If we're allowed to go further than 1992, mine would be:
Goalkeeper: Peter Schmeichel
Defender: David O'Leary
Midfielder: C. Ronaldo
Striker: Thierry Henry
A few might find O'Leary a strange one, but anyone who watched Arsenal in the 80's would know he was an incredible player, had all the attributes that the perfect defender should have and was very consistent as a player. Tony Adams learnt from the best.
GoalKeeper: Schmeichel
Defender: Adams
Midfielder: Ronaldo
Striker: Henry
Should have had a separate category for wingers and wide players like Ronaldo really, technically they can be considered midfielders but there position is vastly different from say a Keane or Viera type midfielder that they deserve there own category if you ask me.
This is going to be a thread filled with United players. And rightly so. Here's most of the same ones again.
Schmiechel - not even a doubt
Stam - yeah, go on then
Giggsy - oh how we wish he was english
RvN - for the art of out an out goal scoring / Cantona - for style/arrogance/ushering in United's dominance pretty much on his own / OGS - arch poacher in chief
I'm only going to pick man utd players cos there are too many players to choose from. Bergkamp, Henry, vieira, Zola etc etc there's hundreds of great players.
Goalkeeper - Schmeichel by a mile
Defender - vidic - well ahead of stam IMO, stam was awesome but was poor at the start and end
Midfield - keane - just ahead of scholes
Forward - ronaldo - best player to play in the league, complete player.
That's a little harsh. To be honest I don't see why 1992 isn't a natural arbitrary starting point. A new league was formed after the resignation from the old football league. So why not start there?
Same as 'post-war' or 'modern era' are used in these things. Are people who do so under the impression football didn't exist before the 40s?
Or would you rather the question was 'Best players since 1983?' for some reason?
It's not that people think football didn't exist prior to the establishment of the Premier League, it just seems like a natural historical dividing point. Not to mention that for many fans alive today, due to age more than anything else, that period or a few years before or after is the 'ground zero' of their experience of the game.
This bitter insistence that people don't think football existed before 1992 is complete nonsense. They don't but the establishment of the new league coincided with the fact of the age of the average fan and the greater exposure that followed the establishment of the new league, why is it so outlandish that the OP used 1992 as it's starting point?
It's no different than asking for the best World Cup player in a 32 team tournament or the best player of the 'modern game'.
Would people then be sarcastically asking 'So the 1990 world up doesn't count as football wasn't invented until 1998' or 'What about all those great players before the 'modern era' of football?'
Just seems like an unnecessary moan. It was a radical change both in terms of name, stature, finance, television, appeal etc. So what's wrong with using that as a starting point?
I get tired every time someone brings up this subject the sarcastic "of course, football never existed before Sky or 1992" comments. Amusingly arrogant to the fact that unless you're over 28 years old, it very likely didn't. But that point is lost in the 'lets have a pop and pretend the OP is a shallow glory hunter" insinuation.
Anything prior to that is some darkage different sport
I wonder if in the 70's and 80's when Liverpool won all their trophies, if Preston fans sat arms folded remarking 'Of course, football was only invented on television. The achievements that went before clearly don't count' whilst thinking back on their success at the turn of the century, drawing little faces with rolling eyes to underline their sarcasm.
Sky have had a tremendously positive impact on the game. It fashionable to bash them but the domestic game would be much much worse without them. Of course being a paranoid Man Utd fan I would suggest that the fact that the Sky deal coincided with the beginning of our period of domination has something to do with the hatred.
I remember in 1991, having to walk 20 miles to the game in the snow with a huge sack of coal on my back, barefoot. We didn't have season tickets but ration books, and because it was eternal darkness and teams couldn't afford floodlights, we used to listen on the wireless. Because we couldn't afford wires.
The PL made football fashionable but the casual fan won't sustain a fashionable relationship for 20 years.
sky brought the interest to another level and the game itself sustained it.
Foreign players may have "spoilt" the game in many ways for certain people but the excitement caused by every major star of USA 94 wanting to play in the PL will be hard to replicate. It also led to Euro 96 with I suspect will be the closest to the swinging 60s that my generation will ever reach.
