So Ronaldo....

I'm not disputing that. Ronaldo is a very effective player and especially the 4-3-3 which United deployed helped getting the best out of him.

What I'm trying to get at is that Ronaldo isn't that good to watch. He was better in his younger days, at least more exciting. How often do you see him split a defence with a perfectly weighted ball or caress a ball from a ridiculous angle.

An example of this is Quaresma. Nowhere near at Ronaldo's level but for entertainment value I'd have him everyday of the week.

This thread is about the BEST players not the most entertaining Ray.

Rosicky wrote:This thread is about the BEST players not the most entertaining Ray.

Lots of posters seem to get this confused.

I'd still argue a case for him being in there.....maybe not top 10 though.

Six wrote:

Rosicky wrote:This thread is about the BEST players not the most entertaining Ray.

Lots of posters seem to get this confused.

Nope, it's just that not everyone has the same definition of "best".

For me the best player is the player I enjoy most watching, I don't care if he never wins a prize in his entire career or that he has as many howlers as moments of genius : it's all about those moments of genius for me, at the expense of everything else !

Take the old crazy bunch of Wimbledon : a mad gang of thugs.....but highly entertaining, what do you have nowadays that compares ?!

Me in a nutshell :

Harlem Globetrotters > NBA

What do I care who wins what, I want to be entertained damned !

Axeslammer wrote:

Six wrote:

Rosicky wrote:This thread is about the BEST players not the most entertaining Ray.

Lots of posters seem to get this confused.

Nope, it's just that not everyone has the same definition of "best".

For me the best player is the player I enjoy most watching, I don't care if he never wins a prize in his entire career or that he has as many howlers as moments of genius : it's all about those moments of genius for me, at the expense of everything else !

Take the old crazy bunch of Wimbledon : a mad gang of thugs.....but highly entertaining, what do you have nowadays that compares ?!

Me in a nutshell :

Harlem Globetrotters > NBA

What do I care who wins what, I want to be entertained damned !

Well I enjoy watching Liverpool play more than anyone else. So Gerrard > everyone then. Not really an objective thing. "Best player" implies objectivity. "Favourite player" is another thing entirely.

Why not Schmeichel, why nobody even counts him in any list, he was as important to us as any forward/midfielder.

The Tupac Twitch wrote:

Parks lives wrote:...where does he rank in the best players in Premiership history?

I think he'd comfortably make the top 10, not sure about the top 3 or 5 though.

The question should be - where does he rank as in terms of the most hated egotistical c**ts in Premiership history?

I'm glad he's leaving the Premiership, people say how his skills will be missed, but bollocks to that - where's the fun in watching one man shooting at every opportunity, his ballooning free kicks which might aswell be hit and hope toe punts (give me a Beckham swinger anyday), one player hogging the limelight over his harder working and equally talented team mates, and that's of course before taking into account his pathetic petulance.

And to compare a player like Zola and all the joy, skills and honourable qualities he brought to the game here is a disgrace.

Don't care if he was voted FIFA footballer of the year, he is not half as sublime a footballer as he or fans and players in footballing hotbeds of China and India seem to think. An incredibly selfish player who I'm just surprised managed to get away with it at United for so long. Penalty taker, free kick taker, top class wanker.

Good riddance, he will fit in perfectly at the Madrid Media Circus. The people who will miss him most are North West Hair Gel manufacturers who he alone kept in business for 6 years.

Also regarding entertainment vs being best, the reason I also kind of use how entertaining a player is a way of rating is that the stuff that I find entertaining like elegance/dribbling/vision/passing is how I would rate the best. For example Ronaldo really doesn't have any of those things. Of course you need to be able to deliver in big games to get considered aswell.

There's about 20 people who could make it into the top 10.

Axeslammer wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Why is Cantona rated so highly he played when The Prem was the 4th best league in Europe at best.

Ronaldo played in the prem when it was the best and destroyed it.

Ronaldo >>> Cantona

Because Ronaldo has the vision of a blind brick without a seeing dog, equals style with cheating and thinks flair is refusing to celebrate with teammates.

Cantona oozed style and class (even while he was a bit of c**t), personified vision and had the kind of flair that could silence even the haters.

