Ronaldo

Try and keep up mate, the discussion isn't at all about effectiveness, we all know who was more effective.

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball. Viduka's first touch was magnificent to the extent you cannot teach. Shearer's was very consistent to be fair but not quite in the same league imo. He seldom miscontrolled it but couldn't really manipulate the ball as well as the Duke. We all know who the better player by far was. I think Shearer had to work a lot harder to become the player he was, is all i'm saying. In a nutshell, Shearer's mentality and discipline combined with Viduka's natural talent (including size) would just about equal the man himself, almost

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? People only remember the battering ram Shearer they forget the Blackburn speedster & goals like he fired past Everton I certainly don't. He was clearly as his best at Blackburn

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. Can you elaborate? That whole natural talent thing is rubbish I think personally. Physicality and determination are as much football skills as controling the ball imo. spoken like a true African, no offense intended whatsoever

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size.

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch.

A mate of a mate is good mates (yeah, I know) with Jamie, his son. Said he used to chase them down the street every other month when returning home to find them smoking weed

Rangers Madrid Celtic Barcelona Inter Liverpool Chelsea Mackems Boro WBA Villa Leicester Leeds Charlton Huddersfield 52p returns £502 EDIT: Leeds duly ammended for tomorrow

Liverpool Chelsea Mackems Man City DRAW Bolton DRAW Wigan DRAW Man U DRAW Villa DRAW Everton DRAW my weekly pot shot, £1 returns £4,300

Robson never rated him, that's for sure. He must have been our fifth choice striker at best during Sir Bob's tenure

Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part.

Didn't Shearer praise Viduka for the exact opposite of that? I remember seeing an interview from Shearer backend of last season where Shearer had assumed Viduka had been injured because he hardly featured under Kinnear, and was just waiting for his contract to run out, then after a face-to-face with him, Viduka said he was fit and raring to go, up for the fight and Shearer was impressed with him in training. I meant as players together during Bobby's time tbh. Shearer needed legs and tenacity alongside him

Shearer and Viduka would have lasted about 6 months on account of Viduka's lack of effort, Shearer wouldn't have stood for it for a second and he had all the influence.

Chops never, ever looked like scoring though. He didn't look as inept as Shola did, but he looked much less like scoring. Didn't Chopra start less than 10 games? Shola had 10 starts before 2002 if memory serves, without looking like a goalscoring threat whatsoever

A very effective championship striker but not really up to it in the premiership. Looking back, it baffles me btw that the likes of Ramage and Shola got their first-team chance whilst Chopra was pretty much always a reserve on the fringes

next time i'll remember not to use big word like 'thwart'

Totally agree. Completely insane that some people want our strikeforce on Sunday to be him & Ranger. aye. One start between the two of them

:lol: you clearly don't. Is it so difficult to see my point here? That intelligent defending will stop Chopra from making an impact, as opposed to the pace that Simpson will provide Honestly, sober up

Chopra has proved over a long time that he is a very good championship striker. Danny Simpson has played 2 games at CB against League 1 and championship opposition. TWO games, looking completely out of his depth in one.

Chopra will anihilate Simpson man, pace is nowt to do with it. Chopra will be thwarted by intelligence Your statement makes no sense. Our defense is Premiership quality, Chopra is not, this is why we've conceded so few goals this season as most players they've come up against are not premiership quality. Simpson out of position at CB is not Premiership quality. Hence Ronaldo saying we should play Colo, why does that not make sense to you?

Chopra will anihilate Simpson man, pace is nowt to do with it. Chopra will be thwarted by intelligence Your statement makes no sense. Our defense is Premiership quality, Chopra is not, this is why we've conceded so few goals this season as most players they've come up against are not premiership quality. How on earth is the part in bold relevant? Simpson has only played CB in 2 games we conceded 3 against League 1 opposition when we had Simpson at CB. It wasn't entirely Krul's fault Coloccini has to return, is all i'm saying

Was Shearer a genius out of curiosity? He was [skirge]fkn[/skirge] fantastic at what he did, and aye he was smart but wouldn't really call him a footballing genius. Had quite a good footballing brain on him and his technique was brilliant to. Rarely did you ever see him miscontrol a ball. It's quite a common conception that Shearer's style was that of a target man. Yes it was in his later years, but before he lost his mobility he was brilliant at linking up play across the pitch. The best example of the true Shearer for me was the 5-0, he'd control a fairly loose ball, pass it 25 yards diagonally then make a soaring run into the box, absolutely undefendable at his best, comfortably in Drogba's league

Chopra will anihilate Simpson man, pace is nowt to do with it. Chopra will be thwarted by intelligence

Did you miss the Leicester game? He did ok. It's still blatantly obvious that he isn't a CB, not even in this league