The disrespect for Andy Cole
- Thread starter FujiVice
- Start date
Andy played at a time when football was producing WC strikers left, right and centre. The likes of Shearer, Batistuta, Vieri, Baggio, Romario and co would shit on the likes of Vardy, Kane, Immobile, Werner and all the players who top the goalscorer sheet these days. To make matter worse the previous generation was as good if not even better then that. You had the likes of Van Basten, Maradona, Vialli, Mancini and co dominating football. So managers could afford being picky with their strikers and tbh Cole was nowhere near to that level.
Andy Cole wasn't the only victim of that. Most strikers at the time suffered from unfair comments from time to time. Batistuta lamented that unless he scored every game then critics would be questioning whether he's finished. Vialli and Mancini were kept out of USA 94 team because they performed a prank on Sacchi. That's how football was back then.
Andy Cole wasn't the only victim of that. Most strikers at the time suffered from unfair comments from time to time. Batistuta lamented that unless he scored every game then critics would be questioning whether he's finished. Vialli and Mancini were kept out of USA 94 team because they performed a prank on Sacchi. That's how football was back then.
There’s a lot in there. Still, even without it, many people could be excused for thinking he was very good but not really great. His scoring form for Newcastle was absurd, and people expected the king of efficiency, to complement Le Roi of creativity and make us unplayable. But coming in January as a Record buy, all etyes were on him, and he disappointed. He scored 12 in 17, not bad, bud still disappointing compared to the ludivrous hype, and among them were a lot of tap ins, five goals in a 9-0 win against a resigned Ipswich, and a lot of missed chances and nervous touches. To top it off, Cantona disappeared, and United came second in league and cup. Next season, he did well playing second fiddle to Eric for a double winning team, but ‘the goal getter’ scored only 11 league goals. Then he was displaced by an unknown baby faced Norwegian. First impressions are sometimes hard to get rid of.
6. He was unlucky in that Shearer and Cantona was around, two of the best forwards of the PL era. Shearer was too alike, and Cantona needed a different kind of foil, so Cole ended up as second choice both places. When he came around, he was fantastic for United, and much more than a goal scorer, even if he did score 121 goals for us. For England, his percieved direct competition was Shearer and then Owen. A player like Sheringham was viewed as more complementary to them by Venables and Hoddle. Robbie Fowler suffered from this as well. Then came Keegan, all who played for him was doomed to defamation by the dreariness of the displays.
Andy Cole was a great player, and one of the best players in one of the best seasons for any football team ever, 1998/99.
I list him #4 the best striker in EPL era... (behind Henry, Shearer, Aguero)...
He came in the Jan of 1995 so had finished 94/95 season
Had full 95/96 season
From wiki
" Before the 1996–97 season began, Cole had to deal with being offered to Blackburn Rovers as part-exchange in a £12 million deal that would have brought Alan Shearer to Old Trafford, but the offer was rejected and Shearer joined Newcastle instead. Despite Alex Ferguson's clear indication to Cole that he was looking for another striker, after the Shearer deal fell through, Cole fought to stay at the club and was handed the number 9 shirt, having previously worn 17 "
Wow. Well in fairness it was the making of him as a player at United.
Had many similarities’ to Lukaku, as in poor fist touch, struggled with his back to goal etc. But he really did work on those issues and became a far better player. Many people overlooked how he improved and continued to recycle the same old blah about his game. He was unfortunate to be around at the same time as Shearer and probably gets overlooked due to that.
One of my favourite players growing up. A few rough seasons with some serious injuries but he evolved in to a fantastic all-round striker.From Mrs Smoker's stat thread:
Andy Cole
Another record signing at the time. Andy Cole was brought to United for 6 million pounds and rated youngling Keith Gillespie. While struggling a bit in first few full seasons, starting with this one, he found his scoring touch again.
Louis Saha used to remind me a little of Cole. Could regularly score with either foot or head and such fantastic movement to create chances for themselves and others. Both nightmares to mark I imagine.
There was a recent thread about ranking United strikers and Cole got plenty of love from those that were around to watch him play. This impact/esteem doesn't seem to be reflected in the wider perception of him sadly.
Who cares what Ian Wright and the rest of the ABU bandwagon think. His records speak for themselves and his memory will live longer than any of those tools on the bbc.
