Premierships greatest foreign players...

Where did i or anyone else ever say 'you must have the best individual player to win anything'

No-one did anywhere at anytime, notice how i describe the Chelsea players as 'highest level in their field'

Because many players who are at the top of the game, are all different and coaches will pick them down to individual oreference and what fits into the team, but really Chelsea have a squad packed with top draw players not mediocre players. So the best team (the team that won the league) has the best players..... they proved that with their performances (allbeit not great to watch) but got the points and won the league, may i also add for the second time on the trot which suggests it wasn't a one off either...

TeamSpirit™ wrote:

Agooner wrote:

this should nort even come to an argument. For example, who were the best team in england last year? Chelsea! Did they have the best players in the league? nope

Well...

Best GK- Cech
Best CB - Gallas
Best CM - Essien
Best DM - Makalele
Best TargetMan - Drogba
Best Winger/Support Forward - J.Cole

Those are all worthy shouts for 2005-06.

I don't think cech was the best keeper last season. Both lehman and reina had better seasons.

Alonso was better than essien last year.

Gerard was better than cole.

Best RB, LB, striker etc were also not chelsea players.

And the two best players in the league were gerard and henry.

I know chelsea have got pprobably the best squad in the league, maybe i used the wrong example but i just wanted to point out they didn't have the best players in the league even though they won it.

Football Genius wrote:Well actually Utd's players are represented in 7 of those years, not to mention, why dont you dig up who came second and third ? pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players.

Tell you what, why don't you dig up that information rather than making bets and presumptions?

Look at the comparison between the player awards (reasonably justified in most cases) and the Writers' award (ludicrous judgement).

110% wrote:

Football Genius wrote:

TeamSpirit wrote:Or maybe Ginola was really the most Valuable player.

We would've been in serious trouble without him that season - that I'm sure off.

Man Utd did win the CL Final despite not having Keane & Scholes, so that tells you something about their depth.

Its alot easier for quality to stand out amongst poorer players, than it is for quality to stand our amongst quality.

Im guessing the Keane Scholes quote is supposed to counter my arguement that the best teams invariably have the best players, firstly that was a knockout competition, a one off and any Manc will tell you that Utd didn't play particulary well that night but got what seemed to be fate on their side. Not to mention they had good strength in depth yes, depth is important to cover your first 11 but depth is useless unless there is real quality in there

Best team doesn't always have the bets players at all. Greece at the Euros is a good example of this. Also the last world cup did you see the best team with the world's best players e.g. Brasil with dinho, kaka etc? Or Argentina with riquelme, messi etc? Nope, Germany, Italy, France etc had the best teams, and there few players standing out, but as a team they performed.

@ spanky (I think that's your nickname)

here is the whole post, FootballGenius mentions man u. I don't, I only point out that the best team does not necessarily have the best players to counter his point that the best team has the best players, then give him some examples of other teams.

I don't say "in relation to" or anything like that which you claimed. You think everything is about man u

It is a general statement: the best team does not necessarily have the best players

what you saw: MAN U are shit

Agooner wrote:
I don't think cech was the best keeper last season. Both lehman and reina had better seasons.

*cough*Given*cough*GIVEN*cough*

Why are you describing them as 'the best individual'

They are all at a very similiar level in terms of ability and performance, the fact Chelsea won the league is because those players played that season with better consistancy, which essentially makes them the better player over the course of that year.... in 50 years time nobody but perhaps us Liverpool fans will remember Gerrards performances, but Chelsea winning the league will be much more evident.

I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Football Genius wrote:Why are you describing them as 'the best individual'

They are all at a very similiar level in terms of ability and performance, the fact Chelsea won the league is because those players played that season with better consistancy, which essentially makes them the better player over the course of that year.... in 50 years time nobody but perhaps us Liverpool fans will remember Gerrards performances, but Chelsea winning the league will be much more evident.

Last Season; Alonso & Finnan > Gerrard IMO.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Football Genius wrote:Well actually Utd's players are represented in 7 of those years, not to mention, why dont you dig up who came second and third ? pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players.

Tell you what, why don't you dig up that information rather than making bets and presumptions?

Look at the comparison between the player awards (reasonably justified in most cases) and the Writers' award (ludicrous judgement).

