Which is better - part 2?

[bandage]

Funny moment last night as myself, rock, eamo and steamboatsam were having a forceful debate about the above. Eamo was making a passionate case on behalf of Fowler when the barman, who was slyly listening in, storms over grabs the pint off him and says, 'you've obviously had too much to drink'. Next round and 3 Heinekens and a Guinness are ordered and the barman goes, 'So that's 2 Heinekens and a Guinness then - I can't serve that lad'.

Easy decision for me by the way.

[therock67]

That was indeed a classic moment - I think even Eamo enjoyed it deep down.

Larsson wins hands down for me by the way. Interested to see how the votes go from those whose preference I don't already know.

[eamo]

I can confirm that the above happened. The barman was a scouse hater though.

But it is not a straight out debate between Henrik Larsson and Robbie Fowler. My original premise was that when Robbie Fowler was in his prime, there were few strikers in the world to touch him. I also said that Henrik Larsson had a better career.

Some stats on Fowler during his first spell at Liverpool:

Season 93/94: 12 goals in 28 games
Season 94/95: 25 goals in 42 games
Season 95/96: 28 goals in 38 games
Season 96/97: 18 goals in 32 games
Season 97/98: 9 goals in 20 games
Season 98/99: 14 goals in 25 games

I am going to vote for Fowler

[therock67]

"Why should I fear Henry? I have in my team the greatest striker of the last decade. His name is Henrik Larsson and he's the only player who I fear." -- Samuel Eto'o

Larsson's stats:

2005-06 Barcelona ESP A 28 10
2004-05 Barcelona ESP A 11 3
2003-04 Celtic SCO A 37 30
2002-03 Celtic SCO A 35 28
2001-02 Celtic SCO A 33 29
2000-01 Celtic SCO A 37 35
1999-00 Celtic SCO A 9 8
1998-99 Celtic SCO A 35 29
1997-98 Celtic SCO A 35 16

Those are just league goals - they don't include Larsson's goals in Europe (more than any other player from a British club, ever).

[lyonsee]

100 goals in 166 games for Liverpool.

One of only three (I think) Premiership players to score more than 150 Premiership goals. (And before one of you fools starts going on about how football didn't begin with the Premiership, I am well aware of the fact but Fowler started his career just as the Premiership was starting so it's an appropriate measure).

How can one compare scoring goals against Livingston, Aberdeen, Dundee and indeed every other team in Scotland bar Rangers, to scoring against any top half side in England. There were only two decent quality teams in Scotland when Larsson was there. I've said it before and I'll say it again Larsson was in a comfort zone when playing in Scotland. Sure he has done well in Spain but too little too late for me. He should have tested himself against the best centre halves in Europe when he was in his prime. This, I think you dissentors will agree, does not include your Pressleys, Caldwells and Andrews' of this world.

Fair enough Larsson had a better international career and I don't doubt he's a fantastic player but he never proved it to me playing below himself in Scotland.

Fowler was unlucky to fook himself up with injury and I'll grant you he lost hunger, his attitude was poor, but I'd also make the point that he wasn't helped by Houllier who wouldn't give him a run of games to get his sharpness back.

Fowler in his prime versus Larsson in his prime is Fowler for me everytime.

[therock67]

lyonsee said:

100 goals in 166 games for Liverpool.

One of only three (I think) Premiership players to score more than 150 Premiership goals. (And before one of you fools starts going on about how football didn't begin with the Premiership, I am well aware of the fact but Fowler started his career just as the Premiership was starting so it's an appropriate measure).

How can one compare scoring goals against Livingston, Aberdeen, Dundee and indeed every other team in Scotland bar Rangers, to scoring against any top half side in England. There were only two decent quality teams in Scotland when Larsson was there. I've said it before and I'll say it again Larsson was in a comfort zone when playing in Scotland. Sure he has done well in Spain but too little too late for me. He should have tested himself against the best centre halves in Europe when he was in his prime. This, I think you dissentors will agree, does not include your Pressleys, Caldwells and Andrews' of this world.

Fair enough Larsson had a better international career and I don't doubt he's a fantastic player but he never proved it to me playing below himself in Scotland.

