Best Striker in the World now

[broomtree]

hmm the world's best striker... i say put kobe bryant in a pair of cleats and you have your best striker

plus check out this sick goal:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yu08_9FtfuE

[Iaquinta]

In no order

Totti
Ibrahimovic
Trezeguet
Drogba
Klose
Toni
Van Nistelrooy
Torres
Rooney

[broomtree]

In no order

Totti
Ibrahimovic
Trezeguet
Drogba
Klose
Toni
Van Nistelrooy
Torres
Rooney

come on now, richard hamilton would make a great striker

[Glavisted Big Soccer]

Yet you included the likes of Messi in your list...
Obviously, for me Messi is a striker.

[SirManchester]

So you would agree with me in thinking Rooney should probably not be considered.

No, whatever gives you that impression? He's been one of the best performing strikers in European football this season. I think he merits a position on the list.

[thejuggernaut]

ehh...not really. One can argue for either case. In my opinion, I'll always give Totti an edge because he's not surrounded by the superstars other players have available.

That gives me the impression.

[thejuggernaut]

come on now, richard hamilton would make a great striker

Duane Wade would be my pick.

[SirManchester]

That gives me the impression.

That's in comparison to Messi. I'm not saying he should be excluded either, despite being on a better team [Messi].

[marrypirlo]

I say Ibara(man he looks like something the russians built in cold war, the soccer machine)
and even though he is a person I cannot stand
Trezeguet(can anyone confirm that france really left him off the national team roster?)
of course Luca Toni

ps I agree, Totti doesn't really play as a striker at Roma maybe a little more advanced when he plays for italy(or used to play shall I say)

[johan neeskens]

Can someone explain to me how strikes like Tony, Klose and Altintop are better than Ruud van Nistelrooy.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

No idea.

WTF!! Three Seasons! 100 goals!... Teso Logic: Nelson Mandela would have been a great leader if he wasn't a political prisoner all those years.

I see you have failed to grasp my point, as usual. I was not referring to his time at Chelsea but his entire club career, during which he has yet to score 100 league goals. Hardly the record of one of the best strikers in the world, let alone the best as some have laughably claimed in this thread.

How can that possibly be the case? That's an absurd position to hold on any player. How can you fail to re-evaluate a player when he improves and has a career season? If this is your way of judging players, by having an opinion on them that doesn't change despite an elevation in their performances, well, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I would think that the vast majority of football fans would have had their opinions about Drogba altered after last season and the beginning of this one, so for you to claim otherwise highlights what is IMO an extremely flawed way of judging players.

Drogba has had two good seasons in his career. The first was at Marseille and the second was last season. The period inbetween was a disappointment. My opinion of him was based on that peak season at Marseille and while he has managed to discover that form again he has not improved and therefore has not forced me to rethink my opinion of him. Drogba at his very best is simply not clinical enough to be mentioned amongst the very best strikers currently playing and you cannot include him based on form either because he only has last season to go on. Remember that I was not questioning his inclusion in the top 10 because everyone has a different opinion (regardless of its accuracy) but I was questioning the poster who laughably claimed that he was the best in the world.

Do you still hold the same opinion about C. Ronaldo that you did before last season? Kaka? Essien? Scholes? Giggs? Or is this a standard you only apply to players you dislike?

See above.

And the idea of excluding him from the discussion on the basis of him not being clinical enough to be one of the best strikers in the world is flawed as well, because it fails to take into account the fact that his physical and technical ability help him to create more chances for himself and for teammates than someone who may be more clinical but doesn't work as hard for the team or have the same physical presence. I could turn around and say I don't consider Van Nistelrooy strong enough in the air to be the best striker, but that of course would simply be a way of highlighting his weaknesses without taking into account the fact that his strengths far outweigh them, which is what you've done with Drogba.

The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. That is it. Drogba fails in comparison to his rivals in that regard. Anything else is simply an added bonus but not does outweigh the former in terms of importance. If you wish to discuss assists then feel free but Drogba only had 4 league assists last season. There is a considerable list of strikers who either matched or assisted more and that is just in England. When you consider his supporting cast then claiming that he makes up for a lack of scoring with assists really does not help his cause. For Chelsea his best scoring season was coupled with a poor assist figure and his best assist season was coupled with a poor scoring figure. Drogba is a good striker if used in a certain way but he simply does not score enough to be considered with the best and he brings nothing else to the table to make up for that weakness.

