What do you expect? I didn't give my votes for that same reason. I haven't seen Zico, Garrincha or Charlton play. How could I give them a vote? The op of that thread was also aware of that and only did this for a bit of fun.In that top 25 footballers thread he is rated above the following:
Bobby Charlton
Van Basten
Garincha
Zico
Mathaus
Filbert StreetNewcastle and the one against Argentina in '98. What's the other one?
That's the one.Filbert Street
I think it's a good question. I imagine you think Bergkamp is the better all round player, being an Arsenal fan and all things considered.Only because he now plays for you!
You seem not to realise that Bergkamp played in two completely different roles for Arsenal (hence the off-key comparisons with van Persie and van Nistlerooij). Up to about 2000 he was a centreforward and after than he played deeper in a No.10 role. Arguably he was at his best in the deeper role, certainly his passing vision was unmatched by most.Some people are missin he point. Ignore that other thread now, the point being made is that I feel he is overated. He was a fantastic player but the hype and hysteria surrounding him sometimes -for me- goes a little too far, and I think nostalgia often influences people opinions on him.
Which is why I rate him so highly.Arguably he was at his best in the deeper role, certainly his passing vision was unmatched by most.
Bergkamp did more on the national stage. I think his absences at Arsenal have put RvP below DB...two more seasons and he'd have been rated higher.I think it's a good question. I imagine you think Bergkamp is the better all round player, being an Arsenal fan and all things considered.
Best player I've seen in my lifetime after Messi.Luis Ronaldo is overrated. Wonderful yes, but he's not better than most of those in the top 10.
Did he? It was always him+1 when you had Wright & Anelka, and then him and Henry until Bergkamp started getting on a bit. RVP had Henry and Adebayor when he first went to Arsenal.Bergkamp did more on the national stage. I think his absences at Arsenal have put RvP below DB...two more seasons and he'd have been rated higher.
He'll always be despised now though!
DB also had more competition from better players.
I am fully aware of the positions he played. How is comparing him to Van Nistletooy and Van Persie off key, when they were three attacking Dutch forwards who played in the PL all of a similar standard. My point is, regardless of skill and technique how can someone rate so much higher than another player who scored 30+ goals a season.You seem not to realise that Bergkamp played in two completely different roles for Arsenal (hence the off-key comparisons with van Persie and van Nistlerooij). Up to about 2000 he was a centreforward and after than he played deeper in a No.10 role. Arguably he was at his best in the deeper role, certainly his passing vision was unmatched by most.
Ah yes! Of course. A great goal.Filbert Street
Because van Nistlerooij is just a goal scorer with limited technique and Van Persie simply doesn't have the passing ability.I am fully aware of the positions he played. How is comparing him to Van Nistletooy and Van Persie off key, when they were three attacking Dutch forwards who played in the PL all of a similar standard. My point is, regardless of skill and technique how can someone rate so much higher than another player who scored 30+ goals a season.
Van Nistlerooy also had the knack of running through entire defences, his movement was also sensational and you can't discount his technique either, he scored some stunning vollies and flicks. What I mean is overall as a player Van Nistlerooy had a bigger influence on United than Arsenal had from Bergkamp, which is surely what you measure a players overall ability on.Because van Nistlerooij is just a goal scorer with limited technique and Van Persie simply doesn't have the passing ability.
That's pretty much it. People remember that Henry fella a lot and how good he was. Well, Henry and Bergkamp is the partnership that has played the most PL games together upfront. There's a darn good reason for that.You seem not to realise that Bergkamp played in two completely different roles for Arsenal (hence the off-key comparisons with van Persie and van Nistlerooij). Up to about 2000 he was a centreforward and after than he played deeper in a No.10 role. Arguably he was at his best in the deeper role, certainly his passing vision was unmatched by most.
That is quite clearly bollox. Bergkamp along with Wenger were the two catalysts towards changing our association with being primarily a side which had strengths defensively to a far more offensive one. Any player from that era who played for Arsenal, the likes of Dixon, Wright, Adams and then players like Vieira and Henry later on have said that Bergkamp as a player was simply a genius who made others around him play better.Van Nistlerooy also had the knack of running through entire defences, his movement was also sensational and you can't discount his technique either, he score some stunning vollies and flicks. What I mean is overall as a player Van Nistlerooy had a bigger influence on United than Arsenal had from Bergkamp, which is surely hat you measure a players ability on.
i am not sure whether i should laugh or pity you (i know it comes across as condescending, and I am very sorry. we have different tastes)What I mean is overall as a player Van Nistlerooy had a bigger influence on United than Arsenal had from Bergkamp, which is surely what you measure a players overall ability on.
You pitty me? Have I once said that Van Nistlerooy is a better player? No. I am creating food for thought and debate. The question I am posing is how can one considered a superior player when they have less overall Influence in a team. Which he did. Van Nistlerooy carried United at times, whilst Bergkamp wasnt always a starter.i am not sure whether i should laugh or pity you (i know it comes across as condescending, and I am very sorry. we have different tastes)
Cristiano?Best player I've seen in my lifetime after Messi.
what does enter players even mean?You pitty me? Have I once said that Van Nistlerooy is a better player? No. I am creating food for thought and debate. The question I am posing is how can one considered a superior player when they have less overall Influence in a team. Which he did. Van Nistlerooy carried United at times, whilst Bergkamp wasnt always a starter.
I have said van Nistlerooy or Van Persie are enter players, just trying to raise examples of why I think Bergkamp is overated.
Please take your pitty elsewhere.
I often wonder where we'd be right now without Van Nistelrooy. How many players were there out there that could've dragged us through like he did until Ronaldo really emerged? Seriously influential footballer in our recent history.Van Nistlerooy also had the knack of running through entire defences, his movement was also sensational and you can't discount his technique either, he scored some stunning vollies and flicks. What I mean is overall as a player Van Nistlerooy had a bigger influence on United than Arsenal had from Bergkamp, which is surely what you measure a players overall ability on.
Van Nistelrooys technique was highly underrated. Some of his finishes required excellent techniques and he used to finish them with ease.Because van Nistlerooij is just a goal scorer with limited technique and Van Persie simply doesn't have the passing ability.
True, he was a complete striker though only capable of leading the line, much more of a finisher than anything else. What he did he did perfectly though.Van Nistelrooys technique was highly underrated. Some of his finishes required excellent techniques and he used to finish them with ease.
At 13th, he is ahead of Platini, Henry, Rivaldo, Charlton, Zico and Garrincha. On the peak basis Henry, Rivaldo and Garrincha were better. On overall career contribution Platini, Charlton and Zico also easily surpass him. He is also ahead of more comparable AND successful players like Xavi and Iniesta.I would have him on a similar level to Zidane over his career, if he is in the top 13 players to ever play the game is hard to say but suppose it's what you are looking for. Personally I would say what Scholes has done over say 16 years makes him a better player than Ronaldinho for what he done over 4 years although you do have to say for them 4 years he was one of the great players so people will always judge these things differently.
Nah Ronaldo was better. He had everything.Cristiano?
