After looking around a bit again - From a French perspective this seems to be especially the case, as shown in the 2015 SoFoot issue. The English often recall the Liverpool games indeed (#1 in ClubElo at the time), which then has spread to the rest of the world. In Spain also his encounters against Real Madrid (and to a much lesser extent the Spanish national team in 1966) are remembered - Real Madrid was #1 in the ClubElo at the time of playing as well. After the games both manager Miguel Munoz and Santiago Bernabeu said he might be the best player in Europe at the moment and some other big complimentary words (i.e. must not be taken literally but demonstrates the general impression yes). This Real Madrid game is also mentioned in the L'Equipe article. In the 2nd half of the 1960s he had roughly (and not too enthusiastically counting) 1 goal per game against top 10 opponents. A ratio that held up in 'unofficial' friendlies that were played for club and country (those should be ignored but for increasing the sample size they're useful).
Isn't Seaman actually the Paul Scholes among the goalkeepers? If he was so excellent, why is that rarely born out in recognitions? Cech and Sar have double digits ESM recognition to show (which put them near the top for all goalkeepers), among many other things, Seaman very little. VdS was around the turn of the century even placed among the top 25 European goalkeepers in history by IFFHS. As you perhaps know from The Mixer book, various current elite goalkeepers have him as their main inspiration (Courtois, Neuer). For Cech as well there is much more to show for. This seems to be again the double handicap at work, for both Cech and Sar.
I think that there is quite a difference between Seaman and Scholes, not least in the level of credit they get. Nobody after the event is bandying quotes around claiming Seaman was the greatest goalkeeper of his generation. In terms of recognition I think it's harsh for a number of reasons. The ESM votes only started in 1995-6 by which time Seaman was already 32 years old. The award is largely often focussed on European football, something in which Arsenal never performed particularly well in during Seaman's time at the club. Also Seaman's style was unflashy and restrained, something that doesn't really lend itself to being the best keeper of the month. Tony Adams and Dennis Bergkamp got 2 selections in their entire careers, compared with one for Seaman. You mentioned that VDS was voted by IFFHS as the 24th best keeper in Europe but Seaman was voted 32nd, so not far off. Plus VDS played a far smaller amount of his career in the Premier League. Van der Sar got votes in the Ballon d'Or once (2008) when he finished 24th. Seaman got them once (1996) when he finished 20th. Cech had 2 nominations (2005 and 2007) finishing 14th and 19th. Seaman was twice named in the PFA team of the year, VDS three times and Cech once. So not a huge amount of difference. As well, I'm talking here only about the PL. If we were talking full careers then both Cech and VDS would be ahead of Seaman. Scholes is on a completely different level in terms of disparity of recognition. Not only did he play in a position that gets a lot of recognition, he got diddly squat in comparison to his peers. Never got a vote in the Ballon d'Or, compared with five years of votes for Gerrard and Lampard. Never voted player of the year when both Gerrard and Lampard were. Less PFA team of the year selections. Never UEFA midfielder or player of the year. ESM had Lampard 18 nominations, Gerrard 7 and Scholes 3. So Scholes is a long way off in terms of contemporary recognition.
Scholes get his recognition post retirement though. I feel like comments from legends such as Zidane and Xavi at around 2006 really turned his fame around.
Which is why it is so odd. The quotes, almost none of which I can find the original source for, don't tally at all with the actual awards. Lots of talk about best midfielder of his generation and yet none of those players ever selected Scholes in any awards.