Comments
GK: The Great Dane
Def: Stam
Mid: Scholes
Striker: Shearer
Goalkeeper: Peter Schmeichel
Defender: David O'Leary
Midfielder: C. Ronaldo
Striker: Thierry Henry
A few might find O'Leary a strange one, but anyone who watched Arsenal in the 80's would know he was an incredible player, had all the attributes that the perfect defender should have and was very consistent as a player. Tony Adams learnt from the best.
Defender: Adams
Midfielder: Ronaldo
Striker: Henry
Should have had a separate category for wingers and wide players like Ronaldo really, technically they can be considered midfielders but there position is vastly different from say a Keane or Viera type midfielder that they deserve there own category if you ask me.
Defender- Ferdinand
Midfielder- Scholes
Striker- Henry
G neville
Stam
Ferdinand
Irwin
Beckham
Keane
Scholes
Giggs
Ronaldo
Cantona
That would be the premiership best eleven IMO
DF: Adams
MF: Giggs
ST: Henry
For me a player who hard 2 or 3 seasons can not be counted as the best ever. As good as Ronaldo is he is not even in the top 10 for me.
Ronaldo was here from 2003-2009.
Premier League
Goal Keeper: Hart
Defender: Vidic
Midfielder: Fabregas
Striker: Tevez
La Liga
Goal Keeper: Casillas
Defender: Pique
Midfielder: Ronaldo
Striker: Messi
Stam
Scholes
Van Nistelrooy
Nope. My monitor won't do black and white mate.
Schmiechel - not even a doubt
Stam - yeah, go on then
Giggsy - oh how we wish he was english
RvN - for the art of out an out goal scoring / Cantona - for style/arrogance/ushering in United's dominance pretty much on his own / OGS - arch poacher in chief
Goalkeeper - Schmeichel by a mile
Defender - vidic - well ahead of stam IMO, stam was awesome but was poor at the start and end
Midfield - keane - just ahead of scholes
Forward - ronaldo - best player to play in the league, complete player.
Adams
Bergkamp*
Henry*
*Possibly the most lethal attacking partnership in the history of the Prem
Adams
Gerrard
Shearer
Yorke and Cole pisses all over them.
Schmeichel
Stam
Giggs
Van Nistelrooy
Football wasn't invented until 1992.
That's a little harsh. To be honest I don't see why 1992 isn't a natural arbitrary starting point. A new league was formed after the resignation from the old football league. So why not start there?
Same as 'post-war' or 'modern era' are used in these things. Are people who do so under the impression football didn't exist before the 40s?
Or would you rather the question was 'Best players since 1983?' for some reason?
It's not that people think football didn't exist prior to the establishment of the Premier League, it just seems like a natural historical dividing point. Not to mention that for many fans alive today, due to age more than anything else, that period or a few years before or after is the 'ground zero' of their experience of the game.
This bitter insistence that people don't think football existed before 1992 is complete nonsense. They don't but the establishment of the new league coincided with the fact of the age of the average fan and the greater exposure that followed the establishment of the new league, why is it so outlandish that the OP used 1992 as it's starting point?
It's no different than asking for the best World Cup player in a 32 team tournament or the best player of the 'modern game'.
Would people then be sarcastically asking 'So the 1990 world up doesn't count as football wasn't invented until 1998' or 'What about all those great players before the 'modern era' of football?'
Just seems like an unnecessary moan. It was a radical change both in terms of name, stature, finance, television, appeal etc. So what's wrong with using that as a starting point?
I get tired every time someone brings up this subject the sarcastic "of course, football never existed before Sky or 1992" comments. Amusingly arrogant to the fact that unless you're over 28 years old, it very likely didn't. But that point is lost in the 'lets have a pop and pretend the OP is a shallow glory hunter" insinuation.
Anything prior to that is some darkage different sport
I wonder if in the 70's and 80's when Liverpool won all their trophies, if Preston fans sat arms folded remarking 'Of course, football was only invented on television. The achievements that went before clearly don't count' whilst thinking back on their success at the turn of the century, drawing little faces with rolling eyes to underline their sarcasm.
The PL made football fashionable but the casual fan won't sustain a fashionable relationship for 20 years.
sky brought the interest to another level and the game itself sustained it.
Foreign players may have "spoilt" the game in many ways for certain people but the excitement caused by every major star of USA 94 wanting to play in the PL will be hard to replicate. It also led to Euro 96 with I suspect will be the closest to the swinging 60s that my generation will ever reach.