The quality of strikers today vs late 90s / early 2000s

[Gio]

You can make a solid case for defenders of the late 1990s being better, but it's a tougher claim to make for strikers IMO.

I think that highlights it. Those players, the current top tier of strikers, match the second tier of the mid 90s, say from 1991 to 1998 for fairness. There are no strikers currently who get close to the stars of that era; Ronaldo, Del Piero, Romario, Shearer, van Basten.

The real elite level players now are no longer pure strikers.

You also have to factor in how poor defenders are currently. The tactics of defending have certainly improved but it seems to be at the expense of individual development.

How would Suarez get on in the 90s knowing how he struggled to score against top defences in the PL? Likewise how many more goals would Ronaldo score if he had the protection players do now?

I think if you include Del Piero and Ronaldo then you have to include Cristiano and Messi. Certainly Del Piero and Ronaldo were much more involved in the build-up than Cristiano. And then the comparison looks altogether more balanced.

 

[Raees]

These are the main relevant strikers in football today in no particular order:

Suarez, Lewandowski, Aguero, Morata, Benzema, Higuain, Lukaku, Cavani, Lacazette, Kane, Diego Costa, Belotti, Chicharito, Aubameyang, Bakambu, Batshuayi, Dzeko, Ben Yedder, Vietto, Welbeck, G. Jesus, Werner, Iheanacho, Vardy, Icardi, Alcacer, Mandzukic, Jovetic, Milik, Falcao, Dybala, Griezmann, Mbappe


Compare it to the late 90s and early 2000s where you had (feel free to mention the ones I missed):

Henry, Van Nistelrooy, Shearer, Yorke, Cole, Del Piero, Ronaldo, Batistuta, Raul, Shevchenko, Trezeguet, H. Larsson, Solskjear, Owen, Crespo, Kluivert, Vieri, Morientes, Pauleta, Makaay, Inzaghi, Tristan, Hasselbaink, Viduka, Elber, Rivaldo

To be honest, for a while I felt that we had a real lack of quality strikers today but when you look at the lists, it's actually not bad at all IMO.

If we are looking at pure strikers/second strikers (CF's/number 9s/SS) then my analysis would be as follows..

Tier 1 (GOAT)

Ronaldo
Rivaldo
Messi
Ronaldo

Tier 2 (World-Class universally recognised legend)

Batistuta
Henry
L. Suarez


Tier 3 (World-Class)

Shevchenko
Lewandowski
Shearer
Aguero
Raul
Ruud
Del Piero
Zlatan
Griezmann

Tier 4 (Top class - capable of scoring on any stage but didn't have the consistency/credentials/quality of guys above)

Kluivert
R. Falcao
Dybala
Larsson
Owen
Vieri
Trezeguet
Benzema


For me the late 90's-00's would definitely edge it in terms of central attacking threats. For me the modern game is more about wide roaming winger/forwards who can come in off the flank and score goals, that is where the modern game has been excelling and has left the 90's game behind which was much more about putting your best players in and around the box i.e. at number 10 or 9.

Your wingers in the 90's were creators, not really goalscorers whereas in the modern game your best players Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar all come in off the flank and the quality of number 9's is very poor.

The depth is much greater in the late 90's-00 era. Elite quality wise, again a slight edge to the 90's era but there were generally loads of mentally strong competent forwards in the late 90's - even a young Michael Owen was a deadly finisher at the highest level and could put any side to the sword.. whereas no current english striker can do that even Harry Kane (who will go on to be the better player because he's more robust etc but if Owen had avoided injury, he was lethal on big stages).

 

[VorZakone]

If we are looking at pure strikers/second strikers (CF's/number 9s/SS) then my analysis would be as follows..

Tier 1 (GOAT)

Ronaldo
Rivaldo
Messi
Ronaldo

Tier 2 (World-Class universally recognised legend)

Batistuta
Henry
L. Suarez


Tier 3 (World-Class)

Shevchenko
Lewandowski
Shearer
Aguero
Raul
Ruud
Del Piero
Zlatan
Griezmann

Tier 4 (Top class - capable of scoring on any stage but didn't have the consistency/credentials/quality of guys above)

Kluivert
R. Falcao
Dybala
Larsson
Owen
Vieri
Trezeguet
Benzema


For me the late 90's-00's would definitely edge it in terms of central attacking threats. For me the modern game is more about wide roaming winger/forwards who can come in off the flank and score goals, that is where the modern game has been excelling and has left the 90's game behind which was much more about putting your best players in and around the box i.e. at number 10 or 9.

