Arsenal Football Club History


#469

Fuck it, I know I’ve compared one Simpsons scene with real life today, but another one can’t hurt. :giroud:

Discussing Arsenal’s greatest football players in a nutshell :xhaka2:


#470

For me it’s Titi.

The guy was just something else.


#471

It’s pretty much an impossible debate to rationalise haha. I mean, Bergkamp was just amazing to appreciate for his touch, turns, incredible goals. He was definitely a player, in a similar vein to Özil and Iniesta, who shouldn’t really be measured on pure stats when watching them with the ball is as good as football gets.

All that said Henry for me is the club’s greatest ever player so naturally anyone who is compared with him must come second, even if it is ridiculous and unfair.


#472

IMO That’s the exact opposite of this discussion in a nutshell haha. But cause that’s ending up in a punch up, ie genuine animosity.

This debate is the perfect debate for OA, because we all love both players so much that nobody is going to lose their shit and call someone a fucking idiot or a cunt. With this debate we can state our opinions but basically leave it ona note that says “hey, you make a lot of good points, I get exactly where you’re coming from” :slightly_smiling_face:

Sometimes it’s nice to be nice


#473

@Luca_from_Italy like “hold my beer”

Joke Luca :kissing_heart:


#474

I will agree with some of the old timers (:wink:) though on Adams. In a different way, he deserves a place at the top of the tree. Absolute one club man and winning the league as captain in three different decades is utterly astonishing.


#475

It’s simplistic but on reflection Henry brought far more to the team than Bergkamp. And to say Bergkamp could do things Henry couldn’t isn’t really true either, but it’s certainly true in reverse. I mean maybe Bergkamp has a better first touch but Henry’s is great anyway, maybe Bergkamp might have had a better through ball but Henry had a great throughball maybe just as good.

It’s not like we’re comparing Shearer to Bergkamp or someone even worse like Lukaku. We’re comparing a player who was 1 of the best creative players in football history, it’s not just the fact he made so many it’s the differing skillset he used to create, from long rang passes, to beating multiple players and picking out a team mate, to play an intricate through ball, to whipping in a perfect cross

And I’d argue that Henry’s assists showed a greater range of skills than Bergkamps

Citing Bergkamp’s goals as an argument against Henry doesn’t stand up either because Henry scored much better goals.

It’s almost like people are getting Henry mixed up with that other player who wore the 14 shirt for a bit.


#476

His goal ánd assist record is hugely impressive. There is absolutely no argument there. But it’s also an argument which, a bit unfairly in my book, disquantifies other players way to easily. You could argue Bergkamp, together with Wenger, was responsible for changing the fortunes of this club f.e.


#477

Also that 20 assists in a league season is a bit too easily downplayed. Want to know how many times Messi got 20 assists? Not once because his best is 18. Want to know how many times Xavi managed it, once. No one else has done it in PL history, not Beckham, Giggs, Fabregas, Lampard, Silva or Ozil

Also it wasn’t a 1 off, Henry managed 106 assists off only 369 games. Bergkamp played 423 games and only got 10 more assists, albeit some past his physical best. Ozil’s has had 151 league games and assisted 51 times in the league.


#478

Bergkamp peaked in the 90s by the turn of the century he was already on the wrong side of 30. He played the last 5 years of his Arsenal career on the slide physically.

Besides, you can’t be using Messi in these arguments. He might never had had more than 18 in a season but Henry goal stats pale in comparison to Lionel so it all evens itself out.

The thing is I think we saw a peak Henry at Arsenal his numbers are out of this world. He’s clearly the greatest Arsenal player ever but I rank Bergy as the GOAT purely from a stylistic perspective because I absolutely loved watching him play. The class and elegance was unrivalled and that’s why I love the guy. He’s my favourite Arsenal player ever and the reason I fell in love with football and the club to begin with. That’s why I will always have that bias towards Bergy.


#479

And Henry wasn’t? We would have 2 less league titles and probably 2 less FA Cups without Henry and we would never have got to a CL final


#480

The reason for comparing Henry’s assists to Messis and Xavis is because they’ve been the most creative since him and they haven’t beaten his record. I’m not saying Henry is actually better than Messi but tbh in a better side with Xavi and Iniesta behind him he would have done better.

Yes Bergy did peak in the 90s, but he was never athletic anyway and never got close to Henry’s assist per game ratio nevermind goals.

I don’t think Bergy had more elegance and class either, I’d actually give that to Henry over Bergy with all due respect to him.

And what year was Bergkamp best in the world? Or in the argument for it? Because Henry was in the argument for it for about 5 years.


#481

Messi provides on average more assists per season than Henry did at his pomp though so using that one isolated season doesn’t really mean Henry was the more creative player though. Messi has a significantly better range of passing, is more versatile from a positional perspective and is just all round a better player than Henry ever was. As great as Henry was, Messi is on another planet in terms of talent. He was a better goal scorer and a more creative player.

Bergkamp was a regular fixture in the Balon D’or in the 90s. I know he finished runner up to Baggio in 93 I believe and also finished top 3 the year before losing out to Van Basten. Bergkamp’s failed spell in Italy damaged his standing but he was right back in the top 5 by 1997. Bergkamp may never have outright been the best player in the world but he was all in and around the top tier of players on earth. Because he was that good in his prime.


#482

When Henry came here we were already established as the most important challengers of United.


#483

We still probably wouldn’t have won anything without him during that period. He carried that team.


#484

Nah he was absolutely the talisman but Bergkamp, Pires, Ljungberg, Vieira, Seaman or Adams didn’t need anybody to carry them.


#485

Balon D’or was only a European award up until the mid 90s though but it’s still a good point. But I still don’t think his level is anywhere near Henry’s. I mean who’s in Henry’s ballpark from 2000-2006, only Ronaldo, Zidane and Ronaldinho

And yes Messi as probably the best player of all time and has a little better assist stats per game overall than Henry in a significantly better team but it isn’t by allot at all. And I don’t think Messi’s passing range is allot better than Henry’s either.

There seems to be a school of thought running here that Henry wasn’t an elite technical player, which I strongly beg to differ with.


#486

I thought he was also voted 3rd in FIFA Player of the Year voting twice. Once whilst he was at Internazionale and once whilst he was at Arsenal.


#487

I haven’t seen anyone claiming this tbh.

Figo, Sheva and Nedved were also incredible in those early 2000s.


#488

Well you can’t win a league on attack alone but let’s focus Henry carrying us on that basis given he was a forward. Would anyone have rated Ljungberg if he rated in played in the last 10 years? I doubt it. How much better did Pires look because of Henry?

I was always of the belief that United had the better wingers and Henry was our difference maker. Calling him a talisman is doing him a disservice because everything ran through him.