BIB - says who? - some pundit or expert no doubt and we are all supposed to agree - and anyway how is it measured? - it is hard if not impossible to quantify.
Yes PG could beat a man well at times, yes he was capable of doing some astute passes, yes he scored some good free kicks - but then so could many if not all the rest on your list and many more too.
I just think (as if you had not guessed) that PG and talent is over talked up by many and I simply do not accept their analysis - but yes no doubt he was a decent player but not the most talented ever English player in the way some including yourself are making out.
think we are just going to have to agree to differ here tho as we clearly have different opinions!!
Yet you imply his opinion is based on a pundit telling it to him rather than it being valid through years of watching the game?
Standard.
Gascoigne was a phenomenal talent and for the record thats my own opinion, not what James Richardson told me in the early 90s.
On reflection you can compare footie to snooker in some ways.
Higgins, white and Sullivan were the flawed geniuses. Somehow Higgins won 2 world titles, white lost 6 in a row, and Sullivan is up to 5.
The steady geniuses Davis and Hendry won 5 and 7 respectively. In their prime they were just as unbeatable as you could imagine. Never looked like missing.
so how would you rank these 5.
On "talent".......all 5 were amongst the world's best and probably the world's best player at some point. I don't like judging on talent because it's so hard to quantify.
On achievement in WCs.....I just go on numbers. So at this moment it's Hendry, Davis, O'Sullivan, Higgins, White. O'Sullivan might well be number one in 5 years time though.
The one interesting career of those 5 is O'Sullivan because he has managed to change himself from a youngster with demons which threatened to overshadow his career into a serial winner despite his mental problems. I've huge respect for that personally.
White should definitely have turned a couple of his defeats into victories.
Higgins I think did about as well as his talent deserved.
Hendry was a machine mentally and got every ounce he could out of himself.
Davis was a similar character.
O'Sullivan is the interesting one - as I said above as he seems to have had two careers almost.
To bring it back to the initial debate. I don't like judging players on ability as it's so hard to quantify. I do think we overestimate the talent of sportsmen who self-destruct their careers though. It's nostalgia mixed with "what might have been". For every hundred people who might have been something there is the one person who actually achieved that and I respect achievement more than anything in sport.
Was Gascoigne the best English player ever? On achievement - no. On talent - everyone will measure this differently. I don't know, is the honest answer. I can't quantify talent. He had talent but how do I compare his talent to the talent of a goalkeeper or centre-back, or the talent of someone playing now? Really we need a question which will be interpreted by everyone the same way to begin with. What is "best"? For me it's achievement because at least that can be measured to some degree.
If I had to pick a team of English players to play for my life, I wouldn't pick Gazza. Too much of a liability in the tackle and not a top-class finisher. I don't remember him as a great header of the ball either- though I could be wrong there. If I was told I could only watch one more game and could pick any English players, then I'd pick him.
A joy to watch. Easily in the genius class, though if he was a drink he'd be Messi-lite.
Measuring him against his talented English peers in terms of his importance to the team at the time; this is how I'd rank him
On reflection you can compare footie to snooker in some ways.
Higgins, white and Sullivan were the flawed geniuses. Somehow Higgins won 2 world titles, white lost 6 in a row, and Sullivan is up to 5.
The steady geniuses Davis and Hendry won 5 and 7 respectively. In their prime they were just as unbeatable as you could imagine. Never looked like missing.
so how would you rank these 5.
Really interesting question. I think it was well answered above, but for me it's hard to rank snooker players when snooker has evolved so much that you have Neil Robertson (who has only won one world championship) scoring more centuries last season than Alex Higgins did in his whole career. Hendry was the best I've seen. He had it all and could do it all under pressure. Davis couldn't match Hendry for potting and O'sullivan, Higgins and White (especially White) couldn't get near him for tactics.
If I had to pick a team of English players to play for my life, I wouldn't pick Gazza. Too much of a liability in the tackle and not a top-class finisher. I don't remember him as a great header of the ball either- though I could be wrong there. If I was told I could only watch one more game and could pick any English players, then I'd pick him.
A joy to watch. Easily in the genius class, though if he was a drink he'd be Messi-lite.
Measuring him against his talented English peers in terms of his importance to the team at the time; this is how I'd rank him
Club Level
Barnes
Le tiss
Bearsdley
Hoddle
Gascoigne
International level
Gascoigne
Bearsdley
Hoddle
Barnes
Le tiss
Make of that what you will....
Really interesting question. I think it was well answered above, but for me it's hard to rank snooker players when snooker has evolved so much that you have Neil Robertson (who has only won one world championship) scoring more centuries last season than Alex Higgins did in his whole career. Hendry was the best I've seen. He had it all and could do it all under pressure. Davis couldn't match Hendry for potting and O'sullivan, Higgins and White (especially White) couldn't get near him for tactics.
