Would be interesting to see others take on this ,he undoubtedly had the quality it's just that I don't think he reached the peak that the others did and longevity wise he was ravaged by injuries.
Great strikers historical rankings
- Thread starter Red the Bear
- Start date
The issue is that his peak was a bit too short compared to most other strikers in that list — and him spending his club career in relatively small/unknown clubs didn't help him with the world-wide recognition (although what he did for Verona can only be compared to Riva for Cagliari/Maradona for Napoli). But he was unplayable from 1984 to 1986 and had a few great years before that. Denmark was also so unlucky in their international endeavours in the 80's, they really had it in them at least to challenge for either '84 Euros or '86 World Cup... I guess luck kinda paid them back in '92 even though that team was boring as feck.
His playing & living style probably ensured his short peak — he had a huge frame and physically looked more like a target man but he was always running around, pressing & harassing the opposition. If you add his smoking & drinking habits it's incredible that he even lasted for as long as he did.
If he haven't tore his ACL in 2014 we probably would've been talking about the greatest striker of the 2010's — he certainly was in contention with Suárez, Ibrahimović, Benzema and the likes before that. Although, just like Simeone's Atletico as a whole, he did look a bit out of place in modern football — like a perfectly preserved relic from the 1990's.
Mário Jardel, one of the best strikers ever, he won golden boot twice
I would honestly put Van Basten, Ronaldo and Suarez in the same tier. I think they peaked the highest among strikers and were pretty similar in ways. All were super dominant in everyway at their peak and all 3 also dominated internationally. Van Basten and Ronaldo both had major injuries so Suarez' short peak doesnt make him stand out here. Suarez would be more revered if he came before Messi and Ronaldo or atleast if he don't join Barcelona in his peak.
That's a blast from the past and a name I hadn't heard for a long time, put up insane number in Portugal but flopped in bolton and didn't really have an international career.
Wonder what could have been with him if he moved out of Portugal earlier than he did.
Ronaldo was a phenom, Suarez never at any point looked like he was the greatest player we’ve ever seen, not once.
Even if Suarez came before Messi and Ronaldo he would be mentioned alongside Henry and the likes not Ronaldo.
I'm interested in knowing how people rank Drogba one of my favorite players of the last generation who was so critical in Chelsea's era of success and a man for the big occasion, yet his numbers leave a lot to be desired where aside from 2 seasons where he gone bonkers its decidedly average.
You could argue he added a lot to the team besides scoring but how do you measure that anyway.
You could argue he added a lot to the team besides scoring but how do you measure that anyway.
Drogba is a funny one as he arrived on the scene so late. People talk about R9 so much because he was ripping people to shreds as a teenager. Drogba on the other hand wasn't on the rader until 25/26.
For me, Drogba isn't an all time great, but would have a chance of making an all time 23 if you need a striker to compliment a team with say R9 and Muller as their CF1/CF2 or something. I say this as with Drogba you didn't get the ego and his stepping up at big moments in finals was exceptional. As a result it is easy to see him as a bench option or CF3 in a Uber elite all-time squad because of that.
On a different note Jimmy Greaves is being seriously under ratted on here. I think some people need to go back and watch clips of him and also look a little more into his stats. In particular, his stats at Chelsea, considering he only played for them from 17-21 (four seasons), are pretty unreal as he had two seasons where he scored on average 1 per 90 minutes, while it should be remembered he was more of a smaller technical player who had to play in an age where the pitches where potato fields and getting completely wiped out by the CB only resulted in a free kick.
On top of that, he also did really well at Milan when he actually played. The problem with him there was that he was forced to sign for them as Chelsea were desperate for the money and refused to sell him to Spurs. Hence, why he was sold for something like £60k then £100k a few months later.
At Spurs, he also never had a season where he scored less than 1 goal per two games except for his last season where his body was giving up. These stats are also before we get too his assits which where never counted.
Not saying he was the GOAT but he certainly belongs somewhere between the Tier 2 to 3 group without a doubt.
On top of that, he also did really well at Milan when he actually played. The problem with him there was that he was forced to sign for them as Chelsea were desperate for the money and refused to sell him to Spurs. Hence, why he was sold for something like £60k then £100k a few months later.
At Spurs, he also never had a season where he scored less than 1 goal per two games except for his last season where his body was giving up. These stats are also before we get too his assits which where never counted.