Not made one bet there pal, maybe intensive reading classes are needed

I dont need to because fortunately being the football addict i was as a youth i was given plenty of free tapes to watch by my youth team, so i have the competition i requested for you nicely put away in the loft ! I wanted you to make a full investigation, rather than a half hearted one that racks up a bunch of results solely to indicate one area of the arguement, objectivity - look at both sides of the arguement then come to the conclusion

l r d wrote:

Agooner wrote:

l r d wrote:

Agooner wrote:

l r d wrote:

Agooner wrote:something like 10 of his 25 league goals were penalties and even then he only scored a goal more than henry

ok take away henry's free kicks and pens aswell then......

he will still endup with something like 20 goals

the point is take his pens and free kicks away every year, and someone else will be top scorer on at least two occasions, so it;s a silly argument to mention ruud pens, when Henry also gets pens plus free kicks

ok go ahead, take away all his goals from free kicks and penalties and do the same for every other player and come up with another name for me.

So you are now arguing against the point you originally made

Maybe u didn't understand the point i was trying to make. I was basically saying ruud won the golden boot mainly because of the ludricuos amount of penalties he scored that season. If u took away all penalties and free kicks scored by ever player in the league, henry will still end up topping the chart simply because he scores more goals from open play than every other player

Parks Lives wrote:I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Oh and know aparently Dalglish was better than George Best.

Parks Lives wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Oh and know aparently Dalglish was better than George Best.

He's got that bit right.

Football Genius wrote:Where did i or anyone else ever say 'you must have the best individual player to win anything'

No-one did anywhere at anytime, notice how i describe the Chelsea players as 'highest level in their field'

Because many players who are at the top of the game, are all different and coaches will pick them down to individual oreference and what fits into the team, but really Chelsea have a squad packed with top draw players not mediocre players. So the best team (the team that won the league) has the best players..... they proved that with their performances (allbeit not great to watch) but got the points and won the league, may i also add for the second time on the trot which suggests it wasn't a one off either...

You started it with criticism of ginola winning the poty (standing out amongst mediocrity etc), when you really though keane or scholes should have won it. The discussion since (at least by me) was that of course ginola can win it, because he doesn't have to be playing for the best team to be the best individual player. In the end it looks like a language misunderstanding because no-one is disputing the man u had the "best collection of players" in the past, and chelsea now, but they often didn't have the absolute "best players" in the league.

Obispo wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Oh and know aparently Dalglish was better than George Best.

He's got that bit right.

But the rest of it's wrong...

Obispo wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Oh and know aparently Dalglish was better than George Best.

He's got that bit right.

Pfft.

Agooner wrote:
Maybe u didn't understand the point i was trying to make. I was basically saying ruud won the golden boot mainly because of the ludricuos amount of penalties he scored that season. If u took away all penalties and free kicks scored by ever player in the league, henry will still end up topping the chart simply because he scores more goals from open play than every other player

Prove it. Look up the stats and post them here. I'm not disputing what you're saying, but right now it stands as an assertion. There's also the assist issue - Drogba and Rooney both out-assisted Henry last season, despite not being an indirect set piece taker. Park Ji Sung got the same number of assists as Henry despite not playing as much and also not being a set-piece taker. Yet last season Henry was arguably as good as he's ever been.

Still, I'm willing to be persuaded on the 'most prolific from open play alone' issue, if you or someone else can be arsed to look it up.

110% wrote:
You started it with criticism of ginola winning the poty (standing out amongst mediocrity etc), when you really though keane or scholes should have won it. The discussion since (at least by me) was that of course ginola can win it, because he doesn't have to be playing for the best team to be the best individual player. In the end it looks like a language misunderstanding because no-one is disputing the man u had the "best collection of players" in the past, and chelsea now, but they often didn't have the absolute "best players" in the league.

Please tell me the difference between "best collection of players" and "best players" minus the word collection and you have the same statement, there is no misunderstanding i knew what you were saying you simply thought you knew what i was saying, i've never said Keane or Scholes should win, ive never said the best team has the best Player those were all presumptions you thought i was making when in fact had you been reading what i wrote you would have realised this. I stand by 'the best team has the best players' you need a team unlike Real Madrid of recent unlike Brazil of the world cup, but at the same time you need the quality, so when you have a good team + quality you got the a winning formular. You must not think by best players i mean individual or ones that look 'pretty on the eye' theres a fine line between being the best at what you do and being very good, and usually that is down to consistancy, teams that win the league are consistant therefore in my opinion habour the best players.

