Well we're dealing in very small margins. The difference between number 30 and number 5 is not that great. Cantona was a major factor in winning 5 titles in a six year period. The only season he played in England that he didn't win the title was in 1995, the season when he was banned for the kung-fu kick. He had a massive influence on United and Leeds. Chelsea never won the title with Zola (though he had less able team-mates), and Bergkamp was never the vital ingredient in Arsenal's success. That is the reason that Cantona is so highly rated. He was a major catalyst behind United's dominance of the 90s and beyond. Le Tissier suffered slightly from playing for a lesser team in Southampton. While he was an utter genius, his defining games were in relegation scraps rather than famous victories. He was also somewhat inconsistant, but when he was on form he was unplayable. Keegan's zenith was in his time at Hamburg, though he was also brilliant at Liverpool. Had he remained in England at his peak then he might have been in the top 3. Bergkamp was a magical player, but I never thought that he had as great an influence as some of Arsenal's other players. He was never (to my mind) the defining factor in winning a title, though he was excellent in 1997-8.
That's all fine and good but Cantona played (really) 5 seasons and won 5 titles and came 5th in the list while Stam played 3 seasons and won 3 titles and came 18th. You could argue that Stam was just as big a cataylst as United didn't win titles as frequenty after he left. I appreciate the work you've put in but I don't see why Cantona is so high revered amongst his peers and Stam isn't. It just seems a little bit inconsistent. I can understand Zola but I still Bergkamp's place is still a bit harsh. Every first teamer Cantona played with from 93-97 made the top 20 in their lists (apart from Kanchelskis) which would give Cantona a better platform to perform than a Zola and a Bergkamp. In regards to the teams they were in, I personally think they were amazing and deserve more credit. Like I've said before, with players like Ince, Bruce, Keane and Giggs, Cantona is always going to shine and I believe he was definetly a leader but his influence on the team is overstated as the subsequent United teams went on to achive the same long after he's left. The fact that he is rated by so many and is such an iconic figure distorts what he actually did on the field. Imo he's still a top 10 player but I don't think he deserves to be that high. Still a great list though.
My mistake. I didn't read the beginning of your post... Like you said, it's small margins and Cantona was a genius whose position can probably be justified. I was just surprised to see him break the top five. With all the other rankings, I was expecting a lower one. Anyways didn't Rooney do enough to secure a top 30 place?
Theres only 1 Mcgod 1 Mcgod he talks the talk and he heads the ball walking into the US Soccer Hall of Fame
A good list but arguably the most controversial. The AM list may have had more Gerrard vs Lampard crap but in this list, playing in weaker sides or having shorter spells in England really goes against players. Zola and Keegan standout in this regard. Dalglish is a worthy number 1 and I'm just glad that Henry isn't the top dog. It's understandable that Cantona is higher than Bergkamp and Zola due to his achievements even though in terms of ability, Dennis and Gianfranco were more gifted, IMO. Canto was major influence to Man U like you said but I think he also had a bigger influence on English football in general. When the English game was at a low ebb, he brought it to life with his play and character. If he didn't go to England, I doubt that Zola, Bergkamp and those type of players would have went too.
It certainly can do as it makes it very difficult to judge just how good someone really is. Can they step up in the big games and make an impact. In that respect Le Tissier is doubly penalised because he didn't have the international experience either. Ivor Allchurch played most of his career at Swansea who were in the second division. However, while I haven't counted his international exploits they give further evidence that he could cut it at the very highest level.
I had him among my strikers when I drew up my initial lists. He really should have been among the forwards, he would have had a top 10 ranking without doubt.
well, jitty and i were crushed or the same opinion on another thread, so watch your back fraser . good thread comme
I'm very impressed by some of these choice. Well done 'comme'. Would it be asking too much to wish for a place for the great Fred Keenor?
hahahahaha at bcbride bergkamp>cantona and zola and trevor francis should be higher diddnt henry score more goals than dalglish too? dalglish at the scouse - 355 (172) henry at arsenal - 254 (174) in much less games too!
but henry clearly was the better player just look at the goal ratio, i bet he has dozens more assists too
There is a world after statistics, you know. Also, Kenny's 13 years in English football have to count to him, as well.
How much of Dalglish in his prime have you actually seen? He was the key player for a team that dominated English football - in the nine seasons he had as a full time player, Liverpool won 6 titles, came 2nd twice and 5th once. Henry might have scored more goals, but he never lead Arsenal to back-to-back titles - something Liverpool achieved three times with Dalglish in the side.
but what was the competition like then? man utd who are the bigger club and later chelsea after a huge insurge of cash are surely more of a challenge to beat the league/cups to than scouse had in the early 80s
During Dalglish's time at Liverpool, English clubs (excluding Liverpool) won 6 European trophies. There might not have been clubs with the clout of Man Utd or Chelsea, but there were some excellent teams around.