Premierships greatest foreign players...

S4P wrote:Zola should win it.

Anyone else wins it and Sky are anti-Chelsea

Football Icon..

without bergkamp

no gullit, rvn, henry, zola etc.

bergkamp to win it.

without Juninho aswell, he came over in the same year

OLE OLE OLE OLE JUNININHO O O JUNININHO O O

Bergkamp is the best Foreigner in the EPL. The very first success, the most pronlonged success, changed the shape of the Prem success.....also the guy adapted to all the changes of the Arsenal team, i.e Wright, Anelka and Henry.

He was the spearhead of the Arsenal Revolution and I really don't think Arsenal would have been the success that is today, if it weren't from his initial influence....

The Bulk wrote:I’ve enjoyed watching most of the players who have already been mentioned, although I’m unsure who the best was.

saintgoingmarching wrote:I don't particularly like either player in terms of discipline and personality

Perhaps erroneously, my impression of Bergkamp is that he is a hardworking professional. What, in particular, do you dislike about his personality and discipline?

Use of elbows, mainly.

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:Zola should win it.

Anyone else wins it and Sky are anti-Chelsea

Football Icon..

I was only joking anyway. As much as I hate to say it Bergkamp > Zola

S4P wrote:

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:Zola should win it.

Anyone else wins it and Sky are anti-Chelsea

Football Icon..

I was only joking anyway. As much as I hate to say it Bergkamp > Zola

Cantona > Bergkamp .. forget the 'karate kick', he was the 'talisman'

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:Zola should win it.

Anyone else wins it and Sky are anti-Chelsea

Football Icon..

I was only joking anyway. As much as I hate to say it Bergkamp > Zola

Cantona > Bergkamp .. forget the 'karate kick', he was the 'talisman'

Oh I don't know. Cantona was an awesome player no doubt, but Bergkamp did it for longer. That's the only thing that may go against Eric.

Ginola is worth a flutter of a mention, just from his talent, silky skills and finase and not exactly from his impact...although he did play a staring role for newcaste's most successful season...

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:

rai Mihawk wrote:

S4P wrote:Zola should win it.

Anyone else wins it and Sky are anti-Chelsea

Football Icon..

I was only joking anyway. As much as I hate to say it Bergkamp > Zola

Cantona > Bergkamp .. forget the 'karate kick', he was the 'talisman'

cantona did it in a time when the EPL was just a mediocre league

Bergkamp > cantona

Juninho did it on 3 seperate occasions...and for a small club

wooo

Ginola goal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQBlxDJkfVE

Hardrada wrote:

Football Genius wrote:Zola...the guy wasn't a success

(I cant even be bothered to construct an argument against this rubbish)

I always prefer you to try, or is it in the knowledge that you know you are wrong ? facts dont lie, no big trophies, shite goals per game ratio, shite assists per game ratio, how is that rubbish ? that is constructive critism. Sure the guy had loads of skill and was 'pretty' to watch, but he was far from the best import, little end product and did not lead his team to major trophies, so please make an arguement to this so called rubbish, im currently finding it hard to see one..

He doesnt necessarily have to get an assist though....he could have beat 9 men passed it to someone, who then passed it someone else and they score.

The fact he doesnt get an assist for that doesnt mean he wasnt involved in the goal and isnt very good.

Mauricio Pellegrino has got to get it

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:Mauricio Pellegrino has got to get it

Ah, Liverpool's Laurent Blanc...


How about Desailly? He wasn't half bad. Vieira too - I'm surprised there aren't floods of Arsenal fans shouting his name. I suppose they're all whacking off over their Thierry 'statistically the best' Henry posters...

Viera was immense

Football Genius wrote:
no big trophies,

European trophies and the FA Cup don't count nowadays eh?

Football Genius wrote:shite goals per game ratio, shite assists per game ratio, how is that rubbish ? that is constructive critism.

He wasn't a prolific goalscorer, but he wasn't in the team to score goals. And fair play, it's your opinion mate

Football Genius wrote:did not lead his team to major trophies, ..

Like I said, it's your opinion, but I thought he was awesome in the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons which is when we had most of our success

we've had worse players than Pellegrino.

Sean "faster than Michael Owen" Dundee and Eric "lotsa effort" Meijer being prime examples.

Di Canio

borocooper wrote:He doesnt necessarily have to get an assist though....he could have beat 9 men passed it to someone, who then passed it someone else and they score.

The fact he doesnt get an assist for that doesnt mean he wasnt involved in the goal and isnt very good.

I understand that, so ok lets put that into a bigger picture, he contributed to the attack but then so have many players what makes Zola so unique that scoring or assisting isn't important. It certainly wasn't driving his team to league titles or conquering Europe

No big titles, few goals and few assists, no-one has yet to put up a decent arguement for yet. Whereas you have Cantona who at times scored the goals that drove Utd to success, and Bergkamps fantastic partnerships with wrighty, Anelka and Henry scoring + making important goals. Zola just is not in that class.

