Avenging the first leg where he missed a penalty and the invincibleArsenal surprisingly lost 3-0 at home to an Inter without Recoba & Vieri…
Who is the better player: Mbappe or Henry?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
That should be Zidane. He scored the important goal against Spain in the quarters and had a wonderful game against Portugal.
But they were just too strong and had incredible attacking depth back then… Pires and Trezeguet came from the bench to win them the final…
Lets not ignore that Henry had an horrendous 2002 world cup when he didn't score and got sent out in the group stage, causing France to be eliminated after 3 games. He was supposed to be on top of the world with Trezeguet and was pure shite. That's way WAY worse that Mbappé's Euro.
Last edited:
This is the problem when comparing legends to current players, people tend to only remember the good moments of legends, whereas a current player we see and remember everything about their career. It's not a fair comparison, and yet Mbappe comes out looking very good when we compare both. As good as Henry's Euro 2000 was, and undeniably IMO the competition and defenders he faced were better than what Mbappe deals with now (though I have no doubts Mbappe would have roasted those defenders too), I think Mbappe's current WC and previous one looks just as good and was just as impactful and definitely far more than any WC that Henry participated in.
Come on, Henry was incredible. Mbappe is amazing in the final third of course. But Henry could untangle games on his own, from any part of the pitch pretty much. Mbappe is an incredible goal scorer, but Henry has more to his game.
People forget how incredible Henry was, in an era where there were so many other great forwards - van Nistelrooy, Shearer, etc2. Add to that his leadership skills, his understanding of the game, he is in my opinion the better player. Mbappe may surpass this in the future, but at the moment Henry is better. He played in an era where there were so many amazing players on the continent as well - Kaka, Ronaldinho, Torres, David Villa, Ronaldo R9, Raul, Schevchenko etc, the list goes on. And he stood toe to toe with all of them lot.
Different era. Show some respect to Henry.
People forget how incredible Henry was, in an era where there were so many other great forwards - van Nistelrooy, Shearer, etc2. Add to that his leadership skills, his understanding of the game, he is in my opinion the better player. Mbappe may surpass this in the future, but at the moment Henry is better. He played in an era where there were so many amazing players on the continent as well - Kaka, Ronaldinho, Torres, David Villa, Ronaldo R9, Raul, Schevchenko etc, the list goes on. And he stood toe to toe with all of them lot.
Different era. Show some respect to Henry.
Sorry but a panenka against Buffon, followed by a headbutt in a World Cup final is the greatest moment in french football(Close second is Cantona saying he will piss on the pope).
Jesus wept!
Well, when you put it that way...
Cant imagine anyone over the age of 25 dismissing Henry like that so nonchalantly. If you are 36, perhaps you only recently started watching football, don't know.
Henry was obviously an amazing player and certainly was more well rounded than 23 yo Mbappé. There's a huge amount of respect for him all over the world. But the description you gave could also apply to Mbappé. He untangled the game a couple of hours ago by delivering a great assist to Giroud, then scored twice. He untangled the game against Argentina in 2018 by dribbling half of there team, starting in his own half, before provoking a PK. He untangles games with the countless assists he provides.
Essentially Mbappe would be the best player in Premier League history without even truly starting his career because he was a key part of a France world cup team that won a world cup and has been doing well in a weak french league.
Were Pogba/ Kante better players than Roy Keane or Scholes or Gerrard.
No, yet many will say they achieved far more at national team level than any of them.
If Keane, Scholes or Gerrard are better players, is it because they won the Champions League or were we able to watch them each week, allowing us to use their performance each season to decide how good they were.
The obvious answer is Henry, its not even close. For a two year period, he was the best player in the world, prior to Ronaldinho taking the crown. He's considered the Premier League's greatest player, not just because of his goals, but because of his all around play which made him consistently unstoppable. Arsenal were not a good enough team to win or have much impact in the Champions League, so his impace was minimal. However, when they did go far, he dragged them to the Champions League final, a team on its last legs. When he did win the Champions League with Barcelona, he played a similar role as Mbappe has been playing for PSG. In that 08/09 campaign, where Henry was clearly in decline, he scored 6 goals. Mbappe has had the Champions League benefit of playing with a PSG team that had better players than him for much of his time there. He has only ever achieved 6 goals once. Despite Arsenal's level, Henry had dominant Champion's league games for Arsenal, like the Inter game in 2004, Roma in 2003, Real Madrid in 2006 and Juventus in 2006. Just to show how overrated the idea of scoring in the UCL is, Henry at Monaco got 7 goals in 1998 for a Monaco side that made the semi-final. Was that version of Henry better than the one at Arsenal? By this notion, Bale is the greatest player Britain has ever had and Neymar must be far superior to R9 or Rivaldo or for world cup's I'm sure Miroslav Klose must be a better player than Ruud Van Nistelrooy.
