You are so wide of the mark with this, and your statement about Flintoff. A large number so sport "stars" today are obsessed with money, but that's a modern thing. You tell Bobby Charlton the only reason he played was for the money and I think he'd have strong words for you. He played for the love of the game, and he still loves it. He wanted to win, but not for the money. Pieterson has earned more money out of the IPL, but the IPL only came along as Flintoff was finishing his career due to injury. If he wasn't injured clubs would have been desperate for his signature. One of the best batters and bowlers in the modern game when he was in his prime.
I don't think anyone is saying that the likes of Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard aren't good players because they are very good players but I dont think that any of them are world class, i.e. the best player in their position in the world whereas in his prime I think Gazza was. He was without a doubt the best player of his generation regardless of medals and honours which do not solely define a players career or ability.
So a important goal makes it a good goal?? Fu.ck me sideways what a complete fu.cking bob end you really are.
how can you be that good when you where never best player in england by your fella pros. dont get that. Also Gerrards second to who liverpool fans call king kenny in terms of best players. not bad to say hes only early 30's
The point you're missing is that you can only be good in comparison to the competition. Gerrard, Lampard, Terry would be bloody useless in late 80's/early 90's football because it was more than just technique needed. You also had to be a hard *******, willing to put your boot in. These days the slightest touch and they go down - it didn't used to work like that - so players like Le Tissier, Gazza etc were rare because it was much harder to be a flair player. Gerrard and Lampard are undoubtedly good players, but it's not as simple as comparing statistics because it doesn't take into account all of the other variables such as opposition, pitch quality, amount of games, the way the game has changed. Gazza probably wouldn't have had the injury problems he had if he played the modern game because he'd be protected by refs.
2nd in the eyes of who?? Rush, Beardsley, Hansen, McMahon, Aldridge, Barnes are all better players then Gerrard IMO
Is that the 40,000 or so regulars at Anfield or is it also counting the millions of fans in Asia who have probably never heard of Rush, Beardsley etc? There is a world away from SSN, LFCtv and internet polls, you should try it you may like it.
I refer you back to your posts on the first page where you implied that a player and his subsequent career is only as good as the trophies that he has won. So essentially I am using your own logic against you. Although you try constantly to show a level of knowledge about football you are actually punching above your weight as you are unable to form opinions other than sound bites that you pick up from watching sky sports news or twitter. You really need to take a step back from things and ask your self why you are always in a majority of one when you state other peoples opinions as fact and talk down to people as if they are something on the bottom of your shoe.
they've all won things. been the best ect. Im ok with that. i was in my iwn when i said there wouldnt be a sunday sun by september ect.
The Liverpool fans who have only watched them for the last 20 years probably would. I work with a bloke who is very involved in LFC, he used to run their supporters trust, always running campaigns, on the radio and stuff, ST holder since the mid 70's, I asked him who he thought was their best ever player. Dalglish was his answer, but he said that some older than him would say Harry Chambers. We had a discussion about various players, Rush, Barnes, Hansen, Keegan, Fowler. Gerrard didn't get a mention.
Does this kid actually exist? I mean, has anybody on ere met him, away from the board? If so, what is he like, how does he come across etc? I say this, as I am continually reading posts from him, that are the work of either an amoeba, or a WUM
He's not a wind up. We've had some good ones and poor ones over the years on the BBS in all its forms, but none of them ever continually came back to the same topic day in, day out. What we have here is a childish desperation to be right.