Not saying he was the GOAT but he certainly belongs somewhere between the Tier 2 to 3 group without a doubt.
Doesnt matter how honestly You’d do it, you’d be mad and wrong to do so.
Suarez is nowhere near those two. Miles away from them.
I would never really put him up there with Shearer and the likes. As good as he was. Speaking as a Dane.
I feel there's some great nostalgia in most of you.
I get how van Basten,Il Fenomeno or Henry were more flashy and spectacular and maybe even had a higher peak for 1 or 2 years, but judging their whole careers and their numbers (after all strikers are arguably THE position that can be compared the best just by looking at stats) I don't get how any of those three is put above Lewandowski, Suarez or Benzema.
I get how van Basten,Il Fenomeno or Henry were more flashy and spectacular and maybe even had a higher peak for 1 or 2 years, but judging their whole careers and their numbers (after all strikers are arguably THE position that can be compared the best just by looking at stats) I don't get how any of those three is put above Lewandowski, Suarez or Benzema.
It’s not nostalgia, Suarez Benzema and Lewandowski for example were never close to looking like they would end up the best player we’ve ever seen, Benzema himself would tell you he modelled his whole game based on R9 and looks like the less alien version of the Brazilian. Suarez Lewandowski Benzema can only beat in terms of career stats, all round as footballers they don’t come close to a player who was dribbling past 4-5 players at a time at age 19 and doing everything else as well, he’s called a ‘freak’ for a reason, that’s exactly what he was.
Yeah, but that's the most important part for a striker, isn't it?
For you the best striker is obviously the one with the best dribbling and the best technique. For me it's the one with the most goals and scorers across the whole career.
As I said: Ronaldo definitely had a more impressive peak. But even then he wasn't a goal scoring machine like quite some other players.
It's not like the stats are close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UEFA_Champions_League_top_scorers
Brazilian Ronaldo doesn't even make the top 50 with 14 goals in 40 appearances.
He was dynamite with his movement and first touch. He was so quick at getting the ball in the back of the net from nothing. Almost the opposite of Batistuta, but i don't think quite as good. Batistuta could create the goals as well as score them, in far less dominant teams.
Suarez could be kept quiet. Still an effective all rounder but his goalscoring dropped when his team wasn't dominating the game. It didn't matter who Van Basten and Ronaldo played for or against.
It's worth mentioning that when you compare stats, football goes through phases. In the 80s and 90s if you played in Italy (which most of the top players did) you were seriously hampered by the style of play and the quality of CBs in that era. Similar to the 00s where Jose Mourinho style 4231 was being played by most teams and you did well to score 20 league goals a season.
If you look at the 50s, 60s and 70s there are a number of goal a game strikers which suggests it was a lot easier to score in those decades. I feel now like the game has gone back in that direction a bit. Teams are more expansive, playing on the front foot and pushing high up. If Lewandowski was playing in Serie A in the 90s he wouldn't be pushing 40 goals a season, while if Batistuta was playing for Bayern today he would be.
I agree with the general consensus that as pure #9s go, Ronaldo, Van Basten and Muller are the top 3. Romario probably the best of the rest.
If you look at the 50s, 60s and 70s there are a number of goal a game strikers which suggests it was a lot easier to score in those decades. I feel now like the game has gone back in that direction a bit. Teams are more expansive, playing on the front foot and pushing high up. If Lewandowski was playing in Serie A in the 90s he wouldn't be pushing 40 goals a season, while if Batistuta was playing for Bayern today he would be.
I agree with the general consensus that as pure #9s go, Ronaldo, Van Basten and Muller are the top 3. Romario probably the best of the rest.
Yeas, he’s either in low T2 or at the very top of T3. The best striker that ever England had by some margin.
And even you mentioned Calcio in 80s and 90s, there are some differences between early90s, 80s and late90s. Late 90s Calcio was a lot more attacking football, when we compare to 80s to early 90s. Late 90s Calcio was still great at defensive but not as much as 80s-early90s especially in term of tight man-marking, brutal fouls and different rules. 90s Calcio played a lot more in zonal marking(still a lot of man marking), different rules to protect attackers, yellow cards were given by referee easier( especially compare to Gentile’s era) and a lot of team played more offensive-oriented.
Imho, Lewa was almost complete striker and his attributes were excellent enouh to play in any era. Put Lewa in 80s and 90s Sirie A and I believe he could score over 20 goals per season (not over 30 for sure).