Fowler was unlucky to fook himself up with injury and I'll grant you he lost hunger, his attitude was poor, but I'd also make the point that he wasn't helped by Houllier who wouldn't give him a run of games to get his sharpness back.

Fowler in his prime versus Larsson in his prime is Fowler for me everytime.

A couple of points Lyonsee:

1. Scoring goals against a top-half team in England for a couple of seasons isn't an indicator of greatness, especailly when it's proven to be a flash in the pan. I'm not going to pretend that some of the lower teams in Scotland are brilliant but people are guilty of ridiculously overhyping the premiership.

2. You talk about Larsson being in a "comfort zone" which is laughable when you consider how the man has tested himself and proved himself for his whole career, winning domestic and European honours and numerous individual awards in Scotland, Europe, Spain and Sweden. Fowler wasn't arsed.

3. Larsson had far more horrific injuries than Fowler ever had, but he didn't need a run of games to get his sharpness back. He went back out there and busted a gut and excelled again.

4. Larsson at 34 is currently playing better than Fowler ever did. Fowler would never have played for the current Barca team. Not enough of an athlete and not intelligent enough as a footballer.

5. Hugh McIllvaney (a fantastic journalist - the best in Britain in my opinion) wrote the below after the Champions League final. It's an excellent paragraph and really it makes a mockery of your claims:

Amid the whirlpool of conflicting opinions and emotions afterwards, it was reassuring to find that one rock of unanimity was the recognition of Henrik Larsson as the most significant presence at the Stade de France. Summoned as a substitute with an hour gone, he shaped the outcome with the alertness of his instincts, the intelligence of his movement and the precision of his passing, setting up both Barcelona goals. What an answer the marvellous Swede gave to those who tried to tell us, throughout his years with Celtic, that he needed the comfortable context of the Scottish league to look like a great footballer.

[steamboatsam]

Larsson for me by a street, although he wasn't near as good as Fowler at buying cheap council houses.

I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non liverpool fans vote for Fowler.

[eamo]

steamboatsam said:

I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non liverpool fans vote for Fowler.

And I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non Celtic/SPL fans vote for Larsson

[lyonsee]

admin said:

lyonsee said:

100 goals in 166 games for Liverpool.

One of only three (I think) Premiership players to score more than 150 Premiership goals. (And before one of you fools starts going on about how football didn't begin with the Premiership, I am well aware of the fact but Fowler started his career just as the Premiership was starting so it's an appropriate measure).

How can one compare scoring goals against Livingston, Aberdeen, Dundee and indeed every other team in Scotland bar Rangers, to scoring against any top half side in England. There were only two decent quality teams in Scotland when Larsson was there. I've said it before and I'll say it again Larsson was in a comfort zone when playing in Scotland. Sure he has done well in Spain but too little too late for me. He should have tested himself against the best centre halves in Europe when he was in his prime. This, I think you dissentors will agree, does not include your Pressleys, Caldwells and Andrews' of this world.

Fair enough Larsson had a better international career and I don't doubt he's a fantastic player but he never proved it to me playing below himself in Scotland.

Fowler was unlucky to fook himself up with injury and I'll grant you he lost hunger, his attitude was poor, but I'd also make the point that he wasn't helped by Houllier who wouldn't give him a run of games to get his sharpness back.

Fowler in his prime versus Larsson in his prime is Fowler for me everytime.

A couple of points Lyonsee:

1. Scoring goals against a top-half team in England for a couple of seasons isn't an indicator of greatness, especailly when it's proven to be a flash in the pan. I'm not going to pretend that some of the lower teams in Scotland are brilliant but people are guilty of ridiculously overhyping the premiership.

2. You talk about Larsson being in a "comfort zone" which is laughable when you consider how the man has tested himself and proved himself for his whole career, winning domestic and European honours and numerous individual awards in Scotland, Europe, Spain and Sweden. Fowler wasn't arsed.

3. Larsson had far more horrific injuries than Fowler ever had, but he didn't need a run of games to get his sharpness back. He went back out there and busted a gut and excelled again.

4. Larsson at 34 is currently playing better than Fowler ever did. Fowler would never have played for the current Barca team. Not enough of an athlete and not intelligent enough as a footballer.