As for Drogba not having 100 goals, that's a fair point, although the fact that he was a late starter in terms of his professional career and that he started in defence may explain that somewhat. But this isn't, to my knowledge, a discussion of where he will fall in terms of all time greats. It's about currently, what 10 strikers are the best in the world, and considering his domestic and European goalscoring form over the past 16 months, I would think that he certainly deserves higher than the latter 2 spots on the list.

Drogba was not that late a starter in terms of appearances at first team level and his appearances in defense was minimal. As I said previously, if you wish to include him higher in your list then feel free but you will not be doing so on the basis of his record in comparison to others.

I would also say that given the context of Chelsea's season last term, that his goal output was in fact very impressive, especially considering the importance of some of the goals.

I disagree. It was good but what he was expected to do all along. He deserves praise for stopping his spell of underachievement but that is it. Last season was not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination.

An excellent post aside from this. It's NOT a fair point. Teso frames arguments to his convoluted logic. He picks out criteria that doesn't answer the question to promote his views and then belittles people who fail to understand the (in)significance. If someone says who the best car salesman at their dealership, they're not making this assesment based on when they were a detailer. And most likely wont discriminate due to age. If drogba stayed in France and did score 100 goals, he still wouldn't be in anybody's Top Ten (aside from Juninho and dead ball kicks no one in the french league is ever considered the best at anything), fine... while in France he wasn't very prolific in terms of goals but really how may F'n goals did Henry have before he joined Arsenal. It's very simple debate but leave it to know it all's to put their Fox News-esque spin and bastardize the debate to the point that you don't even know what's being discussed.

More rubbish but sadly we have come to expect that from you. Drogba is currently 29 years old and will be 30 years old this season. This is his 11th season of club football and he has not scored 100 league goals yet. That is not the record of one of the best strikers in the world. A point even schafer agrees with. It also highlights that while Drogba has had a few good season, overall his career has not matched the hype he has received.

Obviously, for me Messi is a striker.

Obviously you know little about football, as Messi is clearly not a striker and therefore does not merit inclusion in any of these lists.

[KumarsS]

Can someone explain to me how strikes like Tony, Klose and Altintop are better than Ruud van Nistelrooy.

Nobody said Altintop is better than Van Nistelrooy. And if they did, they're crazy.

[jcsd]

I think little Mikey Owen desrves a mention, when he's out of his oxygen tent for long enough, he's still the best out-and-out striker in the Premiership.

[schafer]

Drogba has had two good seasons in his career. The first was at Marseille and the second was last season. The period inbetween was a disappointment. My opinion of him was based on that peak season at Marseille and while he has managed to discover that form again he has not improved and therefore has not forced me to rethink my opinion of him. Drogba at his very best is simply not clinical enough to be mentioned amongst the very best strikers currently playing and you cannot include him based on form either because he only has last season to go on. Remember that I was not questioning his inclusion in the top 10 because everyone has a different opinion (regardless of its accuracy) but I was questioning the poster who laughably claimed that he was the best in the world.

You were, however, questioning his placement above the 9th or 10th best in the world, and claiming that his last season was 'hyped beyond belief', a charge that you seem to arbitrarily level against any player whom you dislike, whilst United players seem curiously excluded from this accusation.

His highest goal tally domestically in France was 19 goals. His highest in the Prem, a tougher league, was 20. And he rose to the challenge of playing for a club with higher expectations. I would consider that an improvement. And 42 league goals in 3 seasons for Chelsea is hardly poor, considering 2 of those seasons he was played as a lone striker under a notoriously pragmatic manager who was a master of 1-0 wins.

The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. That is it. Drogba fails in comparison to his rivals in that regard. Anything else is simply an added bonus but not does outweigh the former in terms of importance. If you wish to discuss assists then feel free but Drogba only had 4 league assists last season. There is a considerable list of strikers who either matched or assisted more and that is just in England. When you consider his supporting cast then claiming that he makes up for a lack of scoring with assists really does not help his cause. For Chelsea his best scoring season was coupled with a poor assist figure and his best assist season was coupled with a poor scoring figure. Drogba is a good striker if used in a certain way but he simply does not score enough to be considered with the best and he brings nothing else to the table to make up for that weakness.