Your wingers in the 90's were creators, not really goalscorers whereas in the modern game your best players Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar all come in off the flank and the quality of number 9's is very poor.

The depth is much greater in the late 90's-00 era. Elite quality wise, again a slight edge to the 90's era but there were generally loads of mentally strong competent forwards in the late 90's - even a young Michael Owen was a deadly finisher at the highest level and could put any side to the sword.. whereas no current english striker can do that even Harry Kane (who will go on to be the better player because he's more robust etc but if Owen had avoided injury, he was lethal on big stages).

Wow, you rate Luis Suarez that highly? Above the likes of Del Piero, Raul and Shearer?

 

[Raees]

Wow, you rate Luis Suarez that highly? Above the likes of Del Piero, Raul and Shearer?

I'm trying to be fair to the modern era and he's the best 9 in the world. I do think that at Barca he gets seen as part of a triumvirate and it is hard for people to see how special a forward he is.

He is more dynamic than all of those three and has more electric ability than those guys .. he'd be a star striker for any side in world football and in any culture which sets him apart imo.

Proven in Spain and England and in Copa America and even world cups and CL.

 

[Gio]

@Raees That's pretty fair. I'd swap Vieri with Griezmann and I'd want Aguero to do something with Argentina or even at the business end of the CL to firm up a place in that third tier.

 

[Raees]

@Raees That's pretty fair. I'd swap Vieri with Griezmann and I'd want Aguero to do something with Argentina or even at the business end of the CL to firm up a place in that third tier.

I'd keep Griezmann there as he has scored at every level and has that higher tier of class about him. Would switch Aguero and Vieri instead but didn't want it to look so one-sided.

Just goes to show how many unproven strikers there are in the modern game at the very elite level.

 

[Eckers99]

Just focusing on the English strikers from the 90s shows how much the quality has slumped.

Venables and Hoddle had the likes of Shearer, Fowler, Cole, Ferdinand, Owen, Wright and Sheringham to choose from. Southgate has got Kane, Vardy, Sturridge and Rashford.

Says it all for me.

 

[giorno]

The players you mention are played as wide forwards because that's how teams set up.

All could/would have been played as orthodox wingers in the 90's and all would have been world class there.

Are you kidding? None of them would have played as orthodox wingers, ever.

 

[Balu]

I'd keep Griezmann there as he has scored at every level and has that higher tier of class about him. Would switch Aguero and Vieri instead but didn't want it to look so one-sided.

Just goes to show how many unproven strikers there are in the modern game at the very elite level.

At least to some degree we don't judge forwards from the 90's by the same standards in terms of "elite level" though. Aguero and Ibrahimovic are usually considered as forwards who have failed to perform in the CL to the same standard as they did in the league, yet they've easily done as much as Vieri or Batistuta did in European competitions. No one really cares about it though, because Vieri and Batistuta played in the awesome Serie A, so that's enough.

 

[giorno]

Aguero and Ibrahimovic are usually considered as forwards who have failed to perform in the CL to the same standard as they did in the league, yet they've easily done as much as Vieri or Batistuta did in European competitions. No one really cares about it though, because Vieri and Batistuta played in the awesome Serie A, so that's enough.

Even Vieri thinks comparing him to Zlatan is a joke. Maybe in argentina they think Bati was better, but everywhere else, doubt it. In Italy Zlatan is seen head and shoulders above them. Aguero isn't that rated because he isn't that good. Bati was better and Vieri at least as good

And anybody who compares aguero to zlatan should be publicly shamed. Ibra pisses on aguero

 

[tomaldinho1]

Surely it's more a case of a gradual but constant improvement in defenders/defensive tactics that makes us think striker were better?

 

[Raees]

At least to some degree we don't judge forwards from the 90's by the same standards in terms of "elite level" though. Aguero and Ibrahimovic are usually considered as forwards who have failed to perform in the CL to the same standard as they did in the league, yet they've easily done as much as Vieri or Batistuta did in European competitions. No one really cares about it though, because Vieri and Batistuta played in the awesome Serie A, so that's enough.