That is a good point on ESM, but I think there is hardly a recognition where Seaman stood out very well. In which one is he an outlier? Tony Adams got 4 PFA team of the year selections. Same as John Terry and one more than Sol Campbell. For Bergkamp his Ballon d'Or and FIFA recognitions during the 1990s were quite good. In often volatile lists, he was the only player to make the top ten of all the four lists in 1992 and 1993 (top four in three of them, top 7 in 1992 FIFA WPotY). Same for 1997 and 1998 with the exception of anointed superstars Zidane and Ronaldo. He received further shortlisted nominations in 1999 and 2000 (when he retired for the national team). So for club team mates Tony Adams and DB10 there is something (and more, I'd say) to show where they stand out over a period of time, certainly compared to other contemporary English league players. I do agree Seaman was underrated near the end of his career, when some perceived howlers overshadowed what he did right. He also managed quite well an ageing defense back then (before Campbell, Toure etc. were brought in, after his time). ESM is clearly not perfect of course. They tend towards goalscoring midfielders and goalscoring forwards (argument is possible that this is deserved), which is also why hallowed names as Scholes and Riquelme fare poorly (Riquelme only once in his career selected, and while I'm a Riquelme sceptic because of his low goals and assists count, this deviates from Ballon d'Or etcetera), and Modric has never made the ESM team of the year so far. By and large they undersell the ones why make the side tick, are selfless, create assists and pre-assists, make the team win - go up a level in success - and is difficult to replace (in this respect Scholes and Guardiola are with the benefit of hindsight underrated). I think the Ballon d'Or is very imperfect for goalkeepers. That depends even more than with midfielders and forwards on the push they have behind them. In those cases it helps a lot to play for a club from your native country (this is a historic tendency and trend). This was for VdS and Cech not an option and they're clearly handicapped here. I also think Seaman in 1996 and Sar in 2008 are impacted by the european championships by the way. Cech at least got it for the strong Chelsea defense, and low goals conceded. What I meant is that Cech and VdS got recognized, while at an English club, for 'European best goalkeeper' or 'World's best goalkeeper' type of thing (those awards exist since the early 1990s). Either at the top or near the top. Seaman only was in 1996 (third place), at the back of his euro. I think Cech and VdS had in their own position a higher worldwide/european peak recognition, and were selected near the top for multiple year. I actually think there is a difference here, given that VdS played only six years at a top side (for whatever reason he was ignored while at Fulham, despite his great stats there). Seaman had far longer the time. To me both Cech and Sar are generally underrated goalkeepers, and they belong among the most decorated goalkeepers in the game. They had plenty of skill, were good with high balls (something many world class goalkeepers don't completely master) and their stats are at all levels outstanding. Also with less than excellent defenders in front of them they had outstanding stats, and that is the mark of a skilled goalkeeper. VdS his goals conceded and clean sheets ratio for the national team is only surpassed by Walter Zenga (as of 2013). Their stats are very good (to outstanding) with different types, settings and qualities of defenses; they are at all levels good, UCL and national team alike; they belong among the most decorated goalkeepers in history. It is maybe not a coincidence that Buffon his individually weakest periods (the late 2000s you mentioned) coincided with his weakest defenses and defenders in front of him. (remember: I listed him down as a lock for a top 100) Cech started his career from the relative backwaters, relatively peripheral, and to eventually surface he of course must have had something special. You know how that works; when in doubt they pick or invest in something they already know, trained by methods in usage by the core countries of world football. Even the relocation business is largely geared towards the familiar markets, with little to no attention to the smaller places, which only increases the selection biases (as just one example).
But I think the question here is do the accolades stack up to his position? In regard to Seaman I don't think they're out of kilter to the regard he is held in. One of the best goalkeepers of the PL era, probably one of the 100 best goalkeepers of all time. If you look at the clean sheet record he holds then it is very strong, not as good as Cech or VDS but very good. Maybe I was including his pre-PL time in my ranking of him too much which would give him a lot more clean sheets as well. But there are very limited and very unreliable awards for goalkeepers. Scholes in contrast got virtually no recognition in awards, certainly not in comparison to the talk about him.