5. Hugh McIllvaney (a fantastic journalist - the best in Britain in my opinion) wrote the below after the Champions League final. It's an excellent paragraph and really it makes a mockery of your claims:

Amid the whirlpool of conflicting opinions and emotions afterwards, it was reassuring to find that one rock of unanimity was the recognition of Henrik Larsson as the most significant presence at the Stade de France. Summoned as a substitute with an hour gone, he shaped the outcome with the alertness of his instincts, the intelligence of his movement and the precision of his passing, setting up both Barcelona goals. What an answer the marvellous Swede gave to those who tried to tell us, throughout his years with Celtic, that he needed the comfortable context of the Scottish league to look like a great footballer.

With reference to the above points:

1. A couple is two. Fowler proved himself over more than two seasons. Refer to Eamo's stats above.

2. Scottish domestic and individual awards mean fook all to me for reasons I've already outlined. Champions League and La Liga fair enough.

3. Don't need to be as sharp in Scotland for reasons I've already outlined. You've an extra yard to play with at least. I'll accept that his attitude was better than Fowler's but how could Fowler excel when he was third choice to Heskey and Owen?

4. I simply don't accept that. The Premiership is physically one of the toughest leagues in Europe. Fowler was an athlete, now I'll admit not so much. I don't know how you can say that he was not an intelligent player - he was a genius. He could score from anywhere, his movement was fantastic and goalscoring instinct second to none.

5. I would've said this merely reinforces my point. If he was able to produce on this stage then why the fook didn't he his whole career?

[steamboatsam]

eamo said:

steamboatsam said:

I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non liverpool fans vote for Fowler.

And I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non Celtic/SPL fans vote for Larsson

I'm a non Celtic/SPL fan and i voted for Larsson, so that's one

[eamo]

steamboatsam said:

eamo said:

And I'd be interested to know how many (if any) non Celtic/SPL fans vote for Larsson

I'm a non Celtic/SPL fan and i voted for Larsson, so that's one

Fair enough Steamer - well said. I have nothing.

[therock67]

Another article from The Sunday Times - this time from Ian Hawkey their European Football Writer:

Rebuilding Barca
IAN HAWKEY IN BARCELONA
Thierry Henry's U-turn means that Barcelona still have to replace the man who made them kings of Europe
It was always going to be heart-breaking. For months the supporters had been attempting to change his mind, persuade him to stay. Alas, a contract had been agreed. So perhaps the most successful, influential forward in British football over the past decade would leave after the European Cup final. And unlike Thierry Henry, Henrik Larsson would not change his mind.

Barcelona will miss Larsson, the catalyst for their comeback in last Wednesday’s final, all the more now that they will not be replacing the former Celtic striker with Henry, one of the few players who would give Larsson an argument for having been the most significant forward in British football of the past 10 years.

As it happened, Larsson was just about the only Barça man Henry was not arguing with after the match. “I didn’t see the great Barcelona that all the people talk about,” Henry said. “But it is a team, it’s not Ronaldinho, it’s not Eto’o. The difference in the final was Henrik Larsson. You have to give him credit.”

Twice Larsson’s passes led to goals. He had been on the field barely 15 minutes when his gentle, glimpsed-through-the-corner-of-his-eye lay-off to Samuel Eto’o set up the equalising goal; he’d been on barely 20 minutes when, retrieving a stray ball, he anticipated Juliano Belletti’s speed and direct intentions: 2-1.

Only at the final whistle did the 34-year-old Swede fail to second-guess his colleagues’ movements. He leapt over an advertising hoarding, through a thick trench of photographers to the end of the stadium occupied by Barcelona supporters. He raised his fists, pointed at them — “This one’s for you” — and waited. And waited. And then felt terribly alone on the running track around the playing surface at the Stade de France. “I assumed they’d all come after me, and I realised too late that the rest of the players were celebrating in the middle of the pitch.”

Twenty-four hours later, Larsson was at the Nou Camp for a last time, this time in the full embrace of the colleagues and supporters with whom he has, in two years, gained a popularity that even he acknowledges sometimes seemed out of proportion to his input. His first season there, 2004-05, was interrupted for six months by injury. His second had him on the bench as often as the starting XI.

Yet his name always drew a raucous cheer, and his replica No 7 shirts were, until the emergence of Lionel Messi, selling more than those of any other Barça players except Ronaldinho and Eto’o.