See, thats the thing. I just thought the snooker comparison was worth making. A lot of great football players hardly ever got the recognition they deserved because of their "flair"
Look at rodney marsh, stan bowles, tony currie, frank worthington, alan hudson, Not too many caps between the lot of them.
For me, Gascoigne at his peak was a match winner. I dont see how you could ever leave him out.
Gascoigne made people think we have the best player in the world on our hands and have a genuine chance of winning. Rooney was a surprise that made people think we have a decent player on our hands.
Absolutely this.
Plus, Rooney gave so many lackluster performances for England that I wouldn't even put him on the same page as Gazza, let alone in the same sentence. Gazza played each match as if he was it was a "win for England or die" situation.
I know many posters have mentioned that Gazza hadn't achieved as much as other England players. I can't really agree with that. Maybe he hasn't achieved nearly as much as others in club football and he most certainly did not fulfill his full potential, but... Gazza led England to the semi-finals in both 1990 and 1996 (and had the chance to lead England to the final in 1996) so he achieved as much if not a lot more than the other players mentioned in this thread.
Both the 1990 and 1996 defeats were extremely close and heartbreaking with England arguably deserving the win. England was never as successful or played as well since Gazza.
Gazza led England to the semi-finals in both 1990 and 1996 (.
where his most telling contributions were in the group games - in the knock out stages he did little of significance - in 1990 England won with a last minute Platt goal V Belgium and a Platt goal and 2 Lineker penalties V Cameroon. V Germany the team played well and PG was part of the team but in no way was he the stand out player.
In 1996 the only non group game was V Spain where we drew 0-0 at home (they had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside) and luckily won on penalties. Then we lost a fairly even game to Germany on penalties.
So please do not tell me that PG was a significant contributor on the world stage at international level in tournaments - cos the facts simply do not back this up.
where his most telling contributions were in the group games - in the knock out stages he did little of significance - in 1990 England won with a last minute Platt goal V Belgium and a Platt goal and 2 Lineker penalties V Cameroon. V Germany the team played well and PG was part of the team but in no way was he the stand out player.
platt scored from a gascoigne freekick and linekars penalties were won as result of gascoignes through balls threading their defense if i remember rightly.
In 1996 the only non group game was V Spain where we drew 0-0 at home (they had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside) and luckily won on penalties. Then we lost a fairly even game to Germany on penalties.
that germany semi in 96 we were very unlucky to lose, after hitting posts and gascoigne himself just missing a goal on the stretch, if he was a few cms taller he would have scored it and we were through.
Well done, for having seen players play that other people haven't.
An outstanding achievement.
How good was Charlie Roberts, oh wise one?
Your sarcasm doesn't become you.
If you're going to make the statement "best ever" then only including players over the last 30 years or so makes a mockery of the question. Change it to "best in the last 30 years" and it's fine.
Essentially someone who has seen players that others haven't is in a stronger position to comment as it stands, than those who are limited.
platt scored from a gascoigne freekick and linekars penalties were won as result of gascoignes through balls threading their defense if i remember rightly.
that germany semi in 96 we were very unlucky to lose, after hitting posts and gascoigne himself just missing a goal on the stretch, if he was a few cms taller he would have scored it and we were through.
I seriously wonder what a player has to do in an England shirt to have his contribution considered "significant" if Paul Gascoigne in 1990 and 1996 doesnt meet the criteria?
Perhaps only playing for Uruguay will suffice.....
Such a subjective question but, for what it's worth, I always thought Beardsley was just as talented as Gascoigne. He had a similar qualities with that ability to jink past defenders in the final third of the pitch, a killer pass and a very decent finish. I also think Beardsley would have edged it on work rate too.
Gary Lineker, great finisher as he was, always looked a far better player when Beardsley played alongside him up front.
Plus, Rooney gave so many lackluster performances for England that I wouldn't even put him on the same page as Gazza, let alone in the same sentence. Gazza played each match as if he was it was a "win for England or die" situation.
I know many posters have mentioned that Gazza hadn't achieved as much as other England players. I can't really agree with that. Maybe he hasn't achieved nearly as much as others in club football and he most certainly did not fulfill his full potential, but... Gazza led England to the semi-finals in both 1990 and 1996 (and had the chance to lead England to the final in 1996) so he achieved as much if not a lot more than the other players mentioned in this thread.
Both the 1990 and 1996 defeats were extremely close and heartbreaking with England arguably deserving the win. England was never as successful or played as well since Gazza.
If you're discussing based on just International football you can make a case. If we're talking overall, then that's a different matter.
It's actually got to a point where what Rooney has done throughout his career is becoming underrated. People are mentioning Gascoigne at his peak, go back and watch Rooney at his absolute best and you'll see why people were putting him up there with Ronaldo and Messi.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the thread, but achievement means nothing, in terms of ability.