Parks Lives wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:I see it in most of your posts.

Keane and Scholes were average. Fergie is way past his best and was never that great anyway, Cantona played in the league when it was easy, we were only good in the 90's.

Then I'm biased for disputing them.

Oh and know aparently Dalglish was better than George Best.

Go through my posts and you'll find most of them don't mention them unless I am in an argument with you. In this particular thread, I went for henry and you brought in shearer and "keane" with your longevity argument. So you introduced keane to this thread not me.

Also I was arguing pro ginola as poty, not anti man united (which is how you take everything).

Your problem is that I write ginola was very good, and you read MAN U ARE SHIT. So what is the problem here, my writing or your reading? It's pretty clear you have a reading deficiency

It was several pages back but you still didn't say who was better based on your longevity argument shearer or cantona?

Thats bollocks, you quite clearly said that not only is Henry the best foreigner but the best player of the premiership era.

Football Genius wrote:

saintgoingmarching wrote:

Football Genius wrote:Well actually Utd's players are represented in 7 of those years, not to mention, why dont you dig up who came second and third ? pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players.

Tell you what, why don't you dig up that information rather than making bets and presumptions?

Look at the comparison between the player awards (reasonably justified in most cases) and the Writers' award (ludicrous judgement).

Not made one bet there pal, maybe intensive reading classes are needed

'pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players' - an effective bet/presumption

I dont need to because fortunately being the football addict i was as a youth i was given plenty of free tapes to watch by my youth team, so i have the competition i requested for you nicely put away in the loft ! I wanted you to make a full investigation, rather than a half hearted one that racks up a bunch of results solely to indicate one area of the arguement, objectivity - look at both sides of the arguement then come to the conclusion

That you'd even use the phrase 'both sides of the argument' when this argument has about a hundred 'sides' is laughable. Either present the info for your argument, or your claim remains a presumption. My point stands: in terms of who won the various player accolades (and no one cares who came second in such awards, except Frank Lampard and David Beckham) Man U aren't over-represented.

Football Genius wrote:

110% wrote:
You started it with criticism of ginola winning the poty (standing out amongst mediocrity etc), when you really though keane or scholes should have won it. The discussion since (at least by me) was that of course ginola can win it, because he doesn't have to be playing for the best team to be the best individual player. In the end it looks like a language misunderstanding because no-one is disputing the man u had the "best collection of players" in the past, and chelsea now, but they often didn't have the absolute "best players" in the league.

Please tell me the difference between "best collection of players" and "best players" minus the word collection and you have the same statement, there is no misunderstanding i knew what you were saying you simply thought you knew what i was saying, i've never said Keane or Scholes should win, ive never said the best team has the best Player those were all presumptions you thought i was making when in fact had you been reading what i wrote you would have realised this. I stand by 'the best team has the best players' you need a team unlike Real Madrid of recent unlike Brazil of the world cup, but at the same time you need the quality, so when you have a good team + quality you got the a winning formular. You must not think by best players i mean individual or ones that look 'pretty on the eye' theres a fine line between being the best at what you do and being very good, and usually that is down to consistancy, teams that win the league are consistant therefore in my opinion habour the best players.

I can't be bothered to find every post, but it started with your criticism of ginola for winning poty a certain year and he was the "best player" (I cannot remember if you thought it should have ben scholes or keane?), and then you said the best team has the best players. Last year the two "best players" were henry and gerrard. The best team (ie "collection of best players" playing together) was chelsea.

Parks Lives wrote:Thats bollocks, you quite clearly said that not only is Henry the best foreigner but the best player of the premiership era.

yes in my opinion he is.

then you brought in shearer and keane, so you are still the one who brought in keane, and you claim I keep mentioning him. I have never once said he is average as well.

Also the dalglish comment was one where toon h had said he thought dalglish was best and I agreed with him. You read that as BEST IS SHIT, again your problem not mine.

I did not say dalglish was better than best, but he probably was.

110% wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:Thats bollocks, you quite clearly said that not only is Henry the best foreigner but the best player of the premiership era.

yes in my opinion he is.

then you brought in shearer and keane, so you are still the one who brought in keane, and you claim I keep mentioning him. I have never once said he is average as well.

Also the dalglish comment was one where toon h had said he thought dalglish was best and I agreed with him. You read that as BEST IS SHIT, again your problem not mine.