To be fair Balu it isn't about winning the competition per se but more about showing that you could make an impact in the competition against elite european sides.

The way Batistuta played against United will live long in the memory.. it was men against boys stuff. He didn't have much of an opportunity to play for a top side in Europe but the moment he did have on the european stage.. he shone, and internationally he was excellent - head and shoulders above Aguero/Zlatan.

As for Vieri..

again wonderful international record. In Europe, plays for Juve side who got to final of 96/97 Cl final and wins Serie A in his first season but gets signed by Atletico for a big fee.. then goes to lazio and Inter, where whilst he didn't set the world alight in Europe, it is still a better record than Zlatan's who had opportunity to play year after year in settled sides. I don't rate Vieri as high as some, but if you were to ask a well-organised defence who would be harder to defend against.. they'd probably say Vieri. I've seen Zlatan handled way too easily, far too often to rate him amongst the very best forwards despite how talented he is.

Aguero has had some decent games, but has mostly scored against cannon fodder and due to poor international record, gives off the impression he is overall a flat track bully. that said he hasn't featured for a truly elite side like Zlatan has had the opportunity to.

 

[GifLord]

What? Where?

the post you've quoted said 90s and people here keep throwing all kind of names around ignoring timeframes anyways

Shit i fecked up with the quotes
sorry

 

[Eckers99]

Surely it's more a case of a gradual but constant improvement in defenders/defensive tactics that makes us think striker were better?

Not really. If anything, the general consensus is that this is one of the worst eras there's ever been for pure defending. The likes of Batistuta, Ronaldo and Shearer scored for fun against some of the best defenders of all time, so would've been even better in the present day.

 

[Balu]

To be fair Balu it isn't about winning the competition per se but more about showing that you could make an impact in the competition against elite european sides.

The way Batistuta played against United will live long in the memory.. it was men against boys stuff. He didn't have much of an opportunity to play for a top side in Europe but the moment he did have on the european stage.. he shone, and internationally he was excellent - head and shoulders above Aguero/Zlatan.

Disagree with you on Batistuta. The United game was the exception inbetween many underwhelming performances and at World Cups he was a selfish flat track bully who completely disappeared against the first decent team Argentina faced. His early performances at the Copa America were quality and kinda save his international record, but he didn't prove all that much compared to other legendary strikers.

It's similar with Vieri. He scored a few important goals for an elite Juve side on the way to the final but was hardly the irreplaceable player in the team. There wasn't much more than that afterwards. Obviously neither should be scrutinised for their records, but you judge them positively on the rare great moments you remember and you certainly don't do the same for Zlatan and Aguero.

I never said it's about winning by the way.

 

[Gio]

What elevates Batistuta and Vieri for me is that they proved themselves time and time again versus some of the best defenders of any era. Batistuta had limited opportunities to shine in Europe with Fiorentina but still had some signature performances. I don't really agree he was a flat-track bully - top scorer in 2 Copa Americas and 9 goals in 2 World Cups is a record most attackers would envy. What let him down occasionally for Argentina is that he lacked a little bit of the technical quality and middle-third threat of a couple of his peers (Ronaldo, Van Basten, Romario), and would be quieter in a couple of the tighter games when Argentina didn't get as forward as much. But on the whole I don't think his record falls short of many.

Not quite as compelling for Vieri, still with a relatively solid club (particularly from 1997-2003) and international record (8 World Cup goals), but always a handful and too much of an all-round package to be easily quelled by even many of the top boys of that era. I'd disagree with @Balu on him not going much after Juve, if anything leaving Turin kick-started his career and his performances ratcheted up a couple of gears thereafter.

To be fair Balu it isn't about winning the competition per se but more about showing that you could make an impact in the competition against elite european sides.

The way Batistuta played against United will live long in the memory.. it was men against boys stuff. He didn't have much of an opportunity to play for a top side in Europe but the moment he did have on the european stage.. he shone, and internationally he was excellent - head and shoulders above Aguero/Zlatan.

