PDA

View Full Version : Best Striker in the World now


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

I<3jorgecampos
12 Oct 2008, 07:26 PM
Altidore, LDO

jcvf90
12 Oct 2008, 08:13 PM
Carlos Costly :p
SdlG_rcYh1E

royalstilton
12 Oct 2008, 09:30 PM
torres is probably top now fo sho
anybody who says Torres is lower than #2 is a nut case. if he stays healthy, he'll score 30 goals again this season.

Teso Dos Bichos
13 Oct 2008, 10:16 AM
Stats don't determine who is the best

So are you trying to claim that when comparing strikers we should completely disregard goals?

Are you talking international goals?

Yes. I'm also not talking about one cap wonders. It's interesting to note because a lot of people do not consider him to be a great goal scorer because of the role he played for Spurs (dropping deeper to create). The thing about Berbatov is that that he can play as a traditional striker and his performances pre-Spurs and internationally highlight this.

I'm not sure about statistics, but watching personally the performances on the field, I don't put Berbatov in a Top 10 yet.:(

I don't see how you cannot if you had watched his play for Spurs. You are, after all, someone who uses aesthetics in your ranking of players.

Gandalf The Red
13 Oct 2008, 12:00 PM
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

the sad thing is you probably believe that:eek:

Hendrixforpope
13 Oct 2008, 05:19 PM
the sad thing is you probably believe that:eek:

Why are you sifting through posts on this thread that are over a year old? :p

phil80
13 Oct 2008, 09:48 PM
So are you trying to claim that when comparing strikers we should completely disregard goals?

No, never said that. But they alone do not determine who is the best.

Bartio88
14 Oct 2008, 04:41 AM
No, never said that. But they alone do not determine who is the best.

Then ibrahimovic is the best. By far. Ibra is the key part of the new mostly winning Internazionale team. He will basically play everything when he can for the legendary club for that main reason. a truely unique player, a world class incredibly strong playmaking striker / forward. His assist rate, strength, creative and technical ability and thus importance to the team is pure world class. Such a great player to have up front.

Teso Dos Bichos
14 Oct 2008, 08:13 AM
No, never said that. But they alone do not determine who is the best.

When did I ever say they did?

Duck Manson
14 Oct 2008, 08:43 AM
For a striker I'd say the goal ratio is without any doubt the most important thing. The rest count for maybe 10%. Tops.

jcvf90
14 Oct 2008, 09:33 AM
I have to agree goals are the most important, but it is also important against which opponents and with what team he did it. IF he had people in his team he competed for the striker spot, and if he had teammates who could assist alot.

phil80
14 Oct 2008, 09:57 AM
Then ibrahimovic is the best. By far. Ibra is the key part of the new mostly winning Internazionale team. He will basically play everything when he can for the legendary club for that main reason. a truely unique player, a world class incredibly strong playmaking striker / forward. His assist rate, strength, creative and technical ability and thus importance to the team is pure world class. Such a great player to have up front.
Ibra has the skills to be the best, he just needs to be more consistent in bigger matches, especially in the champions league. Right now, him and torres are probably the top two.

For a striker I'd say the goal ratio is without any doubt the most important thing. The rest count for maybe 10%. Tops.
Goals are the most important but looking at just the goals column is decieving, because it's just as important to know how many chances they wasted before scoring. Take Henry for Barca last year, his goal tally was not as bad as people criticized him for but his chances that he squandered were way too many (and many of them easy chances). Also, the way a striker combines with others, the runs they make, keeping possession when necessary, and creating opportunities for their striking partners also need to be taken into account. For example, I would much rather have a more rounded striker like Klose (in his prime) type of player than a Podolski who is not as complete but an excellent shooter.

Perú FC
14 Oct 2008, 08:35 PM
I don't see how you cannot if you had watched his play for Spurs. You are, after all, someone who uses aesthetics in your ranking of players.
Not really, supposing I use an aesthetic standard it's really a too simple definition, you don't should only go with the numbers extremely because football isn't so squared to define it only with that argument blindly. Also, it's important understanding that isn't the same to believe the numbers aren't important. To know who scored more goals in a number of matches, you've looking for "the best scorer", commonly he's the "best striker" too but necessarily.

Perú FC
14 Oct 2008, 08:40 PM
Correction: but not necessarily.

igoalie21
15 Oct 2008, 09:38 PM
unless i missed it.... no Arshavin?

igoalie21
15 Oct 2008, 09:39 PM
unless i missed it.... no Arshavin?

igoalie21
15 Oct 2008, 09:40 PM
unless i missed it.... no Arshavin?

igoalie21
15 Oct 2008, 09:40 PM
Arshavin?

igoalie21
15 Oct 2008, 09:42 PM
******** me and my quadroople post.....

Hendrixforpope
15 Oct 2008, 11:15 PM
Newbism at it's finest :p