Potentially a bit of both in my opinion, though the hype came later I would say. Scholes was a very good player, no doubt about that. He was part of one of the best midfields of all time and he was an integral player in this. However, a lot of revisionism surfaced around Scholes as the years went on. This can be split into a couple of key factors. 1. England failed at a number of major tournaments. The first one where England entered with really big expectations was Euro 2004. That saw the first time that Lampard and Gerrard were selected together in midfield and as a result Scholes got shifted to play narrow on the left of midfield. In his book The Mixer Michael Cox mentioned that Eriksson had attempted to accomodate Scholes at the tip of a midfield diamond in training which he liked but which Beckham, Lampard and Gerrard didn't like and which saw them lose 3-0 to a second XI. The key point about the inclusion of Lampard though was the omission of Nicky Butt who had been excellent at WC 2002 and provided much greater stability to the side. The other point that is often neglected in relation to this is the fact that Scholes really hadn't been playing well for England in the previous years. He had scored 13 goals in his first 35 games for England but then went 29 games without scoring. Now, we can't just boil him down to goals alone, but it shows a dramatic decline in his output and he wasn't playing to the same level. In contrast Gerrard and, particularly, Lampard were in terrific form at that point. Scholes had enjoyed arguably the best season of his career up to that point in 2002-3 but Lampard came second to Thierry Henry in the POTY rankings for 2003-4 and Gerrard was doing well for Liverpool. The real problem was the dropping of Butt to include Lampard because that destabilised the team. England then went on to disappoint at WC 2006 and beyond. Scholes benefitted simply from not being there. Would Scholes in place of Lampard or Gerrard have changed things dramatically for England? Almost certainly not because although he sat deep in his later days he was never a real defensive midfielder and could never tackle. All his best displays came with someone next to him who did more of that role. For England he enjoyed playing next to Paul Ince and David Batty in 1998, Ince again in 2000 and then Butt in 2002. At United he had Roy Keane and later Michael Carrick to help police that area. Take out Gerrard or Lampard and put in Scholes and very little changes for England. Moreover, it's not like Scholes for England had been an overwhelming success. He had reached the WC 2nd round in 1998, Euro group stage in 2000 and then QFs in 2002. Nothing better than England after him. 2. Barcelona and Spain's possession style came along Once Barca arrived on the scene, following Spain's 2008 victory, there was a fetishization of possession. Suddenly players who retained and rotated the ball were far higher regarded and Scholes at this point had reinvented himself. In his early career Scholes was a forward, a deputy for Eric Cantona and then only later on did he find his position as an attacking central midfielder. The chant that rang round Old Trafford was that "Paul Scholes scores goals". Now that was never the only part of his game, he was always an adept passer, but he was not the fulcrum of the United side. That was Keane. He was the primary playmaker, the man that set the beat and the tune about their play, despite his thuggish image. Once Keane had departed and Scholes got older he reinvented himself. In his last 8 seasons he scored 20 goals in 178 games, whereas in the previous 8 seasons he scored 69 goals in 254 games. He became much more of a metronome but at the expense of his goalscoring. After the event people then tried to suggest that he had always been this metronome at the same time as scoring goals. He hadn't. He was a completely different player. After all that these quotes surfaced on the internet. As with a lot of stuff, I'm always sceptical of these as I have rarely seen any sources for the and we live in an era of manufactured quotes. So, no doubt he was an excellent player, but his reputation is, at least in part, based on a number of misconceptions.
I completely agree. I remember Xavi's quote being particularly powerful at the time. I think as well, because Man Utd did so well just at around the same time (the CR7 version) it made Scholes look even better. Between that and the Spanish teams (and NT) the role was hyped up beyond other central midfield roles. On the first point, I wonder if Carrick could have been the key to making the Lampard/Gerrard partnership work. Both were more accustomed to three-man midfield anyway, and England only had Rooney as their one true world-class forward, even if the likes of Crouch and Defoe had very good NT records.
I still maintain that Lampard and Gerrard weren't the problem. The problem was trying to accomodate them in central midfield in a 4-4-2. Fundamentally there was a misconception that Gerrard was a defensive central midfielder because he put in big tackles and got around the pitch. Too much responsbility was placed on his shoulders and he never had the positional discipline to play that role. Had Carrick been used to sit then he would have freed both of them up to succeed and he played very well, even if England as whole didn't, when he started against Ecuador in 2006.