Hello Obispo, u alright mate

Football Genius wrote:

Hardrada wrote:

Football Genius wrote:Zola...the guy wasn't a success

(I cant even be bothered to construct an argument against this rubbish)

I always prefer you to try, or is it in the knowledge that you know you are wrong ? facts dont lie, no big trophies, shite goals per game ratio, shite assists per game ratio, how is that rubbish ? that is constructive critism. Sure the guy had loads of skill and was 'pretty' to watch, but he was far from the best import, little end product and did not lead his team to major trophies, so please make an arguement to this so called rubbish, im currently finding it hard to see one..

uhm

firstly

he was not a striker. If you think otherwise then i suggest you get hold of a tape and actually watch him play. This makes his goals:games stat fairly respectable really.

Assists stats are essentially useless and not a measure of creativity at all.

The classic example being:

player A sends a 60 yard through ball to player B, player B square it 5 yards to player C who scores. Player B gets the assist.

Therefore by staying deep he was clearly not going to get many assists.

***

Your point about trophies is also poor.

Not winning the league is hardly surprising given that he was playing in an inferior team to the others. I would imagine if you had Zola playing at Arsenal and Bergkamp at Chelsea the number of leagues won would imo not have varied.

As for the CL...how often have any PL players won this recently ? Certainly not the Henrys and Bergkamps you would no doubt put above Zola in your list.

With Zola we did win 2 FA Cups, League Cup, Charity Shield, Euro Super Cup, Euro CWC (scored within a minute of coming on the pitch). Not a bad haul ?

Saying he wasnt as good as Bergkamp is completely understandable....saying he wasnt a success is a total and utter joke of a statement. If you truly believe that Zola was not a success in the PL then I advise you to give up on watching football. Certainly your username needs changing.

Football Genius wrote:

borocooper wrote:He doesnt necessarily have to get an assist though....he could have beat 9 men passed it to someone, who then passed it someone else and they score.

The fact he doesnt get an assist for that doesnt mean he wasnt involved in the goal and isnt very good.

I understand that, so ok lets put that into a bigger picture, he contributed to the attack but then so have many players what makes Zola so unique that scoring or assisting isn't important. It certainly wasn't driving his team to league titles or conquering Europe

No big titles, few goals and few assists, no-one has yet to put up a decent arguement for yet. Whereas you have Cantona who at times scored the goals that drove Utd to success, and Bergkamps fantastic partnerships with wrighty, Anelka and Henry scoring + making important goals. Zola just is not in that class.

Surely the lack of trophies means very little?

Wouldnt that mean the likes of David May were better than the likes of Marcell Desailly?

European cups ? you won the cup winners cup !
of course the FA cup is a valid point, but how many times did you win it.....


Im not saying Zola wasn't a good player with fantastic technique and touch, just i do not believe he is what many Chelsea fans would have us believe. Robbie Fowler was more effective than Zola was christs sake.

borocooper wrote:

Football Genius wrote:

borocooper wrote:He doesnt necessarily have to get an assist though....he could have beat 9 men passed it to someone, who then passed it someone else and they score.

The fact he doesnt get an assist for that doesnt mean he wasnt involved in the goal and isnt very good.

I understand that, so ok lets put that into a bigger picture, he contributed to the attack but then so have many players what makes Zola so unique that scoring or assisting isn't important. It certainly wasn't driving his team to league titles or conquering Europe

No big titles, few goals and few assists, no-one has yet to put up a decent arguement for yet. Whereas you have Cantona who at times scored the goals that drove Utd to success, and Bergkamps fantastic partnerships with wrighty, Anelka and Henry scoring + making important goals. Zola just is not in that class.

Surely the lack of trophies means very little?

Wouldnt that mean the likes of David May were better than the likes of Marcell Desailly?

Common Boro your a smart guy you know thats not in perspective.... Zola played a key part in that Chelsea team, David May certainly did not.

Kevin Davies is effective, does that make him better than Shevchenko?

Football Genius wrote:

borocooper wrote:

Football Genius wrote:

borocooper wrote:He doesnt necessarily have to get an assist though....he could have beat 9 men passed it to someone, who then passed it someone else and they score.

The fact he doesnt get an assist for that doesnt mean he wasnt involved in the goal and isnt very good.

I understand that, so ok lets put that into a bigger picture, he contributed to the attack but then so have many players what makes Zola so unique that scoring or assisting isn't important. It certainly wasn't driving his team to league titles or conquering Europe

No big titles, few goals and few assists, no-one has yet to put up a decent arguement for yet. Whereas you have Cantona who at times scored the goals that drove Utd to success, and Bergkamps fantastic partnerships with wrighty, Anelka and Henry scoring + making important goals. Zola just is not in that class.

Surely the lack of trophies means very little?

Wouldnt that mean the likes of David May were better than the likes of Marcell Desailly?

Common Boro your a smart guy you know thats not in perspective.... Zola played a key part in that Chelsea team, David May certainly did not.

Exactly, he played a key part, of them doing very well for(at the time) an inferior club.

Football Genius wrote:European cups ? you won the cup winners cup !
of course the FA cup is a valid point, but how many times did you win it.....

We won the FA Cup twice. In the last 9 years, that's the same number of times as Man United, and only 1 or 2 shorter than Arsenal.

The Cup Winners Cup may be a mickey mouse version of the CL, but surely it can be classed as a 'big trophy' (if not, certainly the European Super Cup, where we defeated a good Real Madrid team, is)

Like I said mate, it's your opinion, but I just think Zola contributed lots to the Premiership and to a Chelsea side that, at the time, were on the verge of going bankrupt