Best Striker in the World now

[schafer]

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.


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.


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.

It absolutely has been a key to Chelsea's recent success. How many times were Chelsea slated for being a 'long ball' team because so many times the ball went direct to Drogba to hold up/lay off to an onrunning midfielder? I don't see how you can have watched Chelsea in the past few seasons and conclude that Drogba's skillset isn't key to the way Chelsea play.

And I honestly don't think there is another striker with anything close to Drogba's physical skillset. There are others that are faster, others that are stronger but I don't think any other player combines them with the same effectiveness as Drogba, although perhaps you can name someone?



I said that the fundamental role of a striker was to score goals and anything else was an added bonus.

Why should I have to accept that the debate has to take place on a premise like this that I don't necessarily agree on? Goals are definitely important, but you seem to be weighing their importance without any regard for the individual circumstances of a striker.

It's why strikers are mainly judged on their scoring as opposed to anything else, whether you like that or not.

Mainly yes, but not entirely, otherwise with the money at his disposal Mourinho would have brought in a replacement for Drogba after the first season (the likes of Kezman and Del Horno were replaced after 1 season, after all) yet he obviously thought that whatever else Drogba brought to the table was key to the success of the Chelsea side, and that was borne out by 2 league titles with Drogba leading the line.

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).


You still haven't really answered my question, though. This isn't a discussion about how good Saha is, but why he was preferred to the far more prolific Van Nistelrooy if goals are really all that matters. Or why was Crespo behind Drogba in the pecking order when Crespo was clearly the more clinical of the 2?


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.

This is based on what, exactly? He has, as I pointed out, performed well for every team he has played for in several different systems, so I don't see where you're getting this, tbh. And there is a need to debate a point which would serve to undermine Drogba's ability, especially when it's not based on reality.


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.

How can the circumstances of the team a player plays in be irrelevant to judging his performances? You use this argument all the time to explain Ferdinand's perceived shortcomings with 'weaker' defensive partners. How can you on one hand say that he benefits from having superior players around him than he did at Marseille then turn around and say that the performance (or lack there of) of those players is irrelevant? That's simply absurd.


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!


I disagree but whatever.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

It absolutely has been a key to Chelsea's recent success. How many times were Chelsea slated for being a 'long ball' team because so many times the ball went direct to Drogba to hold up/lay off to an onrunning midfielder? I don't see how you can have watched Chelsea in the past few seasons and conclude that Drogba's skillset isn't key to the way Chelsea play.

I see you missed the opening two sections. Don't worry, I won't do that with your responses. I never disputed that Drogba has been an important component but you claimed he was the key component and that is clearly incorrect. The key to Chelsea's success has been the focus on defense and the system used to ensure that the game was won from the back. Makelele was the key cog in that particular machine. It's why Chelsea still functioned when Drogba was rotated with Crespo and despite the disappointing form of the former at times.

And I honestly don't think there is another striker with anything close to Drogba's physical skillset. There are others that are faster, others that are stronger but I don't think any other player combines them with the same effectiveness as Drogba, although perhaps you can name someone?

Other players can combine goal scoring and other (bonus) attributes with more effectiveness than Drogba does, which is why he does not merit a place any higher in the list. If you want to discuss physical strikers then the duo at Bayern Munich spring to mind. Both better overall strikers than Drogba.

Why should I have to accept that the debate has to take place on a premise like this that I don't necessarily agree on? Goals are definitely important, but you seem to be weighing their importance without any regard for the individual circumstances of a striker.

The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. You should accept it because it is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Mainly yes, but not entirely, otherwise with the money at his disposal Mourinho would have brought in a replacement for Drogba after the first season (the likes of Kezman and Del Horno were replaced after 1 season, after all) yet he obviously thought that whatever else Drogba brought to the table was key to the success of the Chelsea side, and that was borne out by 2 league titles with Drogba leading the line.

He brought Crespo back and heavily rotated him with Drogba. Since then a further three strikers have been brought into the club.