Nailed it. Spot on

For me, best player to have graced this league is little Zola - spearheaded a very entertaining and pretty successful Chelsea side (FA cup and Cup, winner's Cup wins). Plus he was a true gent.

Rest is pretty close call - Bergkamp, Cantona, Le Tiss, Juninho would be the top 5 for me

Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

I don't rate Quaresma as one of the best players in Premiership history.

The Tupac Twitch wrote:

Axeslammer wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Why is Cantona rated so highly he played when The Prem was the 4th best league in Europe at best.

Ronaldo played in the prem when it was the best and destroyed it.

Ronaldo >>> Cantona

Because Ronaldo has the vision of a blind brick without a seeing dog, equals style with cheating and thinks flair is refusing to celebrate with teammates.

Cantona oozed style and class (even while he was a bit of c**t), personified vision and had the kind of flair that could silence even the haters.

Nailed it. Spot on

For me, best player to have graced this league is little Zola - spearheaded a very entertaining and pretty successful Chelsea side (FA cup and Cup, winner's Cup wins). Plus he was a true gent.

Rest is pretty close call - Bergkamp, Cantona, Le Tiss, Juninho would be the top 5 for me

Anyone that doesn't put Shearer in their top 5 is a fucking spacker tbh.

Ray Parlour wrote:

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

Also Zola had he been that good would have got more opportunities for the national side. We all know who was ahead of him. You could argue the bias against him due to him not playing in Italy but you could think of a couple of examples of players who have subverted this view.

That is why Bergkamp wins it for me.

In what way is it 'objective' to say 'this player is the best', but subjective to say 'this player is the most entertaining'? I don't call a player the most entertaining, or the most talented, whilst accepting that my tastes are specific, that most people will disagree with me, and that my statement is not definitive, anymore than I call a player the best whilst accepting these things. In both cases, I intend to make a definitive statement.

I wonder what criteria one would use to come to a purely 'objective' conclusion regarding the best football player - would one judge and compare players purely on the trophies they have won, or the money they have earned, or the goals they've scored? I feel that what might be called a subjective element must come into this judgement somewhere - an element relating to the player-in-question's style of play, or to his importance to his team.

But though what might be called subjective elements must always come into these judgements relating to the most entertaining and best players, I think we still often make both judgements objectively - we don't just hold them as subjective opinion, we apply them to the object. If I say that David Ginola is the most entertaining player to have played in the Premier League, I'm saying that he is the most entertaining player to have played in the Premier League.

Besides all of which, Axe's point is valid, and it is one that I agree with. Football is a great sport because it can be such an entertaining sport, which can bear witness to moments of real skill and creativity. So for me, a successful footballer is one who entertains and evinces skill and creativity. In the same way, I think Kevin Keegan is the best manager the Premier League has seen, because his Newcastle side of the mid 90s were the most exciting, the team most purely orchestrated to attack and in a versatile, fluid, creative way.

The Tupac Twitch wrote:

Axeslammer wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Why is Cantona rated so highly he played when The Prem was the 4th best league in Europe at best.

Ronaldo played in the prem when it was the best and destroyed it.

Ronaldo >>> Cantona

Because Ronaldo has the vision of a blind brick without a seeing dog, equals style with cheating and thinks flair is refusing to celebrate with teammates.

Cantona oozed style and class (even while he was a bit of c**t), personified vision and had the kind of flair that could silence even the haters.

Nailed it. Spot on

For me, best player to have graced this league is little Zola - spearheaded a very entertaining and pretty successful Chelsea side (FA cup and Cup, winner's Cup wins). Plus he was a true gent.

Rest is pretty close call - Bergkamp, Cantona, Le Tiss, Juninho would be the top 5 for me

Zola of course was also one of the reasons I just *had* to watch MOTD

Is it me or did it seem that the players back then seemed to enjoy themselves more, played it more for the joy of the game ?

Nowadays after scoring a goal, players seem to be more busy counting in their heads how much their market value has gone up, instead of truly celebrating with their teammates. (this is not only true in the EPL, it's a sign of the times I'm afraid)

Axeslammer wrote:

The Tupac Twitch wrote:

Axeslammer wrote:

Rosicky wrote:Why is Cantona rated so highly he played when The Prem was the 4th best league in Europe at best.

Ronaldo played in the prem when it was the best and destroyed it.

