Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ronaldo said:

I can’t be arsed debating it. I watched Shearer for 10 years here. I think Isak will be a better footballer if he isn’t already and have a better career. 

Bold prediction like 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ronaldo said:

What’s he averaging, a goal every game and a half by minutes played? And so much more to his game than that. Outrageous talent. 

 

 

Dude can dribble and does many clever things with the ball. He also can finish so yea, he's exciting to have on the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Why is that? There has always been a top division in English football. Who cares what you call it?

It’s not about what it is called tbf - it’s the chopping away of over a century of history (incl records) to make daft new ones.  Shearer is the 5th highest goal scorer in top flight history - and 2nd highest post-war (and being second to Jimmy Greaves isn’t bad).  Which is an incredible record.

 

The ‘Premier League record scorer’ thing is absolutely meaningless - it’s just when a cadre of clubs broke away administratively from the rest of the league due to pure, unadulterated greed.  It has no stock or value. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

It’s not about what it is called tbf - it’s the chopping away of over a century of history (incl records) to make daft new ones.  Shearer is the 5th highest goal scorer in top flight history - and 2nd highest post-war (and being second to Jimmy Greaves isn’t bad).  Which is an incredible record.

 

The ‘Premier League record scorer’ thing is absolutely meaningless - it’s just when a cadre of clubs broke away administratively from the rest of the league due to pure, unadulterated greed.  It has no stock or value. 

 

 

Thanks, that's what it seemed like to me but figured I was missing something in history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McDog said:

 

 

Thanks, that's what it seemed like to me but figured I was missing something in history.

It’s nowt to get too wound up about, of course :) - but it’s such an odd thing to commemorate.  Leeds’ title win in 1992 holds no less cache than Man Utd’s title win in 1993 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ronaldo said:


Isak is our best forward since Shearer just for his entire contribution, and to be honest he’s a slight improvement away from being better. Wilson our best goalscorer and out and out striker since Shearer.

 

Just a silly language question, but on Wilson, what is the difference between being a "goalscorer" and an "out and out striker"? Does the latter mean putting himself in goalscoring positions, like near post runs? Or in Saturday's example, just in the right spot when their keeper dropped the ball? If so, I agree that he excels at it.

 

I fully concur with not rating Wilson as a "forward" since he is rarely involved in build up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Why is that? There has always been a top division in English football. Who cares what you call it?

 

The record quoted uses only Premier league goals and ignores the rest of our history......including our top flight history.

 

Meaningless really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jinky said:

 

The record quoted uses only Premier league goals and ignores the rest of our history......including our top flight history.

 

Meaningless really.

Except, you could argue the ‘Premiership’ or the satellite television money attached, changed the game. In theory making it easier to markedly improve your team through the influx of foreign talent who could, in the main, earn a much better living here. So if the parameters/goal posts shift using 1992-1993 as a start for records has some validity. Plus, it is pretty much becoming synonymous for in living memory/modern times for most supporters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Except, you could argue the ‘Premiership’ or the satellite television money attached, changed the game. In theory making it easier to markedly improve your team through the influx of foreign talent who could, in the main, earn a much better living here. So if the parameters/goal posts shift using 1992-1993 as a start for records has some validity. Plus, it is pretty much becoming synonymous for in living memory/modern times for most supporters. 

 

I understand the point. The same applies to 'Post War' records I suppose.

 

Still, though it was before my time, I still think of Hughie Gallacher as our greatest ever player / goalscorer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Except, you could argue the ‘Premiership’ or the satellite television money attached, changed the game. In theory making it easier to markedly improve your team through the influx of foreign talent who could, in the main, earn a much better living here. So if the parameters/goal posts shift using 1992-1993 as a start for records has some validity. Plus, it is pretty much becoming synonymous for in living memory/modern times for most supporters. 

You could also argue the ending of the Maximum wage  changed the game. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isak has some serious individual skills, but in terms of impact there's a few players that are more important right now. Having Bruno, Botman, Gordon or Trippier (most of our offensive play goes through him) unavailable will impact us more than having to play Wilson instead of Isak in a singular game. The scary thing is that Wilson is the only striker left when Isak is out.

 

Also I know Isak did some really insane things last season, but has he really impressed all that much this season? Not that he has been getting a lot of support in every game, but still. His goal tally is good, but I'm talking about his general game.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stottie said:

 

Just a silly language question, but on Wilson, what is the difference between being a "goalscorer" and an "out and out striker"? Does the latter mean putting himself in goalscoring positions, like near post runs? Or in Saturday's example, just in the right spot when their keeper dropped the ball? If so, I agree that he excels at it.

 

I fully concur with not rating Wilson as a "forward" since he is rarely involved in build up.

 

The difference between bergkamp and Cole to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my assessment of him, he's an elite-level poacher but offers little else. He works great in our team so he's definitely a round peg in a round hole. Really happy with his form, I can never complain about any other aspects of his game as long as he's knocking them in, long may it continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do think he’ll be the hardest member of the squad to replace.  A guaranteed goal scorer, who is also ‘happy’ (well, accepting of the need) to be rotated, and isn’t on insane money.

 

Absolutely love the bloke - I’m not sure you can actually be a Geordie and not love a proper no.9. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ronaldo said:

Yeah, I agree. You need 2 top forwards to be a top team and we have that, for different reasons. His goal record for us in the league is outstanding.

Isak can play in such a way that they could play together and I'd still like one on the bench so 3 for me please 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, madras said:

Isak can play in such a way that they could play together and I'd still like one on the bench so 3 for me please 

 

The other position Isak 'can' play is where we also have Gordon and Barnes. A lot of investment to have both on the bench. Think the balance we have with Wilson and Isak for the number 9 position with the likes of Gordon and Joelinton able to step in is fine. Who do City have beyond Haaland and Alvarez for example other than 'false 9s' they bring in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I really do think he’ll be the hardest member of the squad to replace.  A guaranteed goal scorer, who is also ‘happy’ (well, accepting of the need) to be rotated, and isn’t on insane money.

 

Absolutely love the bloke - I’m not sure you can actually be a Geordie and not love a proper no.9. 

Agreed - glad it’s not me replacing him as it’ll be a hard hard job to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

The other position Isak 'can' play is where we also have Gordon and Barnes. A lot of investment to have both on the bench. Think the balance we have with Wilson and Isak for the number 9 position with the likes of Gordon and Joelinton able to step in is fine. Who do City have beyond Haaland and Alvarez for example other than 'false 9s' they bring in?

Agree with this, have seen a few people saying we need a third striker but I can’t think of another team in world football that have 3 genuinely good strikers that consistently rotate with each other . It’s just not possible. If anything we are very lucky we have two top class strikers as not many teams have that even.

 

 

Edited by Geogaddi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...