Now for what is actually important. Henry played had 7 great seasons at Arsenal, with his last one being injury ravaged. For 5 of those season, he was out of this world. For 2 of those seasons, he was arguably the best player in the world, in that window of time, he managed to establish himself as the greatest player in one of the most dominant leagues in the world. Mbappe's club career has come nowhere near that.
On actual play, Henry was better technically. He had the touch and balance of Pogba, he was a massive creative threat, plus he was a better finisher. He had similar speed, with Mbappe being sharper and more explosive. Mbappe actually looks like a mixture of R9 (when on the flanks) and Jean Pierre Papin. He hasn't been a better player than Neymar until now, and Henry was as good as or better than Neymar was.
This discussion is like asking people in 2001 if Micheal Owen was a better player than Alan Shearer because he had won a Ballon D'or and achieved more in Europe. Owen still had a bit to go to achieve that, even though his trajectory suggested that he would be. He never actually ended up getting to that level, both as a player and in achievement. That's how I feel about this discussion. Mbappe given time will most likely be considered better than Henry; his current trajectory suggests that he could end up being a top 10 player, but trajectory doesn't equate to achievement. One year ago, Mbappe was being insulted by everyone after France's Euro performance. Now he's being praised to this level and we aren't even in the Quarters yet. France could win a World cup with him getting injured, would that change everything? What if France lose to England?
The debate feels slightly insulting really. Throwing a great players career on the slightest whim of someone being good. Haaland and Mbappe can't just be very good, no, we need to ask whether they can match Messi or Ronaldo despite thousands of striker's who have achieved more and have shown levels of consistency that they haven't yet or may never end up achieving.
Were Pogba/ Kante better players than Roy Keane or Scholes or Gerrard.
No, yet many will say they achieved far more at national team level than any of them.
If Keane, Scholes or Gerrard are better players, is it because they won the Champions League or were we able to watch them each week, allowing us to use their performance each season to decide how good they were.
The obvious answer is Henry, its not even close. For a two year period, he was the best player in the world, prior to Ronaldinho taking the crown. He's considered the Premier League's greatest player, not just because of his goals, but because of his all around play which made him consistently unstoppable. Arsenal were not a good enough team to win or have much impact in the Champions League, so his impace was minimal. However, when they did go far, he dragged them to the Champions League final, a team on its last legs. When he did win the Champions League with Barcelona, he played a similar role as Mbappe has been playing for PSG. In that 08/09 campaign, where Henry was clearly in decline, he scored 6 goals. Mbappe has had the Champions League benefit of playing with a PSG team that had better players than him for much of his time there. He has only ever achieved 6 goals once. Despite Arsenal's level, Henry had dominant Champion's league games for Arsenal, like the Inter game in 2004, Roma in 2003, Real Madrid in 2006 and Juventus in 2006. Just to show how overrated the idea of scoring in the UCL is, Henry at Monaco got 7 goals in 1998 for a Monaco side that made the semi-final. Was that version of Henry better than the one at Arsenal? By this notion, Bale is the greatest player Britain has ever had and Neymar must be far superior to R9 or Rivaldo or for world cup's I'm sure Miroslav Klose must be a better player than Ruud Van Nistelrooy.
Now for what is actually important. Henry played had 7 great seasons at Arsenal, with his last one being injury ravaged. For 5 of those season, he was out of this world. For 2 of those seasons, he was arguably the best player in the world, in that window of time, he managed to establish himself as the greatest player in one of the most dominant leagues in the world. Mbappe's club career has come nowhere near that.
On actual play, Henry was better technically. He had the touch and balance of Pogba, he was a massive creative threat, plus he was a better finisher. He had similar speed, with Mbappe being sharper and more explosive. Mbappe actually looks like a mixture of R9 (when on the flanks) and Jean Pierre Papin. He hasn't been a better player than Neymar until now, and Henry was as good as or better than Neymar was.