As the squad finished their open-topped bus tour of the city with a serenade at their stadium, Larsson was raised to the shoulders of the tallest player, the Argentinian Maxi Lopez, for his goodbyes. He decided in the new year that he would be leaving Spain this summer, and signed a contract with Helsingborgs in Sweden, the club he left in the early 1990s for a odyssey that has taken in Feyenoord, seven years with Celtic and two with Barcelona.

Larsson is much more than a supersub, although if he was called one in Paris, he shouldn’t take it as a slight. It has become a truism that any modern European champions end up grateful to their substitutes. Ask Liverpool how they remember the 2005 turnaround, and the names Smicer and Hamann quickly crop up. In 1999 it was Manchester United’s Sheringham and Solskjaer. Real Madrid triumphed in the 2002 final thanks to a substitute goalkeeper, Iker Casillas. Porto had a man coming off the bench, Dmitri Alenitchev, to thank in 2004.

Barcelona are indebted to three. Their threat to Arsenal grew with the half-time introduction of Andres Iniesta; Larsson yielded almost immediate dividends; and Belletti, 19 minutes from time, scored the winner. The coach tends to inherit credit for these interventions when they are productive. Insofar as Frank Rijkaard has made a regular skill of alternating his resources, he is a good executor of Plan B. More than that, he has overseen a resurrection. Barcelona won their second European Cup 14 years after their first, but for five of the past seven seasons they were touching new lows in their 107-year history. They failed to qualify for the 2003-04 Champions League and Rijkaard’s first clasico ended in Barça’s first home league defeat against Real Madrid for 20 years. He awoke the next morning to a one-word headline: “Coward.”

Last Thursday he woke up, possibly bleary after the victors’ party in the Bois de Boulogne, as the best coach in the world: one or two locals were saying so, anyway. But by Friday he was wondering if his club was quite the sharp strategist it imagines itself. Rijkaard is suddenly short of a striker: exit Larsson; no-show Henry.

It might have been otherwise. Barça president Joan Laporta had swaggeringly announced that Larsson, when he ruptured his cruciate ligament in November 2004, would be offered a further year on his contract, taking him to 2007. The deal was never signed. The expectation was that Henry had a better than 50-50 chance of coming to Barcelona in Larsson’s place, straight into the first XI. Instead, he will be playing at Ashburton Grove. Naturally, Larsson’s first match at Helsingborgs, a club with an average attendance of about 10,000, is sold out.

[bandage]

lyonsee said:

100 goals in 166 games for Liverpool.

One of only three (I think) Premiership players to score more than 150 Premiership goals. (And before one of you fools starts going on about how football didn't begin with the Premiership, I am well aware of the fact but Fowler started his career just as the Premiership was starting so it's an appropriate measure).

How can one compare scoring goals against Livingston, Aberdeen, Dundee and indeed every other team in Scotland bar Rangers, to scoring against any top half side in England. There were only two decent quality teams in Scotland when Larsson was there. I've said it before and I'll say it again Larsson was in a comfort zone when playing in Scotland. Sure he has done well in Spain but too little too late for me. He should have tested himself against the best centre halves in Europe when he was in his prime. This, I think you dissentors will agree, does not include your Pressleys, Caldwells and Andrews' of this world.

Fair enough Larsson had a better international career and I don't doubt he's a fantastic player but he never proved it to me playing below himself in Scotland.

Fowler was unlucky to fook himself up with injury and I'll grant you he lost hunger, his attitude was poor, but I'd also make the point that he wasn't helped by Houllier who wouldn't give him a run of games to get his sharpness back.

Fowler in his prime versus Larsson in his prime is Fowler for me everytime.

The core tenet of my argument is that Fowler never did it outside the EPL. Never for country in major competitions and hardly ever for club in Europe. That season Pool won the UEFA Cup he couldn't get in ahead of Heskey albeit I think he came off the bench to score in the final. In that sense I always find it amusing when people say Larsson played in a comfort zone. Scoring buckets of goals in Europe for club and for country in major competitions puts him on an altogether higher plane than Fowler. I'll repeat what the rock said: top goalscorer in European competitions for a British club. That puts him ahead of Van Nistelrooy etc who's ManU's record European goalscorer.

