I've never actually thought about this at all.
I find it hard to seperate them as both their peaks came from relying on the other.
I find it hard to seperate them as both their peaks came from relying on the other.
Who was better - Cole or Yorke?
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
He used to be very wasteful in his early years at United, take 4 or 6 good chance to score a goal every time, or something like that. And he couldn’t score for England. Remember we used to have best midfield and best creative support in the country by far during that period to supply Cole the goals. His average is around 15-16 goals a season during his early years at United playing as sole striker. It’s similar to Lukaku score rate, while Lukaku playing with much worst midfield support behind him here. His later years were good though, a proper top striker in the league, but in England there was Shearer, who was much better. It’s all about finding Shearer a good partner.
Last edited:
Thats not true at all.... messi has beaten that several times
Andy Cole was a total flop for 3 seasons until Yorke arrived.
Yorke's first season at Utd was like having Ronaldinho at the club. He was a phenomenon for 1 season. He went off the boil very quickly after that, due to acquiring a taste of the high life.
Yorke's first season at Utd was miles better than anything Cole ever did at Utd.
Yorke was a better player. Cole was a more clinical finisher.
Yorke's first season at Utd was like having Ronaldinho at the club. He was a phenomenon for 1 season. He went off the boil very quickly after that, due to acquiring a taste of the high life.
Yorke's first season at Utd was miles better than anything Cole ever did at Utd.
Yorke was a better player. Cole was a more clinical finisher.
Yorke was better but for a brief period
Cole for longevity
Cole for longevity
On top of that SAF did sub him often in the late minutes. So the 51 matches arent 90 mins.
I had a season ticket in 99 and Becks was unbelievable, a model of consistency in terms of both high performance and work rate. On the back of adversity his character showed through massively. Big moments in the biggest games he delivered time and again. His will to win also made him a driving force along with Keane.
I find it sad that people form opinions on players for personal issues rather than footballing issues, you probably have issues with Pogba, Ronaldo. I've only ever judged United players on ability and performance it makes no sense to me to look beyond that, I don't know these people.
But back to topic....Becks was unbelievable in 99 I don't need stats to tell me that, him or Keane....Yorke and Stam too could've won player of the year but Keane and Becks were the most influential that season.
Cole or Yorke....who was better? Yorke by a distance
I never suggested that Beckham was anything other than incredible. But did he deserve 156 votes to Keane's 36 and Yorke's 14? No. Those other two were just as good if not better.
The Ballon d'Or was even more a of a celebrity parade than it is these days.
Yorke.
I remember Cole was frustrating to watch at times. There were reports then that Cantona didn't think too highly of him as well. It was only when Yorke came that Cole looked a lot better.
I remember Cole was frustrating to watch at times. There were reports then that Cantona didn't think too highly of him as well. It was only when Yorke came that Cole looked a lot better.
A total flop? He missed most of one season with illness and broken legs. The season before Yorke joined, Cole was named second in PFA player of the year and scored 25 goals (incidentally his best return in a season for United).
He absolutely deserved 156 votes, not sure why your comparing to votes of other United players. He absolutely deserved every vote he got that season. Keane should have had more, Yorke also deserved his votes....Stam deserved votes. The only one I find strange is Rivaldo. How did he win it. Perhaps again our votes were split.
Cole was a good player, but I think Yorke was a level above. We improved upon Cole with Van Nistelrooy, whereas I don't think even Rooney was better than peak Yorke.
Thinking about it, I think Sheringham was a better player than Cole, just it really benefited Yorke having a true 9 to play with rather than another 10.
I still have a very, very clear memory of the day I bought a newspaper and the headline was that we'd signed Andy Cole. These were the good old days when transfers were a bolt from the blue.
Its a great question though. Both arguments have merit. I would personally edge towards Yorke being the better player solely based on the fact that his arrival at the club sparked the best form that Andy Cole ever showed. Yorke made Cole a better player IMO
Its a great question though. Both arguments have merit. I would personally edge towards Yorke being the better player solely based on the fact that his arrival at the club sparked the best form that Andy Cole ever showed. Yorke made Cole a better player IMO
Sheringham was better than both IMO
Yorke had one season (his first) where everything he touched turned to gold (goals) He was absoubtly brilliant, and a joy to watch. He never reproduced that. He hit heights that Cole never did, however I’d take Cole every day of the week, he has a far better career at Utd than Yorke and his work rate was fantastic.
Yorke's second season was pretty good as well. We were just so dominant I think people forget!
Andy Cole of course.