Accidentally I saw an interesting article by the Italian journalist Mario Sconcerti. It was written when he retired in 2006 and the new stadium was inaugurated. I scanned it (the Italian version, not the translated Dutch version which strangely left out two sentences) and then put it through this very useful tool here. https://www.onlineocr.net/ It is really very nice I thought. Eventually he would have made it For Dennis Bergkamp we do not have much memories in Italy. What jumped out is that he never wanted to fly. We still like to see him play him if this happens, but it's like he's never been at Inter. The team where Bergkamp played in was the last Inter under President Pellegrini. A period from the history of the club, on which isn't a look back with much affection, even though it generated more success than the current Inter. Pellegrini was a bookkeeper, he had a catering company and a cleaning company. No interesting past and no charm. When Massimo Moratti appeared on the scene, it seemed like future and past mergers. Hastily they cleaned the ship in one blow. Players changed hands. Bergkamp included. In addition, it suited well that Arsenal valued him highly and offered a huge amount for him. So it became a goodbye without disturbance. Since then Bergkamp has kicked it far and has been influential, he has still realized many promises that were inside him while at Milan, but he has never succeeded in generating an emotion. We Italians often see the professional attitude of Dutch people standing for a reserved attitude and low involvement in teams and - in football - clubs. Bergkamp was distant and shy, never seemed to be at ease. He was polite, well behaved, faithful and kind, but he never raised his voice and never needed more space for himself, so he was on the outside not a leader. No Maradona. And in Italy it was the glow of Maradona, the era of Naples, of great emotions, the heart on the tongue, football that is always passionate and dramatic. Without drama and theatrics no football. Bergkamp had nothing to do with that kind of football. He played the game as very few could do, undeniable he was a big player for the big moments and against the big teams, but he did too little. He was for the viewer not decisive and he did not bring you into captivity. Here we divide Dutch football players into two categories. They are very good, so superstars; or they are good but not suitable for Italian football. When Bergkamp came, we were used to Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard of Milan. These were the exceptions. In general, the Dutch have had little impact. Good players, but lightweights that went down against the forceful Italian markers. We have never been able to fully understand how a country with so few inhabitants has been able to modernize football. That was a role that was actually written for us. But too eagerly we liked to believe that the Cruijff lightning was an un-explainable serendipity. Then we had to accept that there was his second act in Gullit-Van Basten, but after those there was the Bergkamp generation, which was really too much to process. The Dutchman is pale and blond, he seems to be unable to share our kind of love for the football. He is neat and professional, if he suffers he does it in silence. He is nice to the press and the supporters and he does not play any underhand games. For us, it means that he doesn't seem to care for anything. Bergkamp was even shy, an elusively complex personality, even to the outside world, with clear fears in social traffic. Complex personalities and images are always difficult to communicate. Can such somebody be a crack? You must also see it from the Inter-audience. These are born victims, discouraged by years and years of own defeat and Milan triumphs. They are already convinced that their own purchases will disappoint. It can not be true that somebody is as good as is claimed. There must be fraud in the game. The departure of Bergkamp was not standing on itself. In recent years, many more big names left Inter after comparable circumstances: Roberto Carlos, Seedorf, Pirlo, Ronaldo, Crespo, Baggio and many others. I think Bergkamp would have liked to adapt to Italy at some point. Because in essence his type of game is very Italian. He is a number 10, an attacker who comes from outside the penalty area or is a midfielder playing in the center of a diamond. A position designed in Italy to associate the defensive force majeure with the select group involved in the attack. He would have received kicks, but also learned to get up again. He would have won the personality he gained later. If he had become that driven competitor. Not the least, a respectable amount of his collection has been stamped against vintage Italian teams. In our opinion, he has always been more like artistry for the connoisseur than a man of blockbuster spectacle. But again, he was a big player. Many football players like Bergkamp eventually felt at home in our football. Over the years, he would also become more of a leader, he would have put more stamp on the team and the club. President Moratti would have lent him a willful ear. Bergkamp is the type of player that the president likes. Moratti, a devoted and exceptionally rich man, is also more stylistic than a killer himself. But unfortunately that's not how it went. Ultimately, it did not become a problem for Bergkamp and also not for Inter. But everyone in these contours has had the feeling of a missed opportunity, of a good story that was told at the wrong time. The Inter of Pellegrini was too old, that of Moratti had to be born. Everything had to be different, everything had to go away, so great was the desire to start again, an maybe at hindsight it has been better that way. His trophy cabinet filled beyond other sculptors of his generation, and what remains is a memorable artist and interpreter of Johan's ideas. ---------- I hope I do not annoy you but I found this a nice and nicely written piece. @PDG1978 With the right balance and, ultimately, also appreciation of course despite reserved criticism and counter-criticism. As said above, this was written in 2006, when the stadium opened and at his farewell game. Maybe also nice for others. It is true one can make an all-time XI with players who left Inter through the backdoor, LOL.
Here by the way a special performance of him against Barcelona in the 2000 Champions League. Arsenal lost 2-4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByO588YcVhqeTE0xX1ZtQ25haDA/view (10 minutes)
Before I forget; I forgot to write down the sub-header of above article. It was: "In the land of high velocity and strong force, the small gesture brought considerable consequences." Was thinking too about figuring out the non-penalty goals + assists per 90 minutes in the Premier League for notable midfielders and forwards of over 30 (thus including Luis Suarez and Rooney). Of course not fully comparable over time (laws of the game and such), and with different teams, and Luis Suarez did not enjoy his start-up or declining years at the EPL but I suppose nevertheless interesting to figure out.
