Billy, you've opened a dark and ominous passage through which I will not follow you. The deabte of McGrory's goal-scoring record is only in relation to Comme's assertion that the record is "not debatable". Clearly, the record is debatable. The era was a "goal scorer's era" - which inflated everyone's numbers. Rangers did not have _less_ goals than Celtic. They just had more guys scoring than Celtic
Fair points but haven't I already mentioned Patsy Gallacher and Adam McLean? Also, Jimmy Quinn had fairly similar stats to McGrory(not as good obviously) between 1900-1917. You give an alternate reality but it's based on what if... McGrory did it. End of. So much so that Herbert Chapman was willing to give him a blank cheque to sign for Arsenal at that time. These are facts, the Rangers scorers points that you mention, and I respect, are still merely what could be's. Isn't there a difference? Could this argument not be applied to many players in many countries over the last 90yrs? Good points billy. I obviously never saw McGrory play. Neither did my father but his status is almost unrivalled in Celtic history and I believe his statistics prove that in his era, he was one of the greatest goalscorers alive.
Getting away from McGrory then for a second - my Hapgood pick surely deserves considerably more recognition then, in this respect about goals being easier to come by? Hapgood's peak years came in the 1930s. With 42 league games a season, here are how Arsenal's defensive records were for that period: 30/31: 59 goals conceeded 31/32: 48 32/33: 61* (2nd to Huddersfield, who conceeded 53) 33/34: 47 34/35: 46 35/36: 48 36/37: 49 37/38: 44 38/39: 41* (2nd to Wolves, with 39) In every season of the 1930s, bar the 32/33 & 38/39 (both of which they were second in) Arsenal led the league in defense.
See, I'm not arguing against McGrory's ability, so it doesn't matter what Chapman thinks of him, to me. I'm arguing that 1960s Hungary is less of a "goal scorer's era" than 30s Scotland. * 7 of the Top 10 scorers in Scottish history played in McGrory's era. * 1 of the Top 10 scorers in Hungarian history played in Florian Albert's era. I think this puts Albert's 245 goals in 339 games into a much better light.
Cool. So, why didn't you just play 3 CBs instead of forcing these old farts wide and hamstringing your team with basically 4 CBs and 1 CF?
Fair enough my friend. But I feel like you are arguing over McGrory's overall ability as you're suggesting that the era he performed his feats in waters down his stats. I think you've suggested that you're not convinced that he could have done better in another time frame or if he could have done better in Scotland had Rangers spread their goals around a little better over a period of 16yrs, even though I've added further Celtic goalscorers from a similar era into the mix to counter-balance your argument.
It does water down his totals. He couldn't have done that in another country. Not 1 goal/game. No chance. Both Smith and Fleming equaled McGrory's strike rate of basically 1 goal/game in Scotland during that era. Name another era in history where 3 guys scored 200+ goals at a 1:1 clip. Which makes my point, again, that you can't just point to McGrory's strike rate and say that he was better than Albert. Albert, clearly played in a tougher era for scoring goals.
But Smith and Fleming didn't equal Mcgrory's strike rate of 1 goal/game. And they didn't not equal it over the period of longevity that McGrory did it for. McGrory's wasn't 200+ goals. It was 400+ goals. Big difference.
1. Because they are fullbacks. Thought I'd go a different way since most people's focus more on the attack. 2. To cover for my resident pikey. Hardly rocket science, now is it?
But you're changing the parameters again aren't you? We're not talking 1904-40, McGrory played from 1921-37 and in that time period teams such as Motherwell and Airdrie were as good as Celtic which removes your myth of it being a two team cakewalk and, as mentioned previously, Herbert Chapman, one of the greatest managers at that time valued McGrory as one of the greatest strikers at that time. Now I mean no offence, but I'd take Chapman's opinion, a highly regarded manager at that time, over both your and my opinion of the player, and as far as I can tell, Chapman made no overtures towards any other strikers you have mentioned in your defence, regardless of the system they played in. I honestly don't know how many McGrory scored against Rangers but I will do my best to find out although I'd be highly skeptical if that was your main criteria for deciding if he was a truly top class goal scorer for his time.
