Yes he flirted with it. Unlike Giggs, Scholes, Neville, even Keane. For me that's the high bar for being a legend. Still a very good player though.
Apart from that time Keane held the club to ransom to double his wage, yeah, Keane.
Comparing players to the class of 92 is just weird. It's so extremely rare to get a group of lads who have grown up with the club all come through and establish themselves as first-team players for over a decade that to use them as a base of comparison is extremely unfair.
Rooney came to us and enjoyed enormous success. We then sold our, and the world's best, player, and brought in Valencia, Obertan, Owen and Diouf. It's not nice to see as a fan, but I can think it's understandable that he was concerned about the investment in the team. I don't believe the Chelsea thing was anything more than rumour, but again, if he'd been told that he wasn't really in first team plans anymore but felt he had a lot to offer, can you really blame him for displaying even minor interest in continuing his career at the highest level possible.
The fact still remains though that he never left, and became our top-goal scorer in the process.
If LFC fans started calling Dalglish a prophet, I guess disagreeing with that would make me clueless too. They can call him anything under the sun, it doesn't make it fact. It comes down to what different people set as the standard for using the word legend. My standard is the 1% of very special players. By your logic we might as well call Zlatan a PSG legend because he is there top scorer and Drinkwater a legend because he won the premiership with Leicester.
And the fish in the pond analogy is basically confirming what I'm saying. You don't leave the pond for your own gains, the whole point of a Legend is they put the club first and before themselves. Even if that means sacrificing money or trophies.
Because as we all know, saying someone is a legend for your football club is the same as heralding them as the second coming of Christ. You have the most ridiculous definition of a footballing legend I've ever come across.
PSG were only founded in 1970, and Zlatan is essentially synonymous to their recent rise to the top levels of European football. Of course he's a club legend for them.
Likewise, Leicester are probably never going to hit those heights ever again. The players involved in that effort are all going to go down as club legends, moreso the ones who were integral parts of the team, like Drinkwater.
Most normal people will use the term legend to describe players who accomplished special things at their club. Rooney has done that at United, Dalglish at Liverpool. Just because they weren't boyhood fans of the clubs doesn't mean their contributions to their club's histories were any less special, or indeed, legendary.
Then there'll be a tier of players who will be remembered as great players or servants, not quite reaching legend status, and cult heroes, who would be very good players only at the club for a short time.
Right, so let me get this straight. A player can only be a legend if they a) were very, very good footballers and b) played for and remained at their boyhood club for their entire careers?
Can you not see how utterly absurd that is?