Yes, with those stipulations (per 90 mins, assists counting equal to goals, no penalties) maybe Bergkamp would not be very far behind Henry or Shearer (especially the latter but he did have a good number of assists in 94/95 I think didn't he for example, according to the source you found online for PL players - I seem to recall he got some with crosses that season, although could be some of his on that website would be wide assists and rebounds maybe).
This part is interesting because he definitely had a nasty streak about him at Arsenal. He might have picked it up from his teammates. The likes of Vieira, Adams, Keown, Lehmann, Lauren were no angel. Maybe what Italy and England consider dirty is a little different? Is it true that in Italy, attackers diving aren't as frowned upon? (I heard the same about SA football as well.) In England is it, but there's a different type of nasty, at least in the 90s to early 2000s. There was a consensus among fans that since defenders get to kick attackers, attackers get to do some pretty nasty things back. Shearer used to get away with murder, especially his famous elbows. The likes of Di Canio and Cantona were famous for having a nasty streak as well. Bergkamp definitely had this during his Arsenal days. This is also interesting, since Bergkamp of course, became an absolute handful against some of the most forceful defenders in England. Even Sol Campbell talked about how hard it was to play against Bergkamp. That Bergkamp was much stronger than he expected (though personally, I think Bergkamp simply had very good balance, rather than sheer strength.) The likes of Jaap Stam, MArcel Desailly and Colin Hendry all had to be at their best when competing against him. I guess it helps that BErgkamp was training with Adams and Keown, and later Campbell. That'll toughen up any forward, I guess.
Yes, very good part and nuance this. Yes, Makelele at times as well. Such as here and one leg of the UCL quarter finals (the other leg, when he was a sub, not so much). Although this was later in his career when he arguably played fractionally deeper overall, with more scoring coming from the wing players than previously was the case. I guess this "lightweight" part is a half-truth. Before he moved to Inter he scored two goals (one very well taken vs Costacurta, Maldini) against a well drilled Italian national team defense. Obviously any forward depends on their team mates but it was there. The German defenses and England national team defenses in competitive matches (with elimination at stake) weren't lightweight either. Both goals against England were of high quality. Then after his move to Inter some moments/performances against Maldini, Baresi, Costacurta (the derbies vs AC Milan are there to see), won a clear cut penalty against Jurgen Kohler, Nesta's Lazio, Thuram's and Montero's Juventus, and 'lesser' defensive teams as AS Roma. The density of those moments or performances doesn't look poor in the end (arguably 'very good' - adding the decisive moments together, relative to the games played). Anyway, the author also sort of refers to this and I guess he/they were aware of what Italian teams did/conceded against other European teams. On his Italian wikipedia I see he did studio work when Italian sides played. That late 90s French NT defense wasn't junkyard material either and both times he did well against them too imho (was productive in both games). At World Cup or euro level there are some quality goals or assists against Germany, Brazil, England, Argentina, France - despite sometimes problems with general involvement in the game. It's a pity that Cantona hadn't as many opportunities to show it against Italian teams (only four games against Italian teams in his career), although there is one match against Juventus in 1996-97 where he did well despite squandering three chances that the midfield provided to him. One of those four games also came very early in his career, in 1985. In his last season against Juventus he played overall quite well in my observation (in one of the two legs). http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/cantona-intl.html http://www.weltfussball.de/spieler_profil/eric-cantona/6/gegner/
Watching MOTD yesterday suddenly made me remember this, and I remembered Ruud Gullit talking about a few times how one of the first things he learned in Italy was "to get down". Otherwise you don't get it from the referee and you get punished in the end. It also invites the defenders to toughen up further. MvB his sad fate is a tangible reminder of what can happen if you don't collect a diving image (in Italy). We also have to remember that Arsenal was actually for a long time not a popular team. This seeps through the Liverpool/Man United dominated press and media, and from research we know that certain referee biases do exist, invariably (against such teams; against taller players; against 'lesser' nationalities). This has effects throughout an entire game, not just the big moments. Here an example by Graham Poll. This remarkable turnaround in popularity, with also an air of cosmopolitanism, is one of Wenger's primary achievements. In 1993 they had the 9th highest