Walcott developing the arrogance of Henry

The Real Martin Troll wrote:

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:

El Gaffer™ wrote:It's all well and good comparing him to Joe Cole - but at least he had the natural abilitry to begin with...

Did Henry? According to you he was just a pace merchant. I'm sure all us England fans wouldn't mind having a pace merchant that can chip in with 20-30 premiership goals per season.

Ive seen enough of Walcott to be pretty certain he has plenty of ability. The fact that virtually every England u21 game he play in he is the stand out player, clearly better than this level at just 18, suggests he is on course for a good career.

Lets not foget that plenty of us were debating whether Agbonlahor had the natural ability, and this season he has proved most of us wrong.

Quite often this board gets stuck into a way of thinking that begins to drift further and further away from reality. The Thierry Henry debacle only goes to prove that. You'd think the man was a pub player by some of the comments that get made on here.

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:I think he's over the hill now though. His best years were 2001-2005.

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:He isn't one of the best players now, but at his peak he was.

He's the second highest scorer in France's history, he's the fourth highest ever CL goalscorer and his record in the premiership for Arsenal ain't too bad either.

I think he's over the hill now though. His best years were 2001-2005.

The-Frankinsense-Tavern wrote:

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:I think he's over the hill now though. His best years were 2001-2005.

whilst he wasn't just a pace merchant it was a major part of his game, and with that on the wane he is going downhill. no doubt in my mind that wenger wasn't too bothered he left

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:He isn't one of the best players now, but at his peak he was.

He's the second highest scorer in France's history, he's the fourth highest ever CL goalscorer and his record in the premiership for Arsenal ain't too bad either.

I think he's over the hill now though. His best years were 2001-2005.

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:

El Gaffer™ wrote:It's all well and good comparing him to Joe Cole - but at least he had the natural abilitry to begin with...

Did Henry? According to you he was just a pace merchant. I'm sure all us England fans wouldn't mind having a pace merchant that can chip in with 20-30 premiership goals per season.

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

El Gaffer™ wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Chairwee's best Intl. Tournament performance was Euro 2000, were Totti was even better.

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:

El Gaffer wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Chairwee's best Intl. Tournament performance was Euro 2000, were Totti was even better.

That's a retarded arguement.

Also, Henry's technique was pretty good. I'm not sure what exaclty you mean by technique here, but his ability to strike the ball was in the top rung - just look at the goals he's scored in his lifetime for evidence.

El Gaffer wrote:

No wonder you get so wound up - I thought a smart bum-boy like yourself would be able to tell a back-handed compliment from a mile off.

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:

El Gaffer™ wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Chairwee's best Intl. Tournament performance was Euro 2000, were Totti was even better.

That's a retarded arguement.

Also, Henry's technique was pretty good. I'm not sure what exaclty you mean by technique here, but his ability to strike the ball was in the top rung - just look at the goals he's scored in his lifetime for evidence.

shazlx wrote:

Tweesus of Nazareth wrote:

El Gaffer™ wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Chairwee's best Intl. Tournament performance was Euro 2000, were Totti was even better.

That's a retarded arguement.

Also, Henry's technique was pretty good. I'm not sure what exaclty you mean by technique here, but his ability to strike the ball was in the top rung - just look at the goals he's scored in his lifetime for evidence.

His touch is amazing just as good as Berbatov. What I think TS is talking about is ball manipulation. Henry can use his brain to do all the flicks he does but his close control and ball manipulation was merely above average.
In short: Great technique, above average skill.

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Christ the Redeemer wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Except play in a World Cup final for the winning side. And be a success in Serie A.

So in fact, your argument is pretty redundant because it is so obviously incorrect.

Roger Hunt wrote:Well Thierry played for France in EC2000 final which they won, didn't he?

And although he wasnt played in the 98 final he was France's top scorer for the tournament I believe.

And Totti has never been a success in the EPL

El Gaffer™ wrote:Has Henry won the Golden shoe ?

Christ the Redeemer wrote:He's never played there, so there's no comparison to be made. Henry, however, has played in Serie A, where he was a massive flop, at the same time as Totti was playing in the Serie A, where he's been a massive success.

Try again, hypester.