He's the reason why I've started to follow United, great player and without a doubt underrated when it comes to all time greats in PL.
The only way he gets above RVN is longevity and trophies..
Rvn came in and instantly blew Cole's numbers out of the water. And in between our ultra dominant team periods too.
Wow, incredibly rude and you missed the point entirely. The point was how they are viewed by the commentator and pundits, ie. Wright is remembered for saving his inferior team with great goals and Cole was remembered as having an inconsistent career with patches of genius.
Wind your neck in and apologize for completely jumping the gun and calling me an idiot.
I apologize for completely jumping the gun and calling you an idiot (even though I didn't, I called you dumb).
Okay, may be you could say @2cents was using one clip to make judgement, (which I don't think the poster was aiming for that purpose). However, for the other poster, he/she was not really using one clip to make judgement, the poster was using the clip as part of example. People remember the bad thing on one player but not the other one.
Let’s throw a different idea onto the table. Ruud, despite more personal glory - scoring wise was not an integral part of the best team in United’s history and nor does he have the overall goals /assists record of Cole- or his medals.
I loved Ruud, I just loved Cole more! He was so dynamic and he had defenders’ heads spinning.
I have to say I saw them both live - as in at Old Trafford and there is not much in it in terms of all round game, but seriously I watched Cole and his movement and passion see us over the line when the rest of the team were below par on more than one occasion. His movement was literally sensational - and I havent seen a striker since who adds that level of value to a team since.
There was a phase after the treble season where it felt like Cole was scoring overhead kicks every other week.
It’s interesting with all the talk in this thread of how stacked the league was with quality English forwards in the mid-90s that Stan Collymore hasn’t got a mention. Probably had more talent/potential than any of them, and was very much an option in Fergie’s mind in January 1995 (he had scored a stunning winner at OT earlier that season).
It was probably a blessing in disguise these players were left out.
Exactly... people have short memories!
Loved watching Cole and Yorke.
Cole’s goal v Barca in the Nou camp is one of my favourite Utd goals. They were a joy to watch .
it was strange typing Cole and Yorke, they were always referred to as Yorke and Cole !
Cole’s goal v Barca in the Nou camp is one of my favourite Utd goals. They were a joy to watch .
it was strange typing Cole and Yorke, they were always referred to as Yorke and Cole !
Why am I quoted?
I couldn’t believe it when I saw we’d signed him on teletext, I was totally over the moon as he was my favourite non united player around then. He was on fire at Newcastle. He had a poor start no doubt about it. I remember being totally confused about how hed gone from banging them in every week in a worse team to struggling to fit into a better outfit and I admit I thought he was a busted flush. I realise now I was only seeing his Newcastle highlights every week instead of watching him week in and out. He proved everyone wrong in the end though. I think he deserves to be in the top 10 PL strikers as he scored loads at 2 clubs and was instrumental in winning everything. By the time yorke came along coles all round game had improved a lot.
Football has also changed. Some of those players you mentioned wouldn't be considered strikers in today's football. No one considers two of histories greatest goalscorers strikers for example but in the 90's they'd both have been that.
I'd also not talk about Vialli or Mancini in the same sentence as Batistuta, Maradona and van Basten. Saying that Cole was nowhere near their level is bs. Mancini and Vialli were in the same team together at their peaks and they finished 5th in the league with half the wins as the champions. That's not dominating.
Apologies. It was something you commented on actually - not an opinion on what you said!
He'll always be 
Goal King Cole
Goal King ColeRuud's record was better than Cole's. In fact I'm pretty sure that no one has a better minutes per G+A than Ruud for United in the PL era. Ruud changed the game when he came to us. Before him players were not on purpose staying in offside positions during the match to make it harder to mark them (especially during set pieces). He was a great striker, such a gifted goal scorer because of his off the ball movement.
It's not his fault that neither our squad was as good (goalkeeper problems and defense rotations) nor that the competition for the title was stronger (Mourinho's Chelsea and Arsenal invincibles). We lost in the semi-final of the CL on away goals with him. The season where he won the league and scored 44 goals for us we were knocked out by Real Madrid where Ronaldo got a standing ovation at Old Trafford. Juventus lost the finals in penalties and we beat them twice in the group that season. Do I need to mention the 03/04 season. He was a machine in that competition and smashed all the records that stood until Ronaldo and Messi took goalscoring to a new level. As for us it's as consistently good as we had been in Europe.