This discussion is like asking people in 2001 if Micheal Owen was a better player than Alan Shearer because he had won a Ballon D'or and achieved more in Europe. Owen still had a bit to go to achieve that, even though his trajectory suggested that he would be. He never actually ended up getting to that level, both as a player and in achievement. That's how I feel about this discussion. Mbappe given time will most likely be considered better than Henry; his current trajectory suggests that he could end up being a top 10 player, but trajectory doesn't equate to achievement. One year ago, Mbappe was being insulted by everyone after France's Euro performance. Now he's being praised to this level and we aren't even in the Quarters yet. France could win a World cup with him getting injured, would that change everything? What if France lose to England?
The debate feels slightly insulting really. Throwing a great players career on the slightest whim of someone being good. Haaland and Mbappe can't just be very good, no, we need to ask whether they can match Messi or Ronaldo despite thousands of striker's who have achieved more and have shown levels of consistency that they haven't yet or may never end up achieving.
Mbappe is still 23. He will probably have a great career if not having it already, but we should all judge him when he is finished playing. Lots can happen between now and then. He might have an absolutely woeful next few seasons, or might elevate it to another level that will make the Henry comparison moot.
I won't compare both for this specific reason. It doesn't make sense to me, i'm adding context and extra perspective but that's where i'll stop. I know very well how a young talent can collapse (even if I don't think it'll happen to Mbappé).
Absolutely agree with this. Trajectory does not equate achievement. Consistency is so difficult to achieve, and Mbappe still has a bit to go. People who claim Mbappe is better than Henry may have forgotten how incredible Henry was, in a very tough league and international stage era.
Henry. Until Mbappe faces and beats sterner opposition on a weekly basis, Henry has to be regarded as the superior player.
You do know that Henry also get to a UCL semi-final with Monaco, where he scored 6 goals. Ajax had Frenkie De Jong, Van De Beek and De Ligt reach UCL semi-finals, it doesn't mean much.
Do you believe domestic football outweighs both international and Champions League football?
It's amazing for me that people could even suggest this.
This isn't the 80's where we can't watch games, watch other leagues and actually compare. We have access to more information than we have ever had.
It made sense in the 80's to use a 4 week international tournament to analyze decent players. Most of the sources of information in regard to how good a player actually was came from magazines and sports cards, not through watching games, as it was impossible to watch games from other leagues consistently or players.
Today, it is easy to do.
So you would think that people would recognize that using a 4 week international tournament to judge players is pretty weird. Watching this tournament, I would assume Enner Valencia was better than Lewandowski.
Another problem I have here is that Henry's international success is actually being undervalued. He was impactful as a young player in the 1998 world cup, scoring a number of goals, a tournament in which Zidane wasn't that great in but has been used to praise him. He was a star in Euro 2000. He had a great confederations cup in 2003 and he was highly influencial in 2006. That's a great international career, yet people act like it's not. 2 world cup finals and a Euros.
Mbappe
I think it will be close when its all said and done
the best version of Henry was better than current Mbappe
but Mbappe has been better than Henry was up until Mbappe's current age
the best version of Henry was better than current Mbappe
but Mbappe has been better than Henry was up until Mbappe's current age
Yes I do. More games to showcase more performances and consistency.
If I simply watched the Champions League, I would think Morata was one of the greatest strikers of this generation.
I do think international football and champions league football do showcase talent to a possibly larger audience, but I also feel that good all around games are forgotten in these tournaments unless a player has a magical all around performance like Keane against Juventus or Zidane against Brazil. Consistently good champions league performances are forgotten if they don't provide hat-tricks or a win at the end of it. Poor world cup or euro performances are masked by goals in the finals. Even if they were more important, I don't think people actually look enough into the entire game for it to mean more. Whereas with league performances, they are watched more vigorously, with consistency, which for me is the actual determinant of who is a better player or team, coming into play.
It's not as outrageous of a question as some are making it seem. Henry had a lot more to his game and is the obvious answer for now. Mbappe keeps getting better and he could easily surpass Henry if he makes his mark in winning the CL as the main guy.