Nothing else? How about an unrivalled physical presence amongst strikers on the continent? How about his incredible aerial prowess? His excellent hold-up play? His defending on set pieces? Drogba's skillset has been a key for 2 domestic championships, several domestic cups and 2 CL semi-finals. How can you describe that as 'nothing'?

And if strikers were judged solely on goal output and 'clinicality', how did the more clinical Van Nistelrooy find himself on the fringes at United? As has been discussed at length on the United forums, Saha brought pace, power and movement that was vital to the way SAF wanted United to play. So that would seem to be evidence that goal output is not the end all and be all of strikers, and anyone who watches Chelsea would know that over the past 3 seasons, it seems very unlikely that any striker could have had as much impact for this Chelsea team than Drogba, regardless of whether or not they themselves would've scored more goals.

Most strikers are only good in certain systems, which is why Sheva has failed thus far at the Bridge, why Henry has never reproduced his club form for country, why Rooney failed to score a competitive goal for England for 2 years, etc. To level that accusation at Drogba is extremely selective, as I would guess that most of the other strikers on the list, if asked to play Drogba's role, would fail miserably. It's not even backed up by evidence in any case, as he has excelled for Marseille, Guingamp, Chelsea and Cote D'Ivoire.

Drogba was not that late a starter in terms of appearances at first team level and his appearances in defense was minimal. As I said previously, if you wish to include him higher in your list then feel free but you will not be doing so on the basis of his record in comparison to others.


I disagree. It was good but what he was expected to do all along. He deserves praise for stopping his spell of underachievement but that is it. Last season was not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination.

Except that, it was. Surely you watched Chelsea last season, no? And saw the painful lack of width, the defensive frailty in the absence of John Terry, the clogged midfield 'diamond' which stifled every one of its members, a misfiring Shevchenko, and the absence of J. Cole and Robben for large parts of the season through injury? And yet Drogba still managed to lead the league in scoring, notch up 6 CL goals, and score 3 goals in 2 cup finals, the only Chelsea player to score in either final. How is that not an excellent season? He scored 1/3 of Chelsea's league goals, ffs.



More rubbish but sadly we have come to expect that from you. Drogba is currently 29 years old and will be 30 years old this season. This is his 11th season of club football and he has not scored 100 league goals yet. That is not the record of one of the best strikers in the world. A point even schafer agrees with. It also highlights that while Drogba has had a few good season, overall his career has not matched the hype he has received.
.

I agree in the sense that it may affect his judgement in history, but really doesn't have much bearing on his current place amongst the best strikers in the world, which is (or should be) judged on current form over the past few seasons and the beginning of this one, otherwise the exclusion of Raul from so many of these lists would be shocking.

[Hatter4]

Yer kidding me, henry all the way, he got the skill, style speed, and definition, the perfect striker

[Glavisted Big Soccer]

Obviously you know little about football, as Messi is clearly not a striker and therefore does not merit inclusion in any of these lists.
So, Messi is clearly not a striker, isn't? :D, he's obviously a striker and could be called as a winger or attacking midfielder for people with other point of view surely, but "clearly not a striker" sound as a joke for one who knows more than a little about football :D.

[thejuggernaut]

The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals.

This is why this debate has hit such a sh*thole. This is what we all should be using as the foundation for logic. Teso, like President Bush, can simplfy things for all of us. Rather then discuss nuances that most of think are valuable to any player (Holding the ball up, creativity, power, endurance, lack of injuries and the 8 million other things that made the great fowards of the past legend.) He makes a vague and unagreed upon statement, then uses his plethora of nerd stats to prove his point, guys like Teso will go back 4-5 years to give you remarkably insignificant tidbits to prove who is good NOW!.... Today!.... This Minute. (Gary Neville > Micah Richards) But basically the flaw in this specific sentence is simple The best strikers are not just goal poachers, they don't just have great goal tallys. Under these guidelines had Drogba taken Penalties instead of Lampard, all those times over the past two seasons, he would have easily been the best foward in the EPL and perhaps the world. Because of f*ckin penalties! It would have easily added to his final goal numbers, perhaps put him over the pointless mendoza line of 100 goals for a lifetime, and then be considered one of most valuable player up front for the time being. You could also make an argument for freekicks as well, nowhere in the great striker handbook (they sell it Barnes and Noble) does it say you have to take freekicks and pens, why? because Midfielders and even Defenders have the propensity to be just as good. So without laboring the point any longer I, just gave to you the fundemental reason why Leso is 100% wrong... The FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF A STRIKER IS NOT JUST TO SCORE GOALS The fundamental goal for any player, at any position, is to facilitate winning football and crap numbers from France... 6 years ago having no bearing on this pos or neg.... So there you go ....Now He'll say I'm an Idiot and my words are rubbish and we can all move on.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