Ronaldo >>> Cantona

Because Ronaldo has the vision of a blind brick without a seeing dog, equals style with cheating and thinks flair is refusing to celebrate with teammates.

Cantona oozed style and class (even while he was a bit of c**t), personified vision and had the kind of flair that could silence even the haters.

Nailed it. Spot on

For me, best player to have graced this league is little Zola - spearheaded a very entertaining and pretty successful Chelsea side (FA cup and Cup, winner's Cup wins). Plus he was a true gent.

Rest is pretty close call - Bergkamp, Cantona, Le Tiss, Juninho would be the top 5 for me

Zola of course was also one of the reasons I just *had* to watch MOTD

Is it me or did it seem that the players back then seemed to enjoy themselves more, played it more for the joy of the game ?

Nowadays after scoring a goal, players seem to be more busy counting in their heads how much their market value has gone up, instead of truly celebrating with their teammates. (this is not only true in the EPL, it's a sign of the times afraid)

It's true to an spect and it's a sign of the day an age we are living in with money becoming an even bigger commodity. Nothing we can do to change it unfortunately.

Money is the root of all evil

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

You can answer your own question by replacing Zola with a player you think deserves to be in the list. Would Lampard have turned that Chelsea into champions? Would Ronaldo?

I didn't follow football too much back then but how good were Chelsea?

Super Real Ronaldo wrote:

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

You can answer your own question by replacing Zola with a player you think deserves to be in the list. Would Lampard have turned that Chelsea into champions? Would Ronaldo?

I didn't follow football too much back then but how good were Chelsea?

Uefa Cup standard

Super Real Ronaldo wrote:

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

You can answer your own question by replacing Zola with a player you think deserves to be in the list. Would Lampard have turned that Chelsea into champions? Would Ronaldo?

I didn't follow football too much back then but how good were Chelsea?

Would have challenged. And i doubt anybody would say Lampard > Zola...

Super Real Ronaldo wrote:

DS wrote:Zola never won the league though, if he was that great surely he could have led his team to one league title or a title race even.

You can answer your own question by replacing Zola with a player you think deserves to be in the list. Would Lampard have turned that Chelsea into champions? Would Ronaldo?

I didn't follow football too much back then but how good were Chelsea?

Well they were pretty good, winning FA cups, top 6 finishes and all that but never really challenged, but surely if Zola was the best player that graced the prem he could have been that difference, specially considering EPL wasnt that good at that time.
Why not Ronaldo, according to Liverpool fans he won us the league (and the refs ofcourse).

Bashmachkin wrote:I think Kevin Keegan is the best manager the Premier League has seen

Bash I have never noticed you were this biased before, but in your 2 posts, all you talked about was Newcastle.

Rosicky wrote:

Bashmachkin wrote:I think Kevin Keegan is the best manager the Premier League has seen

Bash I have never noticed you were this biased before, but in your 2 posts, all you talked about was Newcastle.

To be fair to Bash the argument seems to be over who is most entertaining, and we have had some of the most entertaining players(and managers) in the leauge.

All things considered, Bergkamp is the best. Shearer, Henry, Schmeichel, Zola, Le Tiss, Vieira, Pires, Ginola, Anelka, Cantona, keane, Scholes, Giggs, Gerrard, Mcmanaman, Lampard, Drogba, Essien, Beckham, Di Canio, RVN, Ferdinand, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney should be there among that list.

Why all this Bergkamp crap. Because he's a nice guy and good player? he didnt' do that fucking great in the prem How in the fuck was he the greatest prem player ever or even near. Cantona was a genius but i understand why some say overated, but these same people surely cant say Bergkamp wasnt as well when he is viewed in this light.

If you rate vision, intelligence, and technique, then why not?

In the post in the other thread, amidst the host of players from Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea who had already been mentioned, I felt inclined to point out the comparable merits of Newcastle's best Premier League players. Here, Keegan is simply illustrative of my point - he is perhaps the strongest illustration of the point that I could have given. My post isn't about Newcastle in the least - I'm arguing two things: that the distinction between objective and subjective isn't a clear one; and that it is reasonable to argue that what is 'best' in football equates to what is most entertaining.

Bashmachkin wrote:I think Kevin Keegan is the best manager the Premier League has seen

You're wrong.

Very good; and can you say why that is so?