Edited the part of main goalscorers to not being the furthest forward attacker.First you have to at least agree on 10 names. It's such a weird role if you exclude main goalscorers! Bergkamp, Cantona, Keegan, Dalglish, Raul, Del Piero...
Some names that you can arguably include: Rooney/Litmanen/Totti/Griezmann/Baggio/Tostao/Streltsov (old)/Gullit
Well, if you discount the main goalscorer thingy, then sure. It also gives a lot more room to playmakers. Basically — Pelé, Puskás, Rivaldo, T. Müller (forgot about him, fits the original definition as well), Rummenigge, Eusebio, Meazza, Di Stefano... I wouldn't call Rivaldo & Di Stefano playmakers per se, for example.This might be a little controversial but I think peak Pele (mid to late 60s) was a support-striker.
Those two I would argue played too deep and across various areas to be strictly defined as deep lying or support forwards. Hidegkuti is a good shout.Hidegkuti, Kubala, Florian Albert.
Baggio would be my GOAT rank 2 for this role. Obviously Pele would be No.1
Looking at your deep-lying forwards link you could make a claim that false 9 Messi could be considered a support-striker but since he has rarely, if ever played there, I think we can ignore him. In the two striker periods he would certainly been a second-striker IMO. I think Di Stefano's range all over the pitch disqualifies him as a support-striker.http://pythagorasinboots.com/deep-lying-forwards/
http://pythagorasinboots.com/roaming-forwards/
Some of the names I'd throw in.. Di Stefano due to the sheer range of pitch coverage I would exclude as a pure support-striker but no doubt he could occupy that area and be brilliant.
For me a great second striker is someone who could score 15-20+ goals a season and let the midfield function without a proper midfield play maker.Those two I would argue played too deep and across various areas to be strictly defined as deep lying or support forwards. Hidegkuti is a good shout.
It depends on the tactics of the day really. In today's setups, Puskas/Kocsis/Hidegkuti would all probably not be starting together.Hidegkuti at his best was a false 9 and those are not support strikers.
You're probably right.. thought you could argue Benzema and Firmino support others and bring other forwards into play.Hidegkuti at his best was a false 9 and those are not support strikers.
for me the support(which is pretty much the second striker) striker is a striker from 2 striker formation, the one that plays behind the main one. So in a 442 you have the likes of Griezmann, Bergkamp, Cantona etc. or in situation where you have a n10 behind the duo so the likes of Del Piero and co.It depends on the tactics of the day really. In today's setups, Puskas/Kocsis/Hidegkuti would all probably not be starting together.
In most 2 striker setups, Hidegkuti would be the support striker paired with Puskas/Kocsis
Bang on.. I retract my previous comments. When you put it like that, there are many false 9's you can't envision playing behind just one striker in a two man pairing.for me the support(which is pretty much the second striker) striker is a striker from 2 striker formation, the one that plays behind the main one. So in a 442 you have the likes of Griezmann, Bergkamp, Cantona etc. or in situation where you have a n10 behind the duo so the likes of Del Piero and co.
In that Del Piero scenario you had Pippo leading the line with Zidane at n10. From what i remember(was a long time ago tbf) of doing a research on Hidegkuti he played mostly in a 5 man attack so the likes of Puskas and Kocsis were closer to the roles of supporting strikers then him.
Support is just a term, that player can easily be the main/best player of the team - Griezmann probably the best example.
How I'm interpreting your criteria:Following the discussion of Cantona is one of the game threads I was wondering what the consensus was on the best support/second-strikers of all-time are. To be considered a support striker you cannot be a genuine playmaker/AM nor can you be on average the furthest forward striker of a team and typically played in front two.
Yeah, I've shifted out Gullit. There's probably a style of play bias in here. The slight and slippery Baggio is perhaps the quintessential support striker, whereas the more muscular styles of Gullit, Rummenigge or Kubala is maybe not what you're getting at. They could be classic target men, all-round centre forwards and roaming attackers, but they performed that supporting duty in a very different way to the others.@Invictus
I think you have the idea. Gio put together a more coherent definition for it above.
@Gio On Zico I was very tempted to put him as an SS from what I have seen but is clearly toward the playmaking end of an SS.
Gullit to me is really an 8 of sorts despite playing behind MVB. He was involved I'm all stages of play.
I'd happily put Bergkamp and Del Piero as SSs.
I need to see more of Kalle and Kubala but for me Gullit dropped deeper than the quintessential support striker like Baggio and drifted wide on both sides of the pitch more than generally staying central like the typical SS.Yeah, I've shifted out Gullit. There's probably a style of play bias in here. The slight and slippery Baggio is perhaps the quintessential support striker, whereas the more muscular styles of Gullit, Rummenigge or Kubala is maybe not what you're getting at. They could be classic target men, all-round centre forwards and roaming attackers, but they performed that supporting duty in a very different way to the others.
Ah yes, R9 I would generally consider as an SS although his stint in 02 for Brazil and at Barca he was the main striker. Characteristically however I think he does fit the SS mould.where would you put Fenomeno? For me he is more of a supporting striker then a leading one, in fact if he was playing today im pretty confident he would be playing "on the wing" like the likes of Messi, Neymar, Mbappe etc.