Last edited:
How about Inter’s Adriano? I reckon he would be T4 based on that very short but unstoppable peak
Peak was way too short.
I just don’t rate Suarez as highly as RVN, as a pure striker. If I need a goal and my midfield can create chances, I reckon RVN will need lesser chances than Saurez to put it away. Suarez imo is the better player, but RVN is the better box/pure striker
Interested to know where people think peak Michael Owen would be? Obviously he didn't have the longevity in terms of great performances but at his peak he was scary.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/what-is-the-greatest-ever-decade-for-players-and-teams.444205/
This thread dovetails with the above, as it highlights how strikers were rated in their own eras amongst peers and provides the bare bones for lists and what have you.
@harms point about what is perceived as a striker is important beings as the likes of: Puskas, Di Stefano, Eusebio, Greaves all blur the definition considerably with their positioning and methods scoring obscene amounts of goals response, but I tend to put them all as strikers sans Di Stefano, for reasons too long and uninteresting to get into.
I think those who don't care for football before the most modern era may have some confusion when it comes to weighting goals. As that thread attempts to do, highlighting decades where goals are in abundance and those where football as a whole was miserly means the value of a goal in a fully weighted scale will bring most goalscorers in line, as the prolofic scorers in miserly eras obviously then receive a bump whilst prolific scorers in eras where goals are a free for all are brought back into the pack.
Ronaldo's almost 1:1 ratio pre-injury in an era where that was simply unheard of is obviously weighted differently to times when very good players were/are drawing such numbers as a matter of course.
This thread dovetails with the above, as it highlights how strikers were rated in their own eras amongst peers and provides the bare bones for lists and what have you.
@harms point about what is perceived as a striker is important beings as the likes of: Puskas, Di Stefano, Eusebio, Greaves all blur the definition considerably with their positioning and methods scoring obscene amounts of goals response, but I tend to put them all as strikers sans Di Stefano, for reasons too long and uninteresting to get into.
I think those who don't care for football before the most modern era may have some confusion when it comes to weighting goals. As that thread attempts to do, highlighting decades where goals are in abundance and those where football as a whole was miserly means the value of a goal in a fully weighted scale will bring most goalscorers in line, as the prolofic scorers in miserly eras obviously then receive a bump whilst prolific scorers in eras where goals are a free for all are brought back into the pack.
Ronaldo's almost 1:1 ratio pre-injury in an era where that was simply unheard of is obviously weighted differently to times when very good players were/are drawing such numbers as a matter of course.
Where does Gerd Muller rank? Supposedly mediocre at all aspects of football except one.
If I were to go with the 5 Tiers Harms posted on page one, I'd have him in either T4 or T5 during his short peak years.
I know he's not popular round here but I've noticed no one has Dalglish in their list anywhere.
Again, I'm not sure if I'd put him as a striker. He usually played with a more pronounced number 9 like Ian Rush, for example.
You've only 1 Ronaldo for a start
The one that matters most
Technically speaking Ronaldo wasn’t a striker over majority of his career, as he is a wing forward. So I assume you meant L.Ronaldo in your tier list.
So was Henry and he mentioned him being tier 2 a few posts later
Technically speaking L. Ronaldo is Ronaldo?
Vastly overrated player. Jamie Vardy level at best.
Top 1,2 or 3, always, depending on who you ask.
Hmm, I'd say the below have a place as well:
- Shearer
- Ruud
- Kluivert
- Crespo
- Zlatan, Raul, Rush
- Bican
- Shearer
- Ruud
- Kluivert
- Crespo
- Zlatan, Raul, Rush
- Bican
Papin better than Suarez? I swear nostalgia is making you guys say the craziest stuff ....
The same people that put Gerd Müller in Tier 1 and say he's the GOAT because of "look at his goal records" are putting Lewandowski, Benzema and Suarez one or two tiers below van Basten and Ronaldo because "statistics aren't everything, look at how Ronaldo could dribble for 2 or 3 years", it doesn't make any sense 
Shearer must be quite high on the list. Career wise a shame he played at not so big clubs (even if Blackburn won the league). He probably would be up there in tier 2
He may have only lasted a few years before injuries ruined him, but I have never seen anything better than Ronaldo during that season at Barcelona under Bobby Robson. He was phenomenal, for me you’ll never beat that.
RvN.
Out and out striker, none like him exist now.
Out and out striker, none like him exist now.