These European goals were not scored against defenders like Pressley (good player though he is imo) etc. However, I presume many of Fowler's goals were against mediocre and downright poor EPL teams. To be honest I can't remember as it's so long ago now that he was in any way a factor at a decent level of football. Additionally, Larsson had an horrendous leg break and came back stronger - Fowler's lack of professionalism has been a disgrace and thoroughly disrespectful to Leeds and Manchester City.

In summation: Better scoring record, better attitude, better ability and has done it on a far more consistent basis for a far longer time at a higher level. Henrik Larsson is the King of Kings.

[therock67]

lyonsee said:

admin said:

A couple of points Lyonsee:

1. Scoring goals against a top-half team in England for a couple of seasons isn't an indicator of greatness, especailly when it's proven to be a flash in the pan. I'm not going to pretend that some of the lower teams in Scotland are brilliant but people are guilty of ridiculously overhyping the premiership.

2. You talk about Larsson being in a "comfort zone" which is laughable when you consider how the man has tested himself and proved himself for his whole career, winning domestic and European honours and numerous individual awards in Scotland, Europe, Spain and Sweden. Fowler wasn't arsed.

3. Larsson had far more horrific injuries than Fowler ever had, but he didn't need a run of games to get his sharpness back. He went back out there and busted a gut and excelled again.

4. Larsson at 34 is currently playing better than Fowler ever did. Fowler would never have played for the current Barca team. Not enough of an athlete and not intelligent enough as a footballer.

5. Hugh McIllvaney (a fantastic journalist - the best in Britain in my opinion) wrote the below after the Champions League final. It's an excellent paragraph and really it makes a mockery of your claims:

Amid the whirlpool of conflicting opinions and emotions afterwards, it was reassuring to find that one rock of unanimity was the recognition of Henrik Larsson as the most significant presence at the Stade de France. Summoned as a substitute with an hour gone, he shaped the outcome with the alertness of his instincts, the intelligence of his movement and the precision of his passing, setting up both Barcelona goals. What an answer the marvellous Swede gave to those who tried to tell us, throughout his years with Celtic, that he needed the comfortable context of the Scottish league to look like a great footballer.

With reference to the above points:

1. A couple is two. Fowler proved himself over more than two seasons. Refer to Eamo's stats above.

2. Scottish domestic and individual awards mean fook all to me for reasons I've already outlined. Champions League and La Liga fair enough.

3. Don't need to be as sharp in Scotland for reasons I've already outlined. You've an extra yard to play with at least. I'll accept that his attitude was better than Fowler's but how could Fowler excel when he was third choice to Heskey and Owen?

4. I simply don't accept that. The Premiership is physically one of the toughest leagues in Europe. Fowler was an athlete, now I'll admit not so much. I don't know how you can say that he was not an intelligent player - he was a genius. He could score from anywhere, his movement was fantastic and goalscoring instinct second to none.

5. I would've said this merely reinforces my point. If he was able to produce on this stage then why the fook didn't he his whole career?

1. Fowler only scored more than 20 goals in two seasons that Eamo quoted stats for. If you're going to argue that an 18 goal season in the EPL is somehow comparable to Larsson than I won't bother addressing that.

2. Larsson won a European golden boot, Swedish player of the year, Swedish player of the last 50 years and socred more goals per minute thatn any player in la Liga this season. Those awards are proof of his class.

3. Larsson's first games back after his broken leg were in the European Championships for Sweden. Do your research. Fowler's place behind Emile Heskey in the pecking order says so much really.

4. Fowler didn't play for England and wasn't rated by successive club managers because he wasn't athletic or intelligent enough to succeed at the top level. He was a poacher who could score goals in the English league but that was his limit. He could never adapt to the style of play in Spain where he might be asked to play alone up front. You'd still have eejits from the Kop claiming that Liverpool didn't play a way that suited Fowler and he just needed a run of games but the simple fact is that the guy couldn't adapt to a style of play that was capable of winning trophies. Steve Bull springs to mind.

5. He did produce it his whole career, that's the point. The Champions League final was evidence of the man's greatness and no amount of detraction from the SPL can ever change that fact.