The issue that complicates Ronaldo is his partnership with Vieri which was a version of the big man little man combo really.Brazilian Ronaldo is a striker-a 9 for me. Could definitely easily do the wide-forward role too if that been the role asked of him, but he didn't have too much playmaking or supporting another forward as a primary aim in his game imo. Usually if he was alongside a forward who did, they played the supporting role...Nilis, Raul, Baggio, Bebeto, Edmundo etc..
Is Bergkamp rated over Cantona by consensus here? from what i've watched i'd take Cantona's peak over Bergkamp's in the role at club level in England (Bergkamp being a 9 at Ajax ). Bergkamp obviously had the better career overall, but i think a good amount of that was likely down to Cantona significant disciplinary issues rather than being a better player.
I think the difficulty is that Bergkamp had a decent international career too whereas Cantona was non-existent outside of the domestic scene.Brazilian Ronaldo is a striker-a 9 for me. Could definitely easily do the wide-forward role too if that been the role asked of him, but he didn't have too much playmaking or supporting another forward as a primary aim in his game imo. Usually if he was alongside a forward who did, they played the supporting role...Nilis, Raul, Baggio, Bebeto, Edmundo etc..
Is Bergkamp rated over Cantona by consensus here? from what i've watched i'd take Cantona's peak over Bergkamp's in the role at club level in England (Bergkamp being a 9 at Ajax ). Bergkamp obviously had the better career overall, but i think a good amount of that was likely down to Cantona significant disciplinary issues rather than being a better player.
I wouldn't classify Pele or Zico as second strikers. They were (especially Zico) much more closer to playmakers or AM to the SS role.Not sure I fully understand the rather convoluted criteria at first glance, but I'd probably go with something like this:
1. Pelé (famously behind Coutinho for Santos)
2. Ferenc Puskás (typically supporting Hidegkuti and/or Kocsis)
3. Zico (behind Nunes at Flamengo)
4. Eusébio (behind Águas or Torres)
5. Roberto Baggio (behind Vialli, Borgonovo, Ravanelli etc.)
6. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (behind Müller, Hoeneß II, Fischer etc.)
7. Rivaldo (behind Fenômeno)
8. László Kubala (in support of César)
9. Dennis Bergkamp (behind Henry)
10. Omar Sívori (behind Charles and frequently in support of Boniperti)
All of them boast an extensive record as second strikers, and weren't the furthest forward on the pitch (outlined in brackets above) or stereotypical classic playmakers. Maradona, Messi and co. probably don't qualify given their tendencies on the ball, Cruyff and Hidegkuti weren't really second strikers if we're being honest, and Di Stéfano, Meazza, Gullit were a bit too convenient and versatile. Tempted to include Cristiano but I digressed at the last moment as he was frequently ahead of Benzema (who was in more of a supporting role) ...
Agree on Ronaldo. Him, Eusebio and Pele are all complete #9s and certainly would be in the modern game. Pele obviously spent his best years next to a #9.Brazilian Ronaldo is a striker-a 9 for me. Could definitely easily do the wide-forward role too if that been the role asked of him, but he didn't have too much playmaking or supporting another forward as a primary aim in his game imo. Usually if he was alongside a forward who did, they played the supporting role...Nilis, Raul, Baggio, Bebeto, Edmundo etc..
Is Bergkamp rated over Cantona by consensus here? from what i've watched i'd take Cantona's peak over Bergkamp's in the role at club level in England (Bergkamp being a 9 at Ajax ). Bergkamp obviously had the better career overall, but i think a good amount of that was likely down to Cantona significant disciplinary issues rather than being a better player.
Yup, good call! There is also Bebeto who played as a sidekick to Romario. Very unselfish, yet formed a pretty deadly combo.He hasn’t been mentioned, probably because he doesn’t compete with some of the very top names, but I always loved watching “The Animal” Edmundo.
He was supremely gifted and a bit of an enigma. His wild character probably made him the player he was, but at the same time, stopped a very gifted technical footballer from being on a list like this.
Still, capable of greatness on his day, and while he doesn’t make the top 10, he is definitely a name that comes to mind when I think of top SS.
Just worth a nod and an honorable mention!
On the former it would depend for me on how deep they tended to drop. I think your Albert example possibly falls into that category. On Ronaldo and Vieri, Ronaldo generally played deeper than Vieri and improved his passing when playing there. Ronaldo played off Vieri as it wereI think its odd not to include second strikers with good play making abilities in the list just because along with doing everything a second striker does, they could be play makers too. For me, those were the best kind of second strikers.
I also find it odd to see the likes of Fenomeno being considered in this list. Every setup with 2 strikers doesn't necessarily need a primary and second striker. Vieri and Ronaldo was one such partnership IMO.
Well one of them probably always would be slightly ahead of the other, but I don't necessarily think that is enough to be classified as a second striker.On the former it would depend for me on how deep they tended to drop. I think your Albert example possibly falls into that category. On Ronaldo and Vieri, Ronaldo generally played deeper than Vieri and improved his passing when playing there. Ronaldo played off Vieri as it were
Roberto Bettega from the 70s too.Italy had a great run of producing this sort of forward with Mancini-Zola-Baggio-Del Piero-Totti. Despite that they often seemed to have lots of difficulty integrating them into the national team.
