could do that easily, but Villa or Eto'o? There's many arguments one could make. Fact still remains, whatever negatives Ibra may have, for a team that can't roll the ball around like Barcelona, he's invaluable.

Also you can't just look at ability. Titles are also important, or achievements, like for instance Maradona taking Napoli to semifinals in the Europa Cup. Like, why is Mourinho the best manager? Because he wins titles wherever he goes.

Example: let's say you have a striker, let's call him DeNiro , that scores 35 goals a season. He gets injured and you loan a younger striker from a another team. Let's call him Pacino .

Pacino stays for 1 season and scores 20 goals a season but provides anough assists, and always seems to score when the team needs it so that they end up winning the league. At the end of the season Pacino goes back to his old club, as Deniro is back from injury. Following season DeNiro is again back to scoing 35 goals a season and Pacino is at his usual pace scoring 20, but Pacino again wins the league. Following season, same thing. Deniro wins scoring titles, Pacino wins the league.

Season after that Pacino is unhappy with his contract at his club and demands a transfer, at the same time DeNiro has fallen out with the coach at his club and an amazing player swap takes place. What happens? Pacino wins the league again, DeNiro wins scoring titles. Next season same thing.

Now, Marlon Brando has come back from the dead reincarnated as Satan and he dooms the World, and it will soon be coming to an end, so it's time to sum up the two players careers.

Now, both players were always the best players at their club, and basically carried their respective team, as the other players weren't at all on their level. Experts agree on this.

So, Pacino scored a grand total of 100 goals in his career, about 50 assists and always seemed to put in a goal or assists when it was needed. He won the title 5 times.

DeNiro on the other hand scored a total of 175 goals with 25 assists. He won 5 scoring titles, but never won the league title.

I think we can agree that football is about winning, and you win by scoing more goals than the opponent. So is Pacino just lucky to have stepped up consistently when it was needed, or does he have a winning mentality that DeNiro doesn't quite have?

In any case, Brando's pissed off because he could of been a contender, so the World is coming to an end shortly and you would have to concede that if one player always wins over the other in a 38 match season, where luck is minimilized, that he's the better player, even if Deniro won the majority of the direct encounters(big matches) between them.

History remembers great players, but more then that, it remembers winners.

Anyways, that's the way I look at it. Sorry for the long ass post. Hope you got through it.

 

[Povikas]

man you should write a saga

(add personal life in aswell, some guy named Pesci as an agent etc etc)

 

[Jordzibob]

I know, but I'm saying Villa and Drogs are also top when it comes to pure goalscoring.

As for the arguments against him: I can agree he needs that Cl tournament performance to put the final nail in the coffin, but plenty of legends never won the CL. As for the heading argument, I can't really agree because every striker has his strengths and weaknesses. One could argue a strikers key component is to withstand challenges and hold up the ball. Drogba could do that easily, but Villa or Eto'o? There's many arguments one could make. Fact still remains, whatever negatives Ibra may have, for a team that can't roll the ball around like Barcelona, he's invaluable.

Also you can't just look at ability. Titles are also important, or achievements, like for instance Maradona taking Napoli to semifinals in the Europa Cup. Like, why is Mourinho the best manager? Because he wins titles wherever he goes.

Example: let's say you have a striker, let's call him DeNiro , that scores 35 goals a season. He gets injured and you loan a younger striker from a another team. Let's call him Pacino .

Pacino stays for 1 season and scores 20 goals a season but provides anough assists, and always seems to score when the team needs it so that they end up winning the league. At the end of the season Pacino goes back to his old club, as Deniro is back from injury. Following season DeNiro is again back to scoing 35 goals a season and Pacino is at his usual pace scoring 20, but Pacino again wins the league. Following season, same thing. Deniro wins scoring titles, Pacino wins the league.

Season after that Pacino is unhappy with his contract at his club and demands a transfer, at the same time DeNiro has fallen out with the coach at his club and an amazing player swap takes place. What happens? Pacino wins the league again, DeNiro wins scoring titles. Next season same thing.

Now, Marlon Brando has come back from the dead reincarnated as Satan and he dooms the World, and it will soon be coming to an end, so it's time to sum up the two players careers.

Now, both players were always the best players at their club, and basically carried their respective team, as the other players weren't at all on their level. Experts agree on this.