As for Vieri..

again wonderful international record. In Europe, plays for Juve side who got to final of 96/97 Cl final and wins Serie A in his first season but gets signed by Atletico for a big fee.. then goes to lazio and Inter, where whilst he didn't set the world alight in Europe, it is still a better record than Zlatan's who had opportunity to play year after year in settled sides. I don't rate Vieri as high as some, but if you were to ask a well-organised defence who would be harder to defend against.. they'd probably say Vieri. I've seen Zlatan handled way too easily, far too often to rate him amongst the very best forwards despite how talented he is.

Aguero has had some decent games, but has mostly scored against cannon fodder and due to poor international record, gives off the impression he is overall a flat track bully. that said he hasn't featured for a truly elite side like Zlatan has had the opportunity to.

The difference between Aguero and Ibrahimovic is that the Swede's international record is very good. Even moreso when you consider the lack of quality in the Swedish national team relative to the embarrassment of attacking riches enjoyed by Argentina.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Even though they're technicaly not strikers, Messi and Ronaldo (especially Ronaldo) do kind of fill the role of main goal scorer don't they?

also why are players like Welbeck and Milik in a list of relevant strikers??

 

[Peyroteo]

How many teams from the late 90s defended better as a unit than Simeone's Atleti or last year's Juventus?

Defenders were better back then individually but there's a lot more to it than that. Defensive organization is much better today as it has massively evolved and in today's game the attackers are the first defenders.

The opposite is also true and the defenders are the first attackers. How many CBs from the late 90s were as good on the ball as Bonucci, Piqué, Boateng or Ramos? The defensive abilities of the defenders of the late 90s also get overrated, they were better than today's defenders but they weren't Gods either. Their mistakes have been forgotten while the defenders of today get slaughtered for every mistake.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Not really. If anything, the general consensus is that this is one of the worst eras there's ever been for pure defending. The likes of Batistuta, Ronaldo and Shearer scored for fun against some of the best defenders of all time, so would've been even better in the present day.

I think world class players would have been world class in any era, that's not my point.

I think it's fair to say the general level of footballer has gradually increased over time (rationally thinking this is the case with any sport that has such a boom in the number of people playing it & the money pouring in) and that is coupled with the evolution of tactics and, in particular, set ups which enable 'weaker' teams to compete with the big guys.

It's always hypothetical but you only need to watch footage from old football games - to see the huge disparity in overall level between then and now. Therefore, for example, IMO Shearer in today's PL would score less because the overall quality of defender/defensive setup is that little bit higher.

 

[padr81]

Are you sure about that ?

Not as much in developed countries, I do alot of youth martial arts coaching and kids are less involved. They do more classes but spend less time outside actually playing sports. A recent study in Ireland showed alot of this for what it is.

They may spend time doing actual classes but they don't spend the hours outside playing sports kids did in the 80's and 90s.

A study like this is quite damning imho.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...n-jump-catch-or-even-hit-a-ball-36043842.html

 

[Keeps It tidy]

This thread reminds me of the scene in Dope where the lead character talking about how great 90s Hip Hop was brought up an album from 1987 and one from 2001

 

[Physiocrat]

If we are looking at pure strikers/second strikers (CF's/number 9s/SS) then my analysis would be as follows..

Tier 1 (GOAT)

Ronaldo
Rivaldo
Messi
Ronaldo

Tier 2 (World-Class universally recognised legend)

Batistuta
Henry
L. Suarez


Tier 3 (World-Class)

Shevchenko
Lewandowski
Shearer
Aguero
Raul
Ruud
Del Piero
Zlatan
Griezmann

Tier 4 (Top class - capable of scoring on any stage but didn't have the consistency/credentials/quality of guys above)

Kluivert
R. Falcao
Dybala
Larsson
Owen
Vieri
Trezeguet
Benzema


For me the late 90's-00's would definitely edge it in terms of central attacking threats. For me the modern game is more about wide roaming winger/forwards who can come in off the flank and score goals, that is where the modern game has been excelling and has left the 90's game behind which was much more about putting your best players in and around the box i.e. at number 10 or 9.

Your wingers in the 90's were creators, not really goalscorers whereas in the modern game your best players Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar all come in off the flank and the quality of number 9's is very poor.

The depth is much greater in the late 90's-00 era. Elite quality wise, again a slight edge to the 90's era but there were generally loads of mentally strong competent forwards in the late 90's - even a young Michael Owen was a deadly finisher at the highest level and could put any side to the sword.. whereas no current english striker can do that even Harry Kane (who will go on to be the better player because he's more robust etc but if Owen had avoided injury, he was lethal on big stages).