He was intergral part of a very good United team that played really well in Europe and the league (except against Liverpool and Arsenal) and I don't think it's fair to slack him off like just so you can make Cole sound better. No need for that.
One of my favourite ever united players. I remember it took him a long time to score for us and England.
I don't think he really ever got a decent run with England, but we had some fantastic strikers at the time. It used to infuriate me that England kept over looking him, but it seems to happen a lot with united players. For instance Scott Parker and Gareth Barry over Michael Carrick. Madness!!!
When Ruud came in though he blew Cole out of the water. They were different players though Ruud was a goal machine.
I don't think he really ever got a decent run with England, but we had some fantastic strikers at the time. It used to infuriate me that England kept over looking him, but it seems to happen a lot with united players. For instance Scott Parker and Gareth Barry over Michael Carrick. Madness!!!
When Ruud came in though he blew Cole out of the water. They were different players though Ruud was a goal machine.
There's a lot of points in there
a- most of those players could easily slot upfront if the manager wanted. They had the goal scoring ratio to do so quite comfortably
b- Vialli and Mancini dragged little Sampdoria to become Serie A winners back in 1991. They weren't at par to Maradona, Van Basten and Batistuta but they were certainly better then Cole. Don't forget that at age 32 and after spending his career being battered in the Serie A, Vialli was able to go to Chelsea (ie a different league) and score 40 goals in 88 matches with a goal ratio of 0.45 . Coley scored 121 goals in 275 matches which gives him a goal ratio of 0.44. Which makes ancient Vialli who was deemed as a surplus at Juve, a slightly more prolific striker at Chelsea then Cole was with us and that despite the former was playing with a way shittier side then Cole was. So, yes, Coley was inferior to Vialli as a player.
Its a shame that the arrogant Sacchi didn't took Vialli and Mancini to the USA 94 ahead to the very average Massaro and Casiraghi. I am pretty sure that they would have won the WC with those two around relieving an injured Baggio.
Anyone can edit wiki . I don't recall Cole ever being part of the Shearer deal and i seriously doubt Fergie would have given up on him so soon
Well played
Good point about adaptability. He outlasted every new striker bought by the club until Ruud came along. I've always liked him. Also love his "playing for City is a job, playing for United is a dream" comments.
Cole also said in the podcast that Fergie didn't want him to leave in 2001 and that he indicated to Cole that he could stay at United for however long he wanted or something like that.
I have to say, I've never heard or read anything about Cole being offered in the Shearer deal...
I get that, I heard it on the radio at work and I thought it must be a mistake. I can't remember thinking that about any other transfer.
Correct.
He's also second in terms of goals/games ratio - just (very) slightly behind Tommy Taylor on the all-time list.
ETA Given that Taylor played before subs were allowed, his minutes/goals stat should be easy to calculate.
Well that's simply not true.
Peter Beardsley scored 25 goals that season. Cole finished outright top of both the goals scored and assists columns - to this day the only player to do that in premier league history.
Cole sits only behind Henry and Shearer on the list of prem strikers for me. He's level with Rooney and Aguero who I admit, will likely have made 3rd spot his own by the time he leaves City. The likes of Wright, Fowler, Kane, Van Nistelrooy and others don't come close.
Eileen Drury told him in a dream.
What's the formula for goals per minute?
I'm a math idiot, so bear with me.
X total goals divided by Y total minutes multiplied by 90 would tell you how many goals a player scores (per minute) in an average match. Yes?
But the player may not be on the pitch for 90 minutes (could be less or more - was subbed off, stayed on in knockout matches that went to extra-time, etc.).
So...X total goals divided by Y total minutes multiplied by...what? The average minutes spent on the pitch? Is that it?
I'm a math idiot, so bear with me.
X total goals divided by Y total minutes multiplied by 90 would tell you how many goals a player scores (per minute) in an average match. Yes?
But the player may not be on the pitch for 90 minutes (could be less or more - was subbed off, stayed on in knockout matches that went to extra-time, etc.).
So...X total goals divided by Y total minutes multiplied by...what? The average minutes spent on the pitch? Is that it?