I'm pretty sure I deleted my post. I'd hope you could do the same, so we don't spam the thread further. I'm sure we could both argue this point for days, but it's not meant for this thread.
Well, as fraser already said, those two guys didn't have 1.00 records. Although Fleming was probably 'close enough', wasn't Smith more like a 2 in 3 striker? Anyway, Hungary of all places did. Ferenc Deak (1944-54) had 305 in 238 (1.28 goals per game!), Puskas from 1943-56 had 357 goals in 354 games, while Gyula Zsengeller from 1935-47 had 387 in 325 games (1.19). Also 1940s Austria had Ernst Stojaspal (1943-54) who got 224 in 197 - 1.14, as well as Franz Binder (1930-49) who scored 298 in 261 - 1.14, and finally Karl Decker (1938-54), who managed 282 goals in 276.
Joke's on you, because I didn't play a striker! Ask Comme! And, yes, Schumacher does smell like strange fruit. I thought it was the gel in his curly mullet. In any event, DS has a scouser in his final team, let's discuss this.
Nah, I'm just chiming in and stoking the flames wherever necessary (ok, ok... wherever possible). Doing my best to avoid all attempts at reconciliation, to be honest.
Alright, fine. I liked your Samiter pick. In fact, I thought the spine of your team was really strong for this draft. But, I do like Papin. I think you lost points with me, b/c the FBs were too defensive. And, I didn't think Rensenbrink was good enough for this draft. All in all, I felt those things made the wide attack pretty weak and left Johnstone isolated. I lost track of where you were drafting. But, you might have hidden Materazzi inside some attacking fullbacks. But, all in all, I thought you "dressed a pig" better than most guys did. You had the potentially worst team of the draft with the sheep you received. You definitely pulled it out of the fire.
Seriously? You didn't think arguably the best player at the 78 World Cup was good enough for this draft??
Maybe I watched too much '74 and not enough '78. Maybe, I am being harsh. It's not like anyone scrambled for Kempes, Cubillas, Rossi, Dinamite, or Bettega from that Cup. Weak Cup, perhaps? You don't think the other LWs in this draft were much more accomplished than him? He was talented, but I never felt like he did enough to be considered All-time. When I was going through LWs for the draft, I think had him outside the Top 20 or close to 20.
I've always thought of it this way - he took Cruyff's position and the result in 78 for Holland was the same as in 74, and in 74 no one had to deal with the junta's antics. I'd definitely have him in the top 15, no question. If someone like Figo belongs, so does Rensenbrink.
I was always under the impression Rensenbrink was great in '74 too? It's well before my time of course, but he did displace Piet Keizer (who played with Cruyff at Ajax at the time) and was even played vs. Brazil when injured, despite having such a quality backup behind him. Also, the 1978 World Cup did have Passarella, Platini, Scirea, Lato, Rumminegge, Vogts, Zico, Rivelino, Krol, Neeskens, Maier, Kaltz, Chumpitaz - all of whom were taken in this draft. Well apart from Platini, who was in the same 'block at all costs' league as only Pele, Maradona & Cruyff. Cubillas was a major shock to not be drafted imo; the biggest along with Giggs & Matthews (off the top of my head anyway). Meanwhile Rossi & especially Kempes would not for a moment have been questioned had somebody taken them, imo. Same goes for Dalglish, Souness, Suurbier, Pirri and a couple of others who all played in the 1978 WC. So surely it couldn't have been that weak?
Idk, maybe I need to go back and watch more vids from '78. But, I always thought he was a talented but very underachieving player. For example, I have much more respect for someone like Lato (obviously, not the same position). I don't gave my lists anymore, but I think I had other players like Laudrup, Hagi, Stoichkov, Billy Liddell, Giggs, Littbarski, and John Barnes ahead of him. Some players were not necessarily LWs. Other players, were arguably not as talented.