Good post. Broadly agree with that

 

[matherto]

I've seen Zlatan handled way too easily, far too often to rate him amongst the very best forwards despite how talented he is.

Aguero has had some decent games, but has mostly scored against cannon fodder and due to poor international record, gives off the impression he is overall a flat track bully. that said he hasn't featured for a truly elite side like Zlatan has had the opportunity to.

Which truly elite side did Zlatan have an opportunity to play for?

He's been fairly wank against the best opponents in the CL there's no doubt about it but so have the teams he's played for. He's been the one the press have focused on because he's Zlatan but he's very often had nobody else to help carry the load against the very best, especially at PSG.

PSG consistently shat the bed when playing against the best teams because they weren't one of the best teams whilst he was there.
Milan were crap in Europe.
He didn't get the opportunity at Barça because Pep/Messi.
Inter under Mancini were crap in Europe and under Jose they lost to us fairly easily.
Juve were crap in Europe.
Ajax were crap in Europe.

Where's the elite level?

 

[VorZakone]

Which truly elite side did Zlatan have an opportunity to play for?

He's been fairly wank against the best opponents in the CL there's no doubt about it but so have the teams he's played for.

PSG consistently shat the bed when playing against the best teams because they weren't one of the best teams whilst he was there.
Milan were crap in Europe.
He didn't get the opportunity at Barça because Pep/Messi.
Inter under Mancini were crap in Europe and under Jose they lost to us fairly easily.
Juve were crap in Europe.
Ajax were crap in Europe.

Where's the elite level?

I agree with everything except the PSG bit. PSG consistently underachieved partly because of Zlatan.

 

[matherto]

I agree with everything except the PSG bit. PSG consistently underachieved partly because of Zlatan.

They didn't underachieve. They simply weren't that good.

Certainly not amongst the top 4 teams and that's when they got shown up. Zlatan was expected to be the difference and when he wasn't all the attention/criticism was shoved at him but given the tactical horror shows by Blanc/Ancelotti and the likes of Cavani being utterly wank against anyone half decent they didn't really stack up against the best.

Zlatan wasn't good when they needed him to be don't get me wrong and perhaps you might expect a bit of magic to truly prove how great he is/was but given the conditions of the PSG sides at the time I don't think he could reasonably have been expected to give too more.

 

[VorZakone]

They didn't underachieve. They simply weren't that good.

Certainly not amongst the top 4 teams and that's when they got shown up. Zlatan was expected to be the difference and when he wasn't all the attention/criticism was shoved at him but given the tactical horror shows by Blanc/Ancelotti and the likes of Cavani being utterly wank against anyone half decent they didn't really stack up against the best.

Zlatan wasn't good when they needed him to be don't get me wrong and perhaps you might expect a bit of magic to truly prove how great he is/was but given the conditions of the PSG sides at the time I don't think he could reasonably have been expected to give too more.

They should have beaten Chelsea in 13/14 and Man City in 15/16 IMO.

 

[antohan]

Errr... most teams played two strikers and nowadays it's just one for most. That has a few implications:

1) Larger pool before so bound to have more top ones.

2) The current ones need to be great all-rounders while strikers from ages past could be more limited but perceived as better because the partnership emphasised and leveraged their strengths (e.g. Yorke and Cole where better than the sum of parts).

3) Surely that has implications for defenders but can't be arsed to go down that rabbit hole.

 

[matherto]

They should have beaten Chelsea in 13/14 and Man City in 15/16 IMO.

Hence I mentioned about tactically shitting the bed too. It's not just the players that were the issue when Zlatan was at PSG, the managers developed serious inferiority complexes when it came to the later rounds of the CL.

City was a horror show really.

 

[Raees]

Which truly elite side did Zlatan have an opportunity to play for?

He's been fairly wank against the best opponents in the CL there's no doubt about it but so have the teams he's played for. He's been the one the press have focused on because he's Zlatan but he's very often had nobody else to help carry the load against the very best, especially at PSG.

PSG consistently shat the bed when playing against the best teams because they weren't one of the best teams whilst he was there.
Milan were crap in Europe.
He didn't get the opportunity at Barça because Pep/Messi.
Inter under Mancini were crap in Europe and under Jose they lost to us fairly easily.
Juve were crap in Europe.
Ajax were crap in Europe.