[lyonsee]

admin said:

lyonsee said:

With reference to the above points:

1. A couple is two. Fowler proved himself over more than two seasons. Refer to Eamo's stats above.

2. Scottish domestic and individual awards mean fook all to me for reasons I've already outlined. Champions League and La Liga fair enough.

3. Don't need to be as sharp in Scotland for reasons I've already outlined. You've an extra yard to play with at least. I'll accept that his attitude was better than Fowler's but how could Fowler excel when he was third choice to Heskey and Owen?

4. I simply don't accept that. The Premiership is physically one of the toughest leagues in Europe. Fowler was an athlete, now I'll admit not so much. I don't know how you can say that he was not an intelligent player - he was a genius. He could score from anywhere, his movement was fantastic and goalscoring instinct second to none.

5. I would've said this merely reinforces my point. If he was able to produce on this stage then why the fook didn't he his whole career?

1. Fowler only scored more than 20 goals in two seasons that Eamo quoted stats for. If you're going to argue that an 18 goal season in the EPL is somehow comparable to Larsson than I won't bother addressing that.

2. Larsson won a European golden boot, Swedish player of the year, Swedish player of the last 50 years and socred more goals per minute thatn any player in la Liga this season. Those awards are proof of his class.

3. Larsson's first games back after his broken leg were in the European Championships for Sweden. Do your research. Fowler's place behind Emile Heskey in the pecking order says so much really.

4. Fowler didn't play for England and wasn't rated by successive club managers because he wasn't athletic or intelligent enough to succeed at the top level. He was a poacher who could score goals in the English league but that was his limit. He could never adapt to the style of play in Spain where he might be asked to play alone up front. You'd still have eejits from the Kop claiming that Liverpool didn't play a way that suited Fowler and he just needed a run of games but the simple fact is that the guy couldn't adapt to a style of play that was capable of winning trophies. Steve Bull springs to mind.

5. He did produce it his whole career, that's the point. The Champions League final was evidence of the man's greatness and no amount of detraction from the SPL can ever change that fact.

Got work to do. Shall post at luchtime.

[tommymoore]

Fowler by a country mile.

[jimmyhillschin]

Although I think Fowler was untouchable in his prime I would have to go for Larsson purley because his all round game is better than Fowler's ever was and his longevity playing at the top

[imposter]

i wouldnt agree with a country mile, Larsson was a fukn amazing player for celtic. However, i do think that fowler gets it by a nose, purely because he played at a higher level week in week out in the epl.

[therock67]

imposter said:

i wouldnt agree with a country mile, Larsson was a fukn amazing player for celtic. However, i do think that fowler gets it by a nose, purely because he played at a higher level week in week out in the epl.

Higher level that La Liga?

[imposter]

No, La Liga is a higher level, but Larsson didnt play week in week out. He was at barcelona for 2 years, was injured for most of his first year, and only played sporadically in the second year.

Judge Larsson on his time in Scotland, in the EPL.

[iamthelaw]

imposter said:

Judge Larsson on his time in Scotland, in the EPL.

But you have to judge them on the big occasions too:

Larsson scored 34 goals in 88 international games, many of which he played in midfield or as a winger. He has scored at two World Cups (1994 at which Sweden came 3rd, and 2002), and two European Championships (2000 and 2004).

He also scored both goals in the UEFA Cup Final for Celtic, I think, and set up both in the European Cup Final this year.

I'm not sure how Fowler compares, but I'd be surprised if his record was better at this level.

[imposter]

Good points, and its hard to argue against those facts, fowler has not surpassed or equaled any of the above on the international/european stage, but he did feature in a few world cups and european championships.

However, Robbie has scored 171 goals in 330 appearances for the pool up to 2001, 14 in 33 for leeds and 9 in 10 games since coming back to anfield. His only bad patch was with Citeh..

So perhaps its fair to say Fowler has had a better career on the domestic front (if it is agreed that the epl is better than the spl), but Larsson has eclipsed him on the international stage.

[whyohwhy]

Larsson, cos Fowler is a fucking Scouse twat

[steamboatsam]

Fowler: 7 goals in 26 appearances for his country with his biggest international achievement being 45mins in a WC2002 group game hardly equates to world class, in a career spanning almost 13 years

[pagey]

Just saw this thread. A lot has been said above so i'm not going to repeat it here. But Larsson's record speaks for itself. Its Henke for me.