attendance of the league, and were (in a simple nutshell) despised by the rest. In the end, there is no objective measurement or eye test for "diving". Very often the press and pundits talks about it in terms as "player X is a diver and player Y never dives". In my eyes, this is always wrong, but it happens very often. Let's however look at the naked stats. Bergkamp is joint 121th all-time in yellow cards and joint 312th all-time in red cards in the Premier League era. It never tells the full story, and it is not a clean record, but it can be a lot worse for sure. Steven Gerrard is 8th all-time in red cards, Cristiano Ronaldo in his short stay 39th all-time, as well as Paul Scholes. In yellow cards Rooney is 2nd all-time, Scholes 5th, Fabregas 26th and Gerrard 37th (in more games, of course, but still). On the plus side, it shows midfielders or support forwards aren't lazy or afraid to put a foot in. Of course general stereotypes have an effect here, and are then stamped on individuals. It is a fact that 'Holland' is one of the least corrupt regions in Europe, and (Southern) 'Italy' one of the most corrupt. That is not an opinion, but more or less a fact. It is also a fact that - relatively speaking - some regions have a more masculine culture while others are heavily feminized; and more of those things. What in the Italian eyes also tends to play in a role in this (from the knowledge and experience I gathered) are topics of transparency and openness, and not trying to evade (just) punishment when it occurs, and short-circuit the system. Being transparent about what you do. I.e. Arjen Robben admits he dives, it is an automatic reflex to protect himself, and he doesn't brag or boast about this behavior.
Here some informative Quora things. Of course it are gross stereotypes: "There isn't a clear-cut gradient of North to South; Wallonia (in Belgium) is stupendously more corrupt than Catalonia despite the location." Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Why have the Dutch a reputation for being business-savvy and their Belgian neighbors not? What do foreigners find most annoying about Dutch people? How are people from the low countries for real? Are they nice or rude and cold hearted? Are Dutch people social in business? How do they like to be treated? How would a foreigner deal with them in business? Take what you like. -------------------------------------- Correction and clarification: I mean here the 1992-93 season. The first season of the Premier League. Their last championships came in 1990-91, 1988-89, 1970-71, 1952-53 and 1947-48.
I tend to agree with @poetgooner that the hype started around 2007, but Michael Cox is right that it went into overdrive around 2010-2011. In 2007 he received also a good chunk of his recognition, including ESM. In 2008 there's the famous CR7 Portsmouth goal, and Scholes indeed played very good in this game, and the pundits (Souness, Jamie Redknapp) talk about him in terms of "best midfielder in the world". Here is a typical The Guardian article with a collection of quotes from 22 April 2009, including the famed Zidane praise. This was after Spain's euro triumph (with Marcos Senna still rather than Busquets or Alonso), but before the Champions League semi finals between FCB and Chelsea; and before the 2-6 match against Real Madrid. One of Guardiola's marquee games and supposed tactical innovations. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/apr/22/paul-scholes-tributes-600-games-manchester-united 2007: Paul Scholes better than Zidane https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/paules-scholes-zidane.572974/ http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1015-June-2011/7319-reassessing-the-myth-of-paul-scholes
OK, I made a check for this. DB10 is on 0.72 non-penalty goals and assists per 90 minutes that way, between age 26 to 37. Shearer is on 0.63 per 90 minutes, with his 55 Premier League penalties deducted. He played his first at the age of 22 and last at the age of 36. Of course, he played at times not for title contenders (although Blackburn and Newcastle were in some seasons, the last time in 2001-02). Thierry Henry is at 0.95 non-penalty goals + assists per 90 minutes. He has 23 penalties. With the exception of 94 minutes in 2011-12 aged 34 and 5 months, he played between the age of 21 and 29 there (last in February 2007). Of course there's a very sound argument he is the #1 overall thus far, but he has some assists from the wings or set-pieces (which is also a quality but often teams have multiple of those who can do it well, and then relegate the rarer skillsets to other places during set piece situations). Cantona is at 0.73 non-penalty goals plus assists per 90 minutes. He played between the age of 26 and 30 in the league (not forgetting his half season at Leeds). If you use the Premier League website for OPTA assists and bdfutbol website then you can check this. Other players that have to be priority here?
Some others that could be interesting off the top of my head might be: Robin Van Persie Robert Pires Rafael van der Vaart Cristiano Ronaldo Frank Lampard Teddy Sheringham Gianfranco Zola Luis Suarez Gareth Bale Paul Scholes