Where's the elite level?

Zlatan failed at Barca because he wasn't a good tactical fit but equally I doubt he would ever be good enough to lead the line at a club of that calibre.. he lacked the big match mentality. Etoo was a far superior striker.

Assuming I'm being harsh about him lacking the big match calibre well when he did have teams built around him which were of a good quality he was the one who usually fluffed his lines in front of goal. No doubt his sheer presence can lift his team mates and his technical wizardry always keeps his sides in the game by reputation alone but overall he's been a disappointment more often than not and for me that is a fact which can't be overridden just because he's become a United player.

 

[giorno]

They should have beaten Chelsea in 13/14 and Man City in 15/16 IMO.

Yep. In 13/14 they got better in the first leg when Ibra went out, he missed the second leg

City was inexcusable. City were a joke, a team already thinking about the next season

 

[Raees]

Errr... most teams played two strikers and nowadays it's just one for most. That has a few implications:

1) Larger pool before so bound to have more top ones.

2) The current ones need to be great all-rounders while strikers from ages past could be more limited but perceived as better because the partnership emphasised and leveraged their strengths (e.g. Yorke and Cole where better than the sum of parts).

3) Surely that has implications for defenders but can't be arsed to go down that rabbit hole.

Which ties in with my view that attacking the goal via your central attackers was more on vogue in the nineties whereas nowadays it comes from wider threats in an attempt to utilise the element of surprise.

 

[Siorac]

Somehow everything was better in the days the caf members grew up in despite 20 years of progress in tactics, training and medicine.

Yeah, a lot of the internet these days consists of thirtysomething people discussing how everything was better in the 90s.

 

[matherto]

Zlatan failed at Barca because he wasn't a good tactical fit but equally I doubt he would ever be good enough to lead the line at a club of that calibre.. he lacked the big match mentality. Etoo was a far superior striker.

Assuming I'm being harsh about him lacking the big match calibre well when he did have teams built around him which were of a good quality he was the one who usually fluffed his lines in front of goal. No doubt his sheer presence can lift his team mates and his technical wizardry always keeps his sides in the game by reputation alone but overall he's been a disappointment more often than not and for me that is a fact which can't be overridden just because he's become a United player.

No disputing he's been a disappointment but all the attention has been on him when he's been surrounded by subpar players when compared to the absolute elite teams so he's literally had to be the one to do something, whilst having all the attention from defenders and criticism from the press and fans.

I agree about the mentality/tactical issues at Barça but at the same time, we know what Pep and Messi are/were like. It was always a seriously odd transfer exacerbated by Eto'o being brilliant but not getting along with Pep either.

I'm aware it sounds like I'm overly defending him because he's a United player. I'm not. He didn't exactly shine for us last year when we absolutely needed him to against the big teams (but again, the whole team didn't). He's been crap in the biggest of matches and his reputation for exactly that was the reason he was never rated in this country for example.

Of course, then he did the overhead kick against England and suddenly everyone was enlightened to this never before seen talent that others had been banging on about for years (as if England are even remotely good).

 

[Raees]

No disputing he's been a disappointment but all the attention has been on him when he's been surrounded by subpar players when compared to the absolute elite teams so he's literally had to be the one to do something, whilst having all the attention from defenders and criticism from the press and fans.

I agree about the mentality/tactical issues at Barça but at the same time, we know what Pep and Messi are/were like. It was always a seriously odd transfer exacerbated by Eto'o being brilliant but not getting along with Pep either.

I'm aware it sounds like I'm overly defending him because he's a United player. I'm not. He didn't exactly shine for us last year when we absolutely needed him to against the big teams (but again, the whole team didn't). He's been crap in the biggest of matches and his reputation for exactly that was the reason he was never rated in this country for example.

Of course, then he did the overhead kick against England and suddenly everyone was enlightened to this never before seen talent that others had been banging on about for years (as if England are even remotely good).

Yup as to the last point agree on that. It's just if I'm being harsh it's because we're looking at him from an all time context compared with guys like Batigol not just within his own era where despite his flaws he remains one of the elite attackers of the modern era.

 

[BBRBB]

The strikers of today are about as good or better as at any point in the past, there simply has never been as many players able to score as many goals, with most strikers having a much better all-round game than those of the past.