As brilliant as Henry was, he never quite dominated European or World football they way he did in the PL from 2002-2007 outside of Arsenal's run to the CL final in 06. He did win the CL with Barca but he was no longer the same Henry at that point.
As brilliant as Henry was, he never quite dominated European or World football they way he did in the PL from 2002-2007 outside of Arsenal's run to the CL final in 06. He did win the CL with Barca but he was no longer the same Henry at that point.
Henry is my favorite non United player in PL history. I think he is the greatest forward I've seen after Brazilian Ronaldo. But like Vieira, he will always have against him the fact that he was not the main man in a CL or WC winning team. Obviously I am distinguishing here between elite and super elite as I think this hole in his resume does not make him any less of a superstar but being an essential member in a CL or WC winning team has to count for something. Mbappé looks very capable of doing that more than once, if he does, he will easily be the best and sit in the company of the likes Ronaldo.
Domestic football is a closed competition with far less pressure and a lot of creature comforts. If Henry was assessed purely as a domestic footballer, he'd be ranked, far, far higher than he is in terms of all-time regard; once expanded to bigger, more pressurised stages, Henry's presence and influence reduced, considerably - his domestic level was never transferable for him, again, if it was, he'd be ranked higher than he is. There is no need for revisionism with Henry's career: it was a talking point throughout his time active. It's interesting that Mbappe is being worked in reverse: a clinical big game player on the biggest stages in the sport, yet looked down upon because of domestic football?
A lot of people would put Kanté ahead of some of the players you mention. Yes consistency has to count for something and being able to perform week in week out. But also, it is a special talent to perform at the highest stage when the pressure is at its highest. It is why De Gea can be a wonderful Manchester United servant but globally speaking, not so much. It might be unfair on some players who play for lower ranked nations, but it's also unfair on those who produce big moments in the biggest games to be lumped with those who never did. Doing what Kanté did for France and Chelsea in their WC and CL wins has to put him up there with the best.
There is a much bigger question here, how much do players actually dominate in these tournaments?
Aside from Messi and Ronaldo, I don't think most players can say they dominated a whole champions league campaign. I don't think Zidane, Ronaldinho, R9 etc did. They had good games sprinkled with a few great performances and were sometimes fortunate to be part of teams thag could make it to the final. Henry generally had good UCL performances with Arsenal, he usually scored more than 5 goals in any given UCL campaign. That is discounting assists he had too. In that 5 year run, Arsenal as a team did not perform well enough to go further, despite Henry generally performing. It's not the NBA, where a player has a lot of influence sometimes. In football, the overall quality of a team determines success in the Champions League. He did great at Barca in the UCL, which only proves that point.
I think this summer is crucial for him. He should get out of PSG. He is 23 and needs to really ramp it up.
Exactly! There are few players from that PL era who are judged by English football fans in this way I feel. Cantona, Vieira, Henry and I'd have to say few of our players as well. They dominated the PL to a point where it's difficult to put anyone higher than them. But as you say, when you widen the scope, it's simply obvious that they did not take that level or at least show it, at the levels the likes of Zidane and from the looks of it, Mbappé.
Different era. Reaching semifinals for French clubs back then was not out of the ordinary… France was second of UEFA ranking behind Italy most of those years. Serie A was the superior force but since they couldn’t send more than 1 team/sometimes 2 there were places left for others.
Reaching a semi-final now eliminating the likes of Pep’s 2 billion-City is a much bigger achievement. (But to be fair, it’s not only Mbappé’s Monaco in 17, Lyon did it as well)
Henry easily.
Mbappe has to win in the big leagues to come near him.
Mbappe has to win in the big leagues to come near him.
He's performed far better for France than Henry ever has and is 10x the time player Henry was in World Cups.
He doesn't need to win a Prem or La Liga title.
Mbappe will end up being the better player.
Mbappe and its not close either
No he doesn’t. Him winning PSG’s first CL would be a bigger achievement than going to Madrid or City and winning one for them. The fact is only the best teams in the world could afford Mbappé, and whether it’s a team like Madrid, or a team like City, the criticism will already be built in that he’s playing in a stacked team that won without him in the past. So it’s completely irrelevant where he goes and if he wins his hometown its first CL, with all the great players that have tried and failed, it means far more from a legacy standpoint than joining the best team in a better league because every single league is top heavy and the rest of the teams in each of those leagues are cannon fodder for players like Mbappé. It’s just the arrogant and entitled fans of those other leagues who hold those opinions and it simply doesn’t seem to matter to him, not to mention it’s not stopping anybody from regarding him now as the best or one of the best players in the world.