You were, however, questioning his placement above the 9th or 10th best in the world, and claiming that his last season was 'hyped beyond belief', a charge that you seem to arbitrarily level against any player whom you dislike, whilst United players seem curiously excluded from this accusation.

I don't see how anyone with any knowledge of the game could not question his placement above those position. On the basis of last season there were claims that he was the best striker in the world and a shoo-in for the numerous player of the year awards. A season when he only managed 20 league goals, the lowest 'golden boot' total in 9 years. With the media as it is there is a great deal of over/underrating of players. All I do is point out what I disagree with. There is nothing stopping you from doing likewise. If you want to a discussion exclusively about Man Utd players then feel free to send me a PM or start a thread on our board.

His highest goal tally domestically in France was 19 goals. His highest in the Prem, a tougher league, was 20. And he rose to the challenge of playing for a club with higher expectations. I would consider that an improvement. And 42 league goals in 3 seasons for Chelsea is hardly poor, considering 2 of those seasons he was played as a lone striker under a notoriously pragmatic manager who was a master of 1-0 wins.

Contrast his form in that last season at Marseille with his three years at Chelsea. The first two were a disappointment and the last one was him finally regaining his form. There was no overall improvement. In his best ever season he only managed 20 league goals, despite having a far superior supporting cast. Is that really the record of the best striker in the world? Remember that was the point I intially disputed, not his inclusion in a top 10 list. As for his record at Chelsea, when you contrast that to other strikers playing outside the top four in England then it does not look very impressive at all. Let alone when you contrast it to the best the world has to offer.

Nothing else? How about an unrivalled physical presence amongst strikers on the continent? How about his incredible aerial prowess? His excellent hold-up play? His defending on set pieces? Drogba's skillset has been a key for 2 domestic championships, several domestic cups and 2 CL semi-finals. How can you describe that as 'nothing'?

Lots of other strikers can boast of those qualities to their game. Others can boast of different qualities. Several can combine that with a better scoring record. Drogba's skillset has not been the key component of Chelsea's recent success. You should know better than to ludicrously claim that.

And if strikers were judged solely on goal output and 'clinicality', how did the more clinical Van Nistelrooy find himself on the fringes at United? As has been discussed at length on the United forums, Saha brought pace, power and movement that was vital to the way SAF wanted United to play. So that would seem to be evidence that goal output is not the end all and be all of strikers, and anyone who watches Chelsea would know that over the past 3 seasons, it seems very unlikely that any striker could have had as much impact for this Chelsea team than Drogba, regardless of whether or not they themselves would've scored more goals.

I said that the fundamental role of a striker was to score goals and anything else was an added bonus. It's why strikers are mainly judged on their scoring as opposed to anything else, whether you like that or not. If a striker cannot score enough goals then he has failed as a striker, regardless of whatever added bonus he brings to the table. Saha is a good example because he is able to combine those two for Man Utd, although even he has been questioned for his scoring only being 1 in 3 in the league and slightly better overall. If his scoring was not acceptable then he would be shipped out. He is a good striker that provides what Man Utd need but you will not find his name in any of these lists and rightly so because his scoring is simply not up to scratch in comparison to his rivals (many of whom can boast better assist figures as well).

Most strikers are only good in certain systems, which is why Sheva has failed thus far at the Bridge, why Henry has never reproduced his club form for country, why Rooney failed to score a competitive goal for England for 2 years, etc. To level that accusation at Drogba is extremely selective, as I would guess that most of the other strikers on the list, if asked to play Drogba's role, would fail miserably. It's not even backed up by evidence in any case, as he has excelled for Marseille, Guingamp, Chelsea and Cote D'Ivoire.