You still haven't really answered my question, though. This isn't a discussion about how good Saha is, but why he was preferred to the far more prolific Van Nistelrooy if goals are really all that matters. Or why was Crespo behind Drogba in the pecking order when Crespo was clearly the more clinical of the 2?

I have already answered it. Drogba was also not ahead of Crespo in the season they shared at the club.


This is based on what, exactly? He has, as I pointed out, performed well for every team he has played for in several different systems, so I don't see where you're getting this, tbh. And there is a need to debate a point which would serve to undermine Drogba's ability, especially when it's not based on reality.

All of his teams have utilised him as a target man. Systems might have been different behind him but his fundamental role has always been the same.

How can the circumstances of the team a player plays in be irrelevant to judging his performances? You use this argument all the time to explain Ferdinand's perceived shortcomings with 'weaker' defensive partners. How can you on one hand say that he benefits from having superior players around him than he did at Marseille then turn around and say that the performance (or lack there of) of those players is irrelevant? That's simply absurd.

Every striker has had some form of problem at their club and no-one is making any excuses for them or their record during that period. Drogba deserves no special treatment.

I disagree but whatever.

I fail to see how you can possibly disagree.

[schafer]

I see you missed the opening two sections. Don't worry, I won't do that with your responses. I never disputed that Drogba has been an important component but you claimed he was the key component and that is clearly incorrect. The key to Chelsea's success has been the focus on defense and the system used to ensure that the game was won from the back. Makelele was the key cog in that particular machine. It's why Chelsea still functioned when Drogba was rotated with Crespo and despite the disappointing form of the former at times.

Well, I'll respond to them now. A certain player who knows something about scoring goals (Michael Owen) said upon his return to Spain that the Prem had become more defensive than when he left, as teams had followed Jose's pattern and more were employing solely defensive midfielders and it was harder to attack. This is probably why Drogba' goal tally was comparatively low.

I would also bring up the fact that Chelsea as a whole failed to score many goals that season, but you would no doubt dismiss this.

I also never claimed that he was 'the' key to Chelsea's success, I claimed that he was key to Chelsea's success. There's a difference, as obviously Makelele and Lampard would also be 'key' players, but that doesn't rule out the existence of other 'key' players, as there can be more than one 'key' player in a side.



Other players can combine goal scoring and other (bonus) attributes with more effectiveness than Drogba does, which is why he does not merit a place any higher in the list. If you want to discuss physical strikers then the duo at Bayern Munich spring to mind. Both better overall strikers than Drogba.

Toni probably, I don't know about Klose, although given their respective form thus far this season, they'd probably be ahead of Drogba right now, although the question of the relative strengths of the leagues comes into play, but I don't watch enough Bundesliga to comment.



The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. You should accept it because it is a fact that cannot be disputed.


But the way you are arguing it downplays the other attributes of a striker because you remain determined to undermine him. Goals are important, but not the end all and be all. You still haven't answered my question about Saha being preferred to Van Nistelrooy, btw.

He brought Crespo back and heavily rotated him with Drogba. Since then a further three strikers have been brought into the club.


I have already answered it. Drogba was also not ahead of Crespo in the season they shared at the club.



Drogba was usually preferred, although they did end up having similar totals due to the African Cup of Nations.

All of his teams have utilised him as a target man. Systems might have been different behind him but his fundamental role has always been the same.

Same with essentially every striker mentioned then, they've all usually had the same role in their teams, just with different systems. Drogba is no different.



Every striker has had some form of problem at their club and no-one is making any excuses for them or their record during that period. Drogba deserves no special treatment.

I wasn't necessarily saying he deserved special treatment, I was pointing out the absurdity of you completely ignoring the circumstances of a player when it supports your argument, and doing the exact opposite when it doesn't. To summarize:

Drogba showed no signs of improvement because he has a better supporting cast than he did at Marseille (to support your argument)

The performance of his teammates is irrelevant when judging his record (to undermine my point about the majority of Chelsea players having a bad season)

If you can't see the selective 'logic' at play here, well then I don't know what to say. You've clearly contradicted yourself.



I fail to see how you can possibly disagree.