And.. what if he never wins the CL with PSG?
Mbappe is already a better version than Henry.
Henry could never replicate his Premier League form in different competitions. He didn't have the same killer mentality as Mbappe. He was a bottler who sturggled in pressure environments. League football offers you a sense of comfort, you can depend on others, you play shite teams etc as opposed to knockout football.
Henry outside the Premier League bubble
Scored 2 knockout goals for France in 11 Euros/World Cup matches. Mbappe already has 5 in 6.
People talk about Mbappe's Euro 2020 (losing on pens) as if Henry didn't get knocked out of the 2002 World Cup (lost to Senegal) and Euros 2008 (got destroyed by Italy and Netherlands) group stages, and lost to Greece in Euro 2004 last 16,
Mbappe has already eclipsed Henry's Champions League legacy. Henry constantly underperformed in CL knockout games with Arsenal, which is why he never won the Ballon D'or. In 2001/02 and 2002/03 he couldn't even get out the group stage, 2003/04 missed big chances and lost to Chelsea, also missed chances to Valencia in 2000/01.
Henry scored 4 goals past the Champions League Last 16 in 21 matches. A terrible record compared to his contemporaries
Thierry Henry scored 2 goals in 17 finals (he started in every single match). He only scored 3 non-penalty goals in 21 matches at Anfield, Old Trafford and White Hart Lane.
He whole legacy is bulit on what he done in the Premier League. Never even managed to retain the title. People say Mbappe isn't as complete as Henry but he got 17 assists in Ligue 1 last season,
Henry could never replicate his Premier League form in different competitions. He didn't have the same killer mentality as Mbappe. He was a bottler who sturggled in pressure environments. League football offers you a sense of comfort, you can depend on others, you play shite teams etc as opposed to knockout football.
Henry outside the Premier League bubble
Scored 2 knockout goals for France in 11 Euros/World Cup matches. Mbappe already has 5 in 6.
People talk about Mbappe's Euro 2020 (losing on pens) as if Henry didn't get knocked out of the 2002 World Cup (lost to Senegal) and Euros 2008 (got destroyed by Italy and Netherlands) group stages, and lost to Greece in Euro 2004 last 16,
Mbappe has already eclipsed Henry's Champions League legacy. Henry constantly underperformed in CL knockout games with Arsenal, which is why he never won the Ballon D'or. In 2001/02 and 2002/03 he couldn't even get out the group stage, 2003/04 missed big chances and lost to Chelsea, also missed chances to Valencia in 2000/01.
Henry scored 4 goals past the Champions League Last 16 in 21 matches. A terrible record compared to his contemporaries
Thierry Henry scored 2 goals in 17 finals (he started in every single match). He only scored 3 non-penalty goals in 21 matches at Anfield, Old Trafford and White Hart Lane.
He whole legacy is bulit on what he done in the Premier League. Never even managed to retain the title. People say Mbappe isn't as complete as Henry but he got 17 assists in Ligue 1 last season,
He will move to another league regardless, but the whole point of him staying is trying to do that. Even if he never wins the CL, he's always going to put up huge numbers in the competition and internationally. He hasn't won it and is still considered one of the best players in the world, so the whole 'he's not going to be considered one of the best if he doesn't move to a different league' is nonsense. Anybody with a shred of sense will know he's going to be a handful in any league.
Except in 15-20 years from now people will only remember trophies and not all these stats especially in a league that has never been as popular as England or Spain. Only winning league titles with PSG isn't gonna be much of a legacy in terms of his club career. Winning the PL even in a stacked City team or Liga with Madrid will carry a lot more weight whether people like it or not.
R9 never won it - would you put Henry in his bracket? Mbappe can get away with not needing one if he has a multiple World Cup win in his locker as the face.
If that don’t happen and similarly fails to win UCL then the narrative changes as he will be seen as choke artist and Henry superior. It’s possible - just trajectory wise, seems unlikely he won’t be able to win at least one of the two at the moment by careers end.
The only thing Henry had over him (for now) is the ability to take FKs and also playmake (even if Kylian has improved a lot when it comes to that).