I remember his 2nd season being somewhat disappointing, but then he set such high standards in his first, so in retrospect that may have been a little unfair. Less said about what happened after that the better. Jordan and orgies got on the way of him being a footballer.
Andy Cole’s highest scoring season for Utd was the year before Yorke arrived.
He wasn’t.
Aye, the general feeling when I've discussed this with United fans is that Yorke helped to bring the best out of Cole, with the latter being just about the better of the two based on his longevity.
Possible sacrilege incoming, but the likes of James Beattie, Andy Johnson and Michu rightly are nowhere in the discussion of top PL strikers because they burned brightly but very briefly. For the same reason I'd put Cole above Yorke in our pantheon of greats.
EDIT:
That's a good point, maybe Yorke helped to maintain that good form and the partnership allowed both to help each other to stay consistently good through runs of crunch fixtures.
Yes but the general consensus at the time was that he needed 6 chances to score 1. And most games he got 6 chances. When Yorke arrived he reached a whole new level that most thought he didn't have in him.
Yorke for me was the more talented all around player. But Cole was lethal and should of had way more England Caps but the media was so hard for Shearer back then no other striker got a proper chance.
Last edited:
Yorke was the better all round player.
It wasn’t the general consensus at all. It was a comment from Hoddle I think, on the reasons why he didn’t pick Cole for England. Cole used to make space and chances for himself like no other forward I’ve seen except RVN (who was clearly better). You don’t score 180 PL goals by wasting 5/6 opportunities to score.
All I know is that no one rated him at Utd till Yorke arrived. There was all kinds of moans and groans that he didn't fit our style of play. That his hold up play was too weak. That he was basically a fox in the box and nothing more. Most wanted him gone until Yorke arrived.
Yorke was better during the 98/99 season but in terms of overall contribution it was Cole.
I respectively disagree. He wasn’t rated highly outside of Utd, however there were so many excellent English forwards in that era. Fowler, Wright, Ferdinand, Collymore, Barnby, Sheringham, Sutton and Shearer to name a few. Fowler never did anything either for England.
I moved to Newcastle a few weeks after we signed him. For a year or 2, watching the games in pubs, the geordies still cheered for him when he was playing. Was dangerous times being a Man Utd fan though
To answer the original question. Overall, Cole was better. He’s a Utd legend as far as I’m concerned. Yorker just couldn’t sustain it for us.
How could it not be Andy Cole? He gets the ball and he scores a goal for feck sake!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
He’s still a donkey
As pointed out previously, Italy and Spain were considered the better leagues and had a bigger media and global presence. I seem to recall part of the problem in the 90s into early 2000s was the PL blocking highlights online, and didn't do a great job of promoting individual players. It's also worth noting that captains and coaches often voted for the players they recognized, or club/country teammates. It was a popularity vote in some ways, hence players like Effenberg and Keane generating few votes. Beckham's popularity actually helped him in the votes.
That said, Rivaldo scored 37 goals with 14 assists that calendar year for club and country. Won La Liga and Copa America. He was incredible. It's not a travesty he won the player of the year, not like say Figo winning it in 2001 or Ronaldo in 2002, mostly based on hype and/or a handful of World Cup matches. Heck, Zidane won the previous year (1998) solely for scoring two goals in the World Cup Final when Ronaldo was for miles the best player on the planet.
Beckham had a bigger shout in 2001 when Figo won it, IMO.
Love them both, but Cole for me. What a partnership, I could watch their link-up goal against Barca at the Nou Camp a million times over and get that same nostalgic feeling every time..
PS: LVG was Barca manager at this time
, I'm sure he even appreciated this perfect example of one-touch link up play..Most were wrong though. Cole scored more Premier League goals than Yorke before they played together and scored more after him too. He had two bad seasons that were held against him much longer than he deserved.
Cole played with Cantona, Ole & Sherringham before Yorke arrived in the summer of 1998, winning the 95/96 playing with Cantona and 96/97 PL title playing with Ole & Cantona. We marginally lost the 97/98 title to Arsenal but Cantona retired so we were bound to have a little blip. Where on earth was he a flop for his first 3 seasons?
The general myth you mean . It's up there with Torres destroyed Vidic every time they played
Love them both, but Cole for me. What a partnership, I could watch their link-up goal against Barca at the Nou Camp a million times over and get that same nostalgic feeling every time..
PS: LVG was Barca manager at this time
Brilliant goal. Love the pass from Keane and the dummy. Can't remember seeing anything that inventive for a long time from a United team
Very harsh. He could be frustrating, granted. But far from a flop.
Very true. Scored five less in total, but two more league goals than in 98/99. Even remember his hattrick v Arsenal in the 00/01 season.