The Real Martin Troll wrote:

Christ the Redeemer wrote:

The Real Martin Troll wrote:
My argument is that if Totti is deemed to be one of the best players in the World which he regularly is, then so should Henry, since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

Except play in a World Cup final for the winning side. And be a success in Serie A.

So in fact, your argument is pretty redundant because it is so obviously incorrect.

No. You think its incorrect because you are incapable of seeing anything from your own point of view.

Totti has played in 1 Euro final - which he lost,
and 1 World Cup final, which he won

Henry has played in 1 Euro final - which he won, and 1 World cup final, which he lost.

And you can throw in the 1998 World Cup final aswell when Henry was in the World Cup winning squad. How is that less of an achievement that Totti's international record?

Totti has never played outside of Serie A. He has been a success in his home league.

Henry was a success in his home league, part of the Monaco side that beat Man United and reached the semi finals of the CL in 1997, a semi final of the CL he also played in for Arsenal in 2006. Totti has never played in Europe past the Quarter finals in comparison.

Henry was also an unmitigated success in a league abroad- the EPL, top scorer for many seasons. Totti has never tested himself abroad, so we can neither tell whether he would have failed - like Henry did at Juve, or succeeded, like he did at Arsenal.

So, please tell me how the argument that Totti has achieved more than Henry is incorrect, oh wise one?

since Totti has not achieved anything more that Henry hasnt done himself.

The-Frankinsense-Tavern wrote:no. of league titles, cups contributed to, Totti v Henry

The-Frankinsense-Tavern wrote:

Christ the Redeemer wrote:He's never played there, so there's no comparison to be made. Henry, however, has played in Serie A, where he was a massive flop, at the same time as Totti was playing in the Serie A, where he's been a massive success.

Try again, hypester.

Veron was a flop in england really but was superb in italy. its just a fact some players sometimes struggle in some leagues, i doubt totti would have been as big a success in england as he has been in italy but its just an opinion. Just cos a player flops in 1 country doesn't make him a bad player, bergkamp was a v good player he didn't work out in italy, forlan has been superb in spain just didn't really work out in england, Sheva was superb in italy [email]cr@p[/email] in england, etc. etc.

Roger Hunt wrote:

The-Frankinsense-Tavern wrote:no. of league titles, cups contributed to, Totti v Henry

And Phil Neville better than both. What does that prove?

Roger Hunt wrote:Hardly.

I never said France were dependent on Henry. Likewise Italy have never been dependent on Totti. The fact is that Henry was there and did participate in the 98 campaign.

While you might choose to argue that WC>EC, I don't think that the difference in quality required to win either tournament is significant.

And Henry was hardly a 'massive flop' - he was a young player who moved on quickly to another club. If you think otherwise, feel free to prove it - just don't try to do it with stats.

Christ the Redeemer wrote:

Roger Hunt wrote:Well Thierry played for France in EC2000 final which they won, didn't he?

EC<WC, obviously

Both have played in 1 EC and 1 WC- the result irrelevant since neither player can say they were the dominant figure in either 2000 or 2006, and the games were won on the finest of margins. So its no more than a draw in terms of International achievements

And although he wasnt played in the 98 final he was France's top scorer for the tournament I believe.

As you well know, because I outlined all this the last time we had this debate, he didn't play in the final, didn't start any knockout games after the round of 16, scored 3 goals against nothing teams, none of which mattered.

To make out that France winning in 98 was at all dependent on Henry is just Cr@p. It's the classic Henry hypester argument, and it's always been Cr@p.

No, he wasnt. But equally, Totti was not instrumental in leading Italy to this World Cup final. No one can claim the Italians won the 2006 World Cup because of Francesco Totti.

And Totti has never been a success in the EPL

He's never played there, so there's no comparison to be made. Henry, however, has played in Serie A, where he was a massive flop, at the same time as Totti was playing in the Serie A, where he's been a massive success.

What a ludicrous argument. Totti is an Italian, playing in his own surroundings for his home town club and in a league with a style he- as an Italian - would have been brought up with throughout his career. Comparing this with Henry half season as Juve playing in a foreign country for a new club in unfamiliar surroundings is just scraping the bowls of a very deep barrell.

Henry was a success in his own league with Monaco -winning titles and progressing to the latter stage of the European Cup. If you are going to make such one weighted comparisons, at least make it pound for pound

Try again, hypester.