Vardy

[Guest]

Career longevity skews debates of who's the better player. Maradona and Pele for example. Ability wise Maradona was subjectively way better but Pele looked after himself and scored over a 1000 goals or something like that. Not adding Ronaldinho to a bracket with Messi and Ronaldo is a strange one. Ronaldinho in his Barca days was as good as Messi, to that point so was "real" Ronaldo. Plain unplayable. Gazza is another great example, Jordan Henderson has more medals, same caps and more 1st division appearances, does that make him better, god no. 

 

If the question was who had the better career then Vardy hands down, however, who was the better player is no contest. 

[markg]

11 minutes ago, GerOwl said:

 

Not when they were both fit and playing at the same time. We all know the famous quote from Sir Bobby Robson, a man who forgot more about football than we all know. 

 

 “It’s not a question of who will replace Lineker, but who will partner David Hirst”. 

May have been at first and maybe Shearer improved dramatically after that but I think shearer was far above every striker at that time. 

[0wl18]

15 minutes ago, GerOwl said:

 

Not when they were both fit and playing at the same time. We all know the famous quote from Sir Bobby Robson, a man who forgot more about football than we all know. 

 

 “It’s not a question of who will replace Lineker, but who will partner David Hirst”. 

And how did that go for David Hirst?

[Guest]

Just now, 0wl18 said:

And how did that go for David Hirst?

 

So now we are talking about his injuries and love of the sauce. I thought it was about the best player between the two. Touted as the main England striker, in front of Shearer, from a legend in football should be all you need to know, regardless of what transpired after. How very obtuse. 

[dewsburyowl58]

1 hour ago, markg said:

It's a tricky one, hard to compare from different eras. I don't get the argument that Hirst was comfortably better and that it is a ridiculous argument. Definitely dont get people that say hirst was better than Shearer. Absolutely no chance. 

You have seen that comment from the late great sir Bobby Robson haven’t you ? 

[0wl18]

59 minutes ago, GerOwl said:

 

So now we are talking about his injuries and love of the sauce. I thought it was about the best player between the two. Touted as the main England striker, in front of Shearer, from a legend in football should be all you need to know, regardless of what transpired after. How very obtuse. 

No, we’re not. We’re talking about a quotation from a footballing great, which many are hanging onto the coat tails of to justify David Hirst being an all time great.

 

David Hirst was 25 when he got injured against Arsenal. What was stopping him being the England Legend so many claim he would have been pre 25? 
 

 

 

 

 

[SiJ]

Tbh, comparing them is a bit pointless in some respects.

 

Different eras, different career trajectories.

 

A David Hirst with all the benefits of the modern game could have been up there with the very best. The fact is, Jamie Vardy is right up there with the very best.

 

Picking one over the other seems a bit unnecessary.

[markg]

1 hour ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

You have seen that comment from the late great sir Bobby Robson haven’t you ? 

I have. My point was that Sir Bobby was talking about a point in time. Shearer must have improved from when he made that statement as for me Shearer was way above everyone else later on.

[GMOwl72]

Can someone please set a poll up so this can be voted on and a line drawn underneath it?

 

 

 

 

 

(however if Vardy gets the most votes then I’m telling you now it’s a sack of sh. it)

[A E Neuman NYowl]

Difficult to compare as they are totally different types of players. Very few players like Hirst in modern football, probably the last one I can remember was Drogba. Hirst had unbelievable pace and power and in full flight was a sight to behold.

 

Vardy for me a bit more like Ian Wright great composure, timing of his runs etc, A bit more crafty than Hirst. I do think Vardy has improved his overall game his vision is much better than it was he is now bringing other players into the game much better than he did.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 hours ago, dewsburyowl58 said:

You have seen that comment from the late great sir Bobby Robson haven’t you ? 

I remember a young kid called Freddy Adu, everyone raved about him and I’m sure at the time people thought he’d have a good career. He ended up achieving nothing at all, fading into mediocrity.

 

Obviously Hirst is much better than that.. but the same principle applies. At the time that comment was made, Hirst was in his early 20s and people were excited about him and what he could achieve. As it turns out that was the pinnacle of his career and he never pushed on. Shearer  was 3 years younger and easily surpassed him on every level.

 

Can’t believe this is even a debate tbh.. Shearer was a much better player than Hirst. You can’t just pick out a player with potential then declare them the best, and make excuses for why the potential was never achieved and how they would have been the best if only it wasn’t for some mitigating factors.

 

Judge on the whole career and ask a non biased group of people, so not Wednesday or Newcastle fans. Nearly 100% would say Shearer and that tells you you’re being biased

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

No, we’re not. We’re talking about a quotation from a footballing great, which many are hanging onto the coat tails of to justify David Hirst being an all time great.

 

David Hirst was 25 when he got injured against Arsenal. What was stopping him being the England Legend so many claim he would have been pre 25? 
 

 

 

 

 

Exactly.. Shearer was 25 during Euro 96. Was Hirst as good as that player? Obviously not.

 

Owen, Rooney, Kane etc were already well established by 25 and achieving big things. To suggest Hirst was going to be the next big thing if it wasn’t for getting injured at 25 is nonsense. Blaming his boozing is even worse because it’s a weakness in application on his part, better players don’t do that 

[Emilianenko]

Based on the logic in this thread, Darren Fletcher was a better player than Paul Gascoigne.

[pachyderm]

16 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

[Devonstrix]

Whatever people think about the Vardy v Hirst debate or even the Shearer v Hirst debate, one thing is sure and that is that Messrs Vardy and Shearer achieved the very best they could with their careers, due in the main to their professionalism and dedication. What’s also sure is that Hirst must look back on his time and wish he’d been more like them off the pitch. We might not be having this debate now if he had. 

[0wl18]

34 minutes ago, Emilianenko said:

Based on the logic in this thread, Darren Fletcher was a better player than Paul Gascoigne.

On what basis? 

Paul Gascoigne WAS the best player in the world in 1990. There’s no, ‘if he stopped off of the bottle’ ‘injuries ruined him’ etc etc. He’s remembered as arguably the greatest player to wear an England shirt because, he was. Not because he might have been.

 

[0wl18]

Dean Ashton was better than them all.

[bladeshater]

Both good players in there own right don't see the need to compare

[Emilianenko]

7 minutes ago, 0wl18 said:

On what basis? 

Paul Gascoigne WAS the best player in the world in 1990. There’s no, ‘if he stopped off of the bottle’ ‘injuries ruined him’ etc etc. He’s remembered as arguably the greatest player to wear an England shirt because, he was. Not because he might have been.

 

David Hirst was the best striker in the country in the early 90s. And like Gascoigne his career was tarnished by injury and booze. 

[0wl18]

Just now, Emilianenko said:

David Hirst was the best striker in the country in the early 90s. And like Gascoigne his career was tarnished by injury and booze. 

Ahh right... David Hirst was the best in the country but, was continuously overlooked by England? When England did take a look, he’d have been loads better than Shearer but got injured?