So, Pacino scored a grand total of 100 goals in his career, about 50 assists and always seemed to put in a goal or assists when it was needed. He won the title 5 times.

DeNiro on the other hand scored a total of 175 goals with 25 assists. He won 5 scoring titles, but never won the league title.

I think we can agree that football is about winning, and you win by scoing more goals than the opponent. So is Pacino just lucky to have stepped up consistently when it was needed, or does he have a winning mentality that DeNiro doesn't quite have?

In any case, Brando's pissed off because he could of been a contender, so the World is coming to an end shortly and you would have to concede that if one player always wins over the other in a 38 match season, where luck is minimilized, that he's the better player, even if Deniro won the majority of the direct encounters(big matches) between them.

History remembers great players, but more then that, it remembers winners.

Anyways, that's the way I look at it. Sorry for the long ass post. Hope you got through it.

That is epic.

 

[Interista]

man you should write a saga

(add personal life in aswell, some guy named Pesci as an agent etc etc)

Good idea!

 

[Jordzibob]

Already been done, and acted out, . By one Alessandro Zarelli. Anyone see the tv show on that guy? what a douchebag

 

[Metaphysical]

Drogba and Villa play better in team environments, Zlatan doesn't play well with others.

ergo: Drogba and Villa > Zlatan

(but Zlatan is still very good)

 

[Interista]

In my opinion you can't say one player is better than the other because one moves better in a team. It would be like saying Cruyff fit in a team better than Maradona who needed the free role, ergo Cruyff > Maradona.

Also one has to take into account what kind of team it is. For instance Messi is a God in Barcelona but just a good player in the NT where he doesn't have the same supporting cast. Maradona on the other hand was a God in the NT exactly because he was so individualistic. In one team one quality may be crucial, but in another it might not make much of a difference, and vice versa. In fact, the general consensus is that the more a player manages by himself, the greater he is. This is why Maradona's exploits at Napoli and Wc86 is held in such high regard.

Anyways, I bothered you people enough in this thread. I'm out!

 

[dalitis8]

Drogba and Villa play better in team environments, Zlatan doesn't play well with others.

ergo: Drogba and Villa > Zlatan

(but Zlatan is still very good)

Agreed. Except the Zlatan good part.

In my opinion you can't say one player is better than the other because one moves better in a team. It would be like saying Cruyff fit in a team better than Maradona who needed the free role, ergo Cruyff > Maradona.

Also one has to take into account what kind of team it is. For instance Messi is a God in Barcelona but just a good player in the NT where he doesn't have the same supporting cast. Maradona on the other hand was a God in the NT exactly because he was so individualistic. In one team one quality may be crucial, but in another it might not make much of a difference, and vice versa. In fact, the general consensus is that the more a player manages by himself, the greater he is. This is why Maradona's exploits at Napoli and Wc86 is held in such high regard.

Anyways, I bothered you people enough in this thread. I'm out!

Messi's failure with Argentina is the exact opposite, namely the failure of Argentina with Messi. It just goes on to show what a horrible team they have been under Maradonna.

It is quite funny, we get people often say that Barca are a one-man-team, then we get the mostly the same people say that Messi is not so good at NT level because he really is not that great himself, and that is it Xaviesta that make him good.

These people have to choose.

 

[silky_soccer]

Eto'o, by some margin atm aswell.

 

[dalitis8]

Fact of the matter there are quite a few good strikers out there.

Villa, Drogba, Torres(when Fit), Aguero, Forlan, Higuain, Rooney(if he gets serious), Llorrente(recently), and even lame ass Ibra to name but a few.

Course Eto'o is one of THE main contenders.Never should have kicked him out.

I think Dzeko is quality but because he is not main stream i.e. not in biggest 3 leagues in europe he doesn't get the attention that is warranted.

Bundesliga may as well end up the number 2 league by next season(in UEFA rankings)

 

[barcetia]

Villa, Drogba, Rooney, Higuain, Llorente, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic, Tevéz are each on the best striker on the planet on their day.

 

[dalitis8]

History remembers great players, but more then that, it remembers winners.

History(if it is serious)remembers great players, Greatness is not purely about statistics or titles. It is all that of course, but much more as well.