Maybe it's that football in the past was more romanticized, focusing mainly of the positive highlights while today every missed sitter, loose touch or underwhelming stat will be repeated over and over and held against players.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

So you're comparing players who had a great career before or after the 1998 World Cup to players who had a great careers before the 2014 World Cup? You can't really compare after as only 3 years have passed. It's totally flawed.

Podolski, Fernando Torres, Huntelaar, Bacca, Mertens should also be included in 2014 then if players like Laudrup, Ferdinand and Kiko are in the 1998 list.

Take a look at the squad lists from 2014. If you feel that anyone in the tournament is better now than they were then that I haven't listed, include them.

I'd included Podolski. Torres was a genuine oversight. Adding the other names doesn't really add any weight to the argument that there's this huge number of great strikers at the moment.

As I said, there are equivalent top 10's, but the top 25's lean heavily to the late 90's.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

several problems making the list very misleading

players are included/excluded quite arbitrarly based on position? why is robben there but not hazard or di maria?

if it's not about form at that time where are forlan and torres?

quite a few top players of their generation missed the 2014 world cup due to injury, their team not qualifiying or similar. zlatan, lewa, bale, falcao, tevez

romario and figo in '98 from what I remember

the 1998 group has the advantage of finished careers
you have no idea how some 2014 players might turn out in the future

I used Wikipedia and reported all players that were listed as Forwards. Robben is a forward. Di Maria and Hazard are not.

Forlan and Torres were genuine oversights. I flew threw the squad lists. They obviously should have been in there.

To the final point, I'm simply not seeing any players on that 2014 list that are about to set the world alight. That's not being facetious to score points. There's not a lot of talent there. It's been over 3 years.

 

[Obiorahking_]

Frankly I think Suarez alone was better than most if not all the players on that list.

 

[giorno]

The strikers of today are about as good or better as at any point in the past, there simply has never been as many players able to score as many goals, with most strikers having a much better all-round game than those of the past.

Maybe it's that football in the past was more romanticized, focusing mainly of the positive highlights while today every missed sitter, loose touch or underwhelming stat will be repeated over and over and held against players.

Nah, it's just the perception. If you looked at (perceived) WC forwards(goalscorers) in 1999-2001, you'd have Raul, Vieri, Batistuta, Sheva, Totti, Del Piero, Shearer, Bergkamp, Crespo, Bierhoff, Morientes, Kluivert, Inzaghi, Salas, Cole, Owen, Rivaldo, Makaay, Hasselbaink, Chiesa, Montella, Trezeguet, Henry, Yorke, Elber, Pizarro, RVN...

That is a lot of names

If you think about (perceived) WC forwards(goalscorers) in 15/17 you have Messi, CR7, Suarez, Neymar, Bale, Lewandowski, Higuain, Kane, Alexis, Diego Costa, Muller, Griezmann, Cavani, Ibra, Aguero, Aubameyang...???

The truth is half the guys from the first list sound ridiculous in this conversation, but because they were scoring at WC rates for big teams we see them as "proven", whereas guys like Morata, Lukaku, Icardi, Belotti, Immobile, Lacazette, Werner, etc aren't seen as "proven" yet and thus not WC, while other guys like Dzeko, Benzema, Aduritz, Vardy, Modeste, Bacca aren't considered as such because they're fresher in our memory, because they're not as monstrous as the very best of today, because they have massive, gaping holes in their games which are made blatant by the current iteration of the sport, etc...

Plain truth is the only position that DID get worse is CB. And that's mostly by design, too, and only in the sense that we're wired to think today's defenders must be great at doing the same stuff the defenders of yersteryear had to be good at

 

[11101]

You can make a solid case for defenders of the late 1990s being better, but it's a tougher claim to make for strikers IMO.


I think if you include Del Piero and Ronaldo then you have to include Cristiano and Messi. Certainly Del Piero and Ronaldo were much more involved in the build-up than Cristiano. And then the comparison looks altogether more balanced.

They were both central players though, they played the traditional striker role. They dropped deep to bring the ball forward. CR7 and Messi start deep/wide and then move up.

Ronaldo only became less involved in build ups because he is now all about the individual awards, and he no longer has a bigger figure in the club telling him to work elsewhere.