Shocking. This is going in circles in any case, neither of us is going to change our mind, I'm done here.

[L.G.S]

Teso... The topic title is "Best Striker in the World now".

All this crap you are posting (and there is a hell of a lot of it) about Drogba before Chelsea is rubbish, because that has no bearing on whether he is good NOW.

[ForeverRed]

Miro Klose of course! :D

[Glavisted Big Soccer]

Messi is not a striker.
He's.

Who is Frederic Kanoute??
He's a striker from Mali who plays in Sevilla.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Well, I'll respond to them now. A certain player who knows something about scoring goals (Michael Owen) said upon his return to Spain that the Prem had become more defensive than when he left, as teams had followed Jose's pattern and more were employing solely defensive midfielders and it was harder to attack. This is probably why Drogba' goal tally was comparatively low.

I would also bring up the fact that Chelsea as a whole failed to score many goals that season, but you would no doubt dismiss this.

So you admit that Drogba's goal tally was low in his best ever season and one in which he was touted as being the best striker in the world? At least we are making some progress.

I also never claimed that he was 'the' key to Chelsea's success, I claimed that he was key to Chelsea's success. There's a difference, as obviously Makelele and Lampard would also be 'key' players, but that doesn't rule out the existence of other 'key' players, as there can be more than one 'key' player in a side.

Fair enough.

Toni probably, I don't know about Klose, although given their respective form thus far this season, they'd probably be ahead of Drogba right now, although the question of the relative strengths of the leagues comes into play, but I don't watch enough Bundesliga to comment.

Die Bundesliga is, at worst, the 4th best league in the world.

But the way you are arguing it downplays the other attributes of a striker because you remain determined to undermine him. Goals are important, but not the end all and be all. You still haven't answered my question about Saha being preferred to Van Nistelrooy, btw.

I did answer your question. You chose to ignore it. The fact that the funamental role of a striker is to score goals stands.

Drogba was usually preferred, although they did end up having similar totals due to the African Cup of Nations.

They were heavily rotated, even during games.

Same with essentially every striker mentioned then, they've all usually had the same role in their teams, just with different systems. Drogba is no different.

Several strikers in the accepted top 10 list have been used in different roles and still excelled.

I wasn't necessarily saying he deserved special treatment, I was pointing out the absurdity of you completely ignoring the circumstances of a player when it supports your argument, and doing the exact opposite when it doesn't. To summarize:

Drogba showed no signs of improvement because he has a better supporting cast than he did at Marseille (to support your argument)

The performance of his teammates is irrelevant when judging his record (to undermine my point about the majority of Chelsea players having a bad season)

If you can't see the selective 'logic' at play here, well then I don't know what to say. You've clearly contradicted yourself.

Whatever way you wish to look at things it still does Drogba no favours in comparison to his rivals. Making claims that the majority of Chelsea players had a bad season is simply laughable.

Shocking. This is going in circles in any case, neither of us is going to change our mind, I'm done here.

You are running away?

Teso... The topic title is "Best Striker in the World now".

All this crap you are posting (and there is a hell of a lot of it) about Drogba before Chelsea is rubbish, because that has no bearing on whether he is good NOW.

Even if you only wish to ignorantly look at last season then he still does not merit a placing in the top 8. I do find it strange that two Chelsea fans have decided to leap into this thread and question my posts when I was responding to someone who laughably claimed Drogba was clearly the best in the world when he is far from that. Feel free to be blinded by club bias all you wish but even you cannot disagree with that being incorrect. Besides, previous form is very relevant to this discussion because it separates one-season wonders from players with consistency in their performances. It also helps to highlight that Drogba has been overrated based on last season.

He's.

See, you cannot even bring yourself to lie about his position.

[revelationx]

Never mind the definition of striker, what's the definition of now?

Are we talking this week/last match? The last month or last 6 games? This season? This calendar year? These different time-frames could all throw up different candidates.