I did not say dalglish was better than best, but he probably was.

Open and shut case.

oh yeah, and who's better based on your longevity argument, shearer or cantona?

'pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players' - an effective bet/presumption

Well im glad you were not in my law lectures, you would have got eaten up, but ill forgive your lack of knowledge in how to make a contract/bet.

Sure ill go and watch 24 hours of football tape footage just to prove what i know, and if second and third is irrelevant, then so is 4th 5th etc, so whats the point in the competition ? to lavish praise and recognition on one individual and none other ? Competitions by the very nature of the word are competitive, in this case its down to opinion not fact unlike the points the top team accumulate which makes it even more prone to error because there is no mathematical certainty.

YOU brought to me the list and the debate, YOU failed to look at both sides of the arguement, which isn't a million sides but a question with two answers, Were Manchester Utd over represented ?, that was in reply to my suggestion they dominated the 90's in terms of team and players, YOU then followed in addtional 00's awards, which were not relevant to what i had said, not to mention the fact you ONLY used one piece of Media evidence when there were so many. What you are saying is floored on so many levels im finding it hard to sit and explain each one without writing an entire page of findings..

Shearer.

My top 3 disregarding foreign or not would be Keane, Shearer and Bergkamp.

Parks Lives wrote:

110% wrote:

Parks Lives wrote:Thats bollocks, you quite clearly said that not only is Henry the best foreigner but the best player of the premiership era.

yes in my opinion he is.

then you brought in shearer and keane, so you are still the one who brought in keane, and you claim I keep mentioning him. I have never once said he is average as well.

Also the dalglish comment was one where toon h had said he thought dalglish was best and I agreed with him. You read that as BEST IS SHIT, again your problem not mine.

I did not say dalglish was better than best, but he probably was.

Open and shut case.

so your also saying dalglish was better?

Football Genius wrote:'pretty confident you will find the close competition especially in the 90's will be dominated by Man Utd players' - an effective bet/presumption

Well im glad you were not in my law lectures, you would have got eaten up, but ill forgive your lack of knowledge in how to make a contract/bet.

I'm not talking about a legal contract. If you'd said 'I bet that Man U are over-represented in 90s player awards' then you wouldn't be entering into a legal contract/bet. You know this full well but you've messed up and are now trying to rip the whole thing out of context in order to confuse the issue. Tough luck. It's a simple technique to spot.

Sure ill go and watch 24 hours of football tape footage just to prove what i know, and if second and third is irrelevant, then so is 4th 5th etc, so whats the point in the competition ? to lavish praise and recognition on one individual and none other ?

1) To herald individual players for marketing purposes, like music awards ceremonies or the Oscars
2) To maintain the media's authority

You wouldn't have to go and watch 24 hours of football footage. The info is on the FA Premier League website, I'm pretty sure of that.

Competitions by the very nature of the word are competitive,

Awards are granted by bodies unqualified to grant them, in many cases. Where's the competition?

in this case its down to opinion not fact unlike the points the top team accumulate which makes it even more prone to error because there is no mathematical certainty.

Okay, what would you consider a percentage of players in the top, say, 20 in each season, according to the voting for the two awards, that is justifiably 'over-representative' of a given team, in this case Man U?

YOU brought to me the list and the debate, YOU failed to look at both sides of the arguement, which isn't a million sides but a question with two answers, Were Manchester Utd over represented ?, that was in reply to my suggestion they dominated the 90's in terms of team and players, YOU then followed in addtional 00's awards, which were not relevant to what i had said, not to mention the fact you ONLY used one piece of Media evidence when there were so many.

One piece of media evidence? What, the facts as to who won the various player awards?

What you are saying is floored on so many levels im finding it hard to sit and explain each one without writing an entire page of findings..

Flawed. Didn't they teach you to spell at law school?

'so many levels' - please try not to use metaphorical cliches when trying to appear reasonable. It just makes you look an ass.

Things we've learnt:

Hyypia is the best foreigner ever in the premiership, followed by Agger.

Man Utd have had the best team in the premiership.

Dalglish is the greatest player ever to ply their trade in England. Full stop.

Obispo wrote:Things we've learnt:

Bergkamp is the best foreigner ever in the premiership, followed by Cantona.

Man Utd have had the best team in the premiership by a distance.

George Best is the greatest player ever to ply their trade in England. Full stop.

Well said.