turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
simone perrotta
world cup winner in 2006
world cup winner in 2006
I'd think soian rush ? gary lineker ?
Harsh on McCoist. He only played 2 seasons for Sunderland and was only 18-19 years old. He returned to Rangers and won countless titles (admittedly, these came free with £10 worth of petrol for any Ranger player in that era) but also did the business in Europe for them. However I agree that he wasn't a patch on Ian Wright.ian wright was a FAR better striker than ally mccoist who tried and failed to make it into the premier league, black players should be in there on merit, not just because of their colour, so ashley cole , love him or hate him should be on the list , certainly deserves it better than viv anderson
I think any England player still alive that won a world cup medal should be on that list!
46 years on and repeating that feat appears as less likely as ever...
Once again...no. George Cohen is not and never was one of the greatest British footballers ever. He played in a great team, there's a huge difference. It doesn't even make sense to include them based on the team they played for...the likes of Le Tissier would never have been included otherwise.
The contributions of Cohen, Stiles etc. were as important to that side as Hurst's hatrick or Charlton's goals on the way to the final. They WON the world cup. End of story. Whether that was someone's only season of caps, or 100, the world cup was won. Anyone that doesn't class them amoung England's finest footballers ever doesn't understand the difference between your fancy dan look at me I've got all the skills (but no silverware) show ponies, and what it means to contribute to the nation's biggest and only achievement in football....ever.
Le Tissier is included as he had the skills of a God, but the temperament of a perennial loser. The likes of Cohen and Stiles should be included because what they lacked in skill, they had in courage, heart and desire. That's why I'd have them in. Football isn't all about sublime first touches, and silky skills, sometimes it really is down to shear guts. Something England international teams have now lacked for 40 years.
On the basis of effectively playing in ONE match (five if we're going to stretch it to the tournament) you would include every single player who played in that match as one of the greatest ever footballers these shores have produced. Fair enough. Christian Kerembeu is one of the greatest players of any country still alive today.
I'm not quite why you feel the need to get all passive-aggressive on an innocuous thread like this, it's not like any of this matters, you know?
And I stick by my contention that there is a huge difference between great teams and great players and would say that you are in the wrong. Don't take it personally.
The contributions of Cohen, Stiles etc. were as important to that side as Hurst's hatrick or Charlton's goals on the way to the final. They WON the world cup. End of story. Whether that was someone's only season of caps, or 100, the world cup was won. Anyone that doesn't class them amoung England's finest footballers ever doesn't understand the difference between your fancy dan look at me I've got all the skills (but no silverware) show ponies, and what it means to contribute to the nation's biggest and only achievement in football....ever.
Le Tissier is included as he had the skills of a God, but the temperament of a perennial loser. The likes of Cohen and Stiles should be included because what they lacked in skill, they had in courage, heart and desire. That's why I'd have them in. Football isn't all about sublime first touches, and silky skills, sometimes it really is down to shear guts. Something England international teams have now lacked for 40 years.
No, not at all. We all know you're prone to the sarcastic comments and references to people not being as clever as you, I'm just surprised you do it even on a thread like this.
Ah well, I'm off home now so I shan't worry any longer.