It was an off the cuff remark but I will say that serveal players in the top ten list have played in different roles and impressed. With Drogba he is limited in the sense that he needs to be used a certain way or there is little point in playing him. For Chelsea he fits perfectly. There really is no need to argue about every tiny remark I make, particularly when it was perhaps the least relevant or debatable part of that section.

Except that, it was. Surely you watched Chelsea last season, no? And saw the painful lack of width, the defensive frailty in the absence of John Terry, the clogged midfield 'diamond' which stifled every one of its members, a misfiring Shevchenko, and the absence of J. Cole and Robben for large parts of the season through injury? And yet Drogba still managed to lead the league in scoring, notch up 6 CL goals, and score 3 goals in 2 cup finals, the only Chelsea player to score in either final. How is that not an excellent season? He scored 1/3 of Chelsea's league goals, ffs.

Look, it you cannot comprehend that Drogba did not have a stunning season in comparison to his rivals then there is little point in continuing this discussion. Every side had problems and it is irrelevant to what he managed to do. It was a good season, particularly considering the previous two seasons of underachievement but it was not spectacular and was simply Drogba returning to the form he was expected to show when you signed him. If you think that last season was spectacular and well worth the £24 million you paid then standards have really slipped.

I agree in the sense that it may affect his judgement in history, but really doesn't have much bearing on his current place amongst the best strikers in the world, which is (or should be) judged on current form over the past few seasons and the beginning of this one, otherwise the exclusion of Raul from so many of these lists would be shocking.

I agree which is why I am perfectly happy for him to be in the top ten but he neither has the overall history nor past form to be considering in the top 8, let alone the best in the world which was the specific point I originally disputed before you started this!

[Teso Dos Bichos]

So, Messi is clearly not a striker, isn't? :D, he's obviously a striker and could be called as a winger or attacking midfielder for people with other point of view surely, but "clearly not a striker" sound as a joke for one who knows more than a little about football :D.

Messi is not a striker.

This is why this debate has hit such a sh*thole. This is what we all should be using as the foundation for logic. Teso, like President Bush, can simplfy things for all of us. Rather then discuss nuances that most of think are valuable to any player (Holding the ball up, creativity, power, endurance, lack of injuries and the 8 million other things that made the great fowards of the past legend.) He makes a vague and unagreed upon statement, then uses his plethora of nerd stats to prove his point, guys like Teso will go back 4-5 years to give you remarkably insignificant tidbits to prove who is good NOW!.... Today!.... This Minute. (Gary Neville > Micah Richards) But basically the flaw in this specific sentence is simple The best strikers are not just goal poachers, they don't just have great goal tallys. Under these guidelines had Drogba taken Penalties instead of Lampard, all those times over the past two seasons, he would have easily been the best foward in the EPL and perhaps the world. Because of f*ckin penalties! It would have easily added to his final goal numbers, perhaps put him over the pointless mendoza line of 100 goals for a lifetime, and then be considered one of most valuable player up front for the time being. You could also make an argument for freekicks as well, nowhere in the great striker handbook (they sell it Barnes and Noble) does it say you have to take freekicks and pens, why? because Midfielders and even Defenders have the propensity to be just as good. So without laboring the point any longer I, just gave to you the fundemental reason why Leso is 100% wrong... The FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF A STRIKER IS NOT JUST TO SCORE GOALS The fundamental goal for any player, at any position, is to facilitate winning football and crap numbers from France... 6 years ago having no bearing on this pos or neg.... So there you go ....Now He'll say I'm an Idiot and my words are rubbish and we can all move on.

The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. If you cannot comprehend that point or simply refuse to acknowledge it then suit yourself. I'm not going to stop you from making a fool of yourself, yet again. Read my previous post for the details.

[puff redded]

Right now:

01. Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Sweden & Inter Milan)
02. Lionel Messi (Argentina & Barcelona)
03. Luca Toni (Italy & Bayern Münich)
04. Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast & Chelsea)
05. Miroslav Klose (Germany & Bayern Münich)
06. David Trezeguet (France & Juventus)
07. Robin van Persie (Holland & Arsenal)
08. Ruud van Nistelrooy (Holland & Real Madrid)
09. Fréderic Kanouté (Mali & Sevilla)
10. Carlos Tévez (Argentina & Manchester United)


Who is Frederic Kanoute??