Also Teso is correct when he says a striker's primary role is to score goals. Similarly a keepers primary role is to stop goals. If a striker can also create goals for others then this increases his value but if a striker creates 20 goals but scores none he will be criticised. The best strikers in the world have a burning desire to score goals whenever they play. If a player does not have this mindset then they will not succeed as a striker and should play elsewhere. Some strikers play unselfishly as a target-man and set up goals for a striker partner. However if they do not also have that instinct to strike at goal then they will be criticised and not regarded as a top striker - examples are Heskey and Davies.

If you are talking about this season and last season then Drogba is a candidate because he has scored many goals. RVN has done wonders in his first season in Spain, he delivered in a way that Chelsea had hoped Sheva would deliver. Rooney has also been good. The likes of Owen, Eto'o and Henry have been injured and this means these otherwise prolific strikers have to be ranked lower for that timeframe. David Villa is a contender as is Klose. Totti is not really a striker and like Lampard is a prolific attacking midfielder as is C Ronaldo and Messi.

Who is the best? No idea :D

[OYEWALE]

It's difficult for me to name the best striker in the world at the moment.At a time Henry was, later Shevchenko and before Eto'o's first injury he was obviously the world's best striker.Towards the end of last season, drogba seemed to be the world's best striker.Maybe I'll Ibrahimovic my vote at the moment.

[schafer]

So you admit that Drogba's goal tally was low in his best ever season and one in which he was touted as being the best striker in the world? At least we are making some progress.

Once again, not if you look at the circumstances at Chelsea, but your refusal to do so renders this debate useless.

Fair enough.



Die Bundesliga is, at worst, the 4th best league in the world.

Agreed, but I don't watch it enough to have any idea how large the gap in quality is between the 2 leagues.

I did answer your question. You chose to ignore it. The fact that the funamental role of a striker is to score goals stands.

You may have answered my question (somewhat) but failed to acknowledge the underlying principle in your answer. I asked why Saha, a far less prolific player than RvN, would be preferred to Van Nistelrooy, and you responded by saying that Saha is a player who combines both goalscoring and other attributes, which would seem to support my argument that in some circumstances, a less prolific player adds more to the team than one who would undoubtedly chalk up more goals themself, no?

They were heavily rotated, even during games.

Drogba usually started, iirc, and seemed to be preferred, but you may be right.

Several strikers in the accepted top 10 list have been used in different roles and still excelled.



Whatever way you wish to look at things it still does Drogba no favours in comparison to his rivals. Making claims that the majority of Chelsea players had a bad season is simply laughable.

Lampard, Carvalho and Drogba were the only Chelsea players to have good seasons last year, the majority of the team was either injured (Bridge, Cech, Robben, J. Cole) or below par for most of the season. Essien was played out of position too much to really have an impact in most games.

That's my opinion, which obviously you disagree with. However, can you not see the error in your logic that I presented in my earlier post? Do you not see how contradictory it is for you to say this:

Drogba showed no signs of improvement because he has a better supporting cast than he did at Marseille (to support your argument)

The performance of his teammates is irrelevant when judging his record (to undermine my point about the majority of Chelsea players having a bad season)

That's what is so frustrating here. I don't even care anymore if you disagree with me, but for you to use such twisted logic and pass it off as a legitimate argument is frustrating as hell, and because you use such irrational reasoning so as to destroy any chance of a debate the other party gets frustrated, and you say BS like this:


You are running away?

which I assume means that you think you 'won', when in reality all you've done is used distorted logic and selective reasoning to support your opinion which you attempt to pass off as fact.



Even if you only wish to ignorantly look at last season then he still does not merit a placing in the top 8. I do find it strange that two Chelsea fans have decided to leap into this thread and question my posts when I was responding to someone who laughably claimed Drogba was clearly the best in the world when he is far from that. Feel free to be blinded by club bias all you wish but even you cannot disagree with that being incorrect. Besides, previous form is very relevant to this discussion because it separates one-season wonders from players with consistency in their performances. It also helps to highlight that Drogba has been overrated based on last season.

Then you have the gall to accuse Chelsea fans, defending one of their players, to be 'blinded by bias' and once again try to pass off something that is your opinion as fact ('Drogba is far from being the best striker in the world' is an opinion, so to disagree with an opinion does not default into a 'wrong' position). You also seem to have missed the fact that the juggernaut (not a Chelsea fan) also defended Drogba.

But yeah, this is my last post on the subject (for real this time;)) so if you need to tell yourself that you've won, go ahead.

[StevenGerrardisGod]

If we are talking about who is in the best form at the moment I would have to go with Totti, Ronaldo, and German Denis of Independiente

[tiagito]

Sergio Agüero!!

[L.G.S]

Even if you only wish to ignorantly look at last season then he still does not merit a placing in the top 8. I do find it strange that two Chelsea fans have decided to leap into this thread and question my posts when I was responding to someone who laughably claimed Drogba was clearly the best in the world when he is far from that. Feel free to be blinded by club bias all you wish but even you cannot disagree with that being incorrect. Besides, previous form is very relevant to this discussion because it separates one-season wonders from players with consistency in their performances. It also helps to highlight that Drogba has been overrated based on last season.

lol. Blah blah blah blah blah.

I find it madnessthat any other member should disagree with Lord Tesco!

[thejuggernaut]

If you want to discuss physical strikers then the duo at Bayern Munich spring to mind. Both better overall strikers than Drogba.


The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. You should accept it because it is a fact that cannot be disputed.


It's amazing how Man City has done so well with Fundamentally poor strikers...
The original question was who combines speed and strength better then Drogba.. Lezo then says "Bayern Munich".... I'm sure if we took 40 times and Max Bench Press Weight, Drogba would eat the three. mentioned by Lezo, for breakfast. No player on earth has the combination of Speed and Strength that Drogba. No body playing professional football is both faster and stronger then him. Kanote may be the closest.

[thejuggernaut]

If you want to discuss physical strikers then the duo at Bayern Munich spring to mind. Both better overall strikers than Drogba.


The fundamental role of a striker is to score goals. You should accept it because it is a fact that cannot be disputed.


It's amazing how so many teams have done so well with Fundamentally poor strikers....
The original question was who combines speed and strength better then Drogba.. Lezo then says "Bayern Munich".... I'm sure if we took 40 times and Max Bench Press Weight, Drogba would eat the three. mentioned by Lezo, for breakfast. No player on earth has the combination of Speed and Strength better then that of Drogba. Nobody playing professional football is BOTH faster and stronger then him. Kanote may be the closest.

[Perú FC]

See, you cannot even bring yourself to lie about his position.
Sorry but that's a poor argument to maintain a position, although is good to do an ironic comment.

[sardus_pater]

Totti is not really a striker and like Lampard is a prolific attacking midfielder as is C Ronaldo and Messi.


Well, that's partially correct. Generally speaking Totti is not (only) a striker but it's 2 years that he's playing as (lone) striker at Roma. And not only he does play as striker he is also the most prolific in europe having won the golden boot.

Totti can play as deep lying playmaker, attacking midfielder or pure striker. And he would excel wherever he plays.

[Stinky Shinguards]

I've skimmed through the 7 pages of this forum and cannot believe that nobody has mentioned Fernando Torres?!?

Fernando Torres!

[johan neeskens]

You 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..

You seem to have rather simplistic ideas about the world of football: if you seriously believe ManU offloaded Ruud because he wasn’t good enough or not suited to their style of football, you probably also believed Ferguson when he said that he replaced Stam with Blanc because the latter was a better player.

Ruud was crowned topscorer in two of Europe’s biggest leagues. Who else has done that? I agree that there are different types of strikers, one the pure goalscorer and the other the more alround forward. But you cannot become topscorer in two leagues that are both high quality yet completely different in terms of footballing style if a goalscoring machine is all you are.

Cruyff agrees with you about Ruud btw, said he doesn’t rate him as a footballer. Van Basten by contrast DOES highly rate Ruud, not only as a striker but also as an alround footballer. I reckon that if anyone’s got the right to rate a striker, it’s Marco van Basten. No?

[zatopek]

LUCA TONI !