Hoddle, Le Tissier, Charlton, whoever.
Well if based purely on ability rather than achievement I would still put Hoddle, Le Tissier and maybe Beardsley above Gascoigne. Gascoigne was just more flashy with it.
There are plenty of English midfielders who had sublime skills, who are forgotten about, Frank Worthington, Trevor Cherry, Gordon Cowans to name a few.
If you're discussing based on just International football you can make a case. If we're talking overall, then that's a different matter.
It's actually got to a point where what Rooney has done throughout his career is becoming underrated. People are mentioning Gascoigne at his peak, go back and watch Rooney at his absolute best and you'll see why people were putting him up there with Ronaldo and Messi.
I've thought that for a while about Rooney.
Rooney and Beckham are possibly the two most underrated overrated players I know. I can sort of understand people just seeing Beckham's celebrity image, but I've never understood what people don't like about Rooney.
Rooney never delivers when it counts. There is always a lot of hype around him (at least there was) and then when it counts most in a major tournament he is nowhere to be seen. Gazza managed to deliver when the whole world was watching and his performance in WC 1990 has gone into the history books. Back then England was seriously one of the best teams in the world, now people would laugh if anyone said that about the current England team.
Rooney and Beckham are possibly the two most underrated overrated players I know. I can sort of understand people just seeing Beckham's celebrity image, but I've never understood what people don't like about Rooney.
Hes English, successful, is good at what he does and has a lot of cash. Therefore he has to be a flash overachieving c*** who isnt that good really to half of the England fans and a flash underachieving c*** who isnt that good really to the other half.
Its just the perils of being an England player these days.
Hes English, successful, is good at what he does and has a lot of cash. Therefore he has to be a flash overachieving c*** who isnt that good really to half of the England fans and a flash underachieving c*** who isnt that good really to the other half.
Its just the perils of being an England player these days.
Maybe he should prove the haters wrong by finally delivering for England instead of just moaning about fans who pay to watch him not give a shit at another international tournament.
Maybe he should prove the haters wrong by finally delivering for England instead of just moaning about fans who pay to watch him not give a shit at another international tournament.
Rubbish.
There are many things you could accuse him of, but I don't think you could ever level that accusation at him. If anything I think he tries too hard sometimes when he's not playing well.
Hes English, successful, is good at what he does and has a lot of cash. Therefore he has to be a flash overachieving c*** who isnt that good really to half of the England fans and a flash underachieving c*** who isnt that good really to the other half.
Its just the perils of being an England player these days.
Spot on. And at the same time these people slagging them off somehow can't make the connection with that and players appearing to not enjoy playing for England.
Maybe he should prove the haters wrong by finally delivering for England instead of just moaning about fans who pay to watch him not give a shit at another international tournament.
He has achieved absolutely everything with one of the biggest club sides in the World over a 10 year period. That has happened because he is an excellent footballer. He has delivered time and time again for United and if you feel he and others havent done it for ENgland then maybe you should be looking closer at the England set up over the years that has seen these top class players apparently underachieve.
Yeah all these great players give their all to their clubs, but when it comes to playing for their country recently it looked like they don't even care. In 1998 was the last time I really saw an England team fight. Recent England squads looked like they were just waiting for their holiday to start. Blaming fans or coaches is ridiculous. Most players get crucified in the big football nations if they don't perform and France in 2006 didn't even have a proper coach. You see some foreign players fight to the very end like it's a battlefield because they are proud to play for their countries. I expect to see the same from English players.
Yeah all these great players give their all to their clubs, but when it comes to playing for their country recently it looked like they don't even care. In 1998 was the last time I really saw an England team fight. You see some players battle it out to the very end because they are proud to play for their countries but recent England squads looked like they were just waiting for their holiday to start. Blaming fans or coaches is ridiculous. Most players get crucified in the big football nations if they don't perform and France in 2006 didn't even have a coach.
Its ridiculous to suggest that these guys dont want to play for England. They turn up to the squads, get abused by the fans and then turn up again. They dont need it, the could EASILY sack it off if they didnt want to be there yet they all keep turning up. You need to look a little deeper to find out why these guys who win trophy after trophy after trophy while playing for their top clubs dont seem to gel with England. Maybe the first place to look is why it is that as soon as they lose a game its because they apparently dont care.
Comments
Yet you imply his opinion is based on a pundit telling it to him rather than it being valid through years of watching the game?
Standard.
Gascoigne was a phenomenal talent and for the record thats my own opinion, not what James Richardson told me in the early 90s.
On "talent".......all 5 were amongst the world's best and probably the world's best player at some point. I don't like judging on talent because it's so hard to quantify.
On achievement in WCs.....I just go on numbers. So at this moment it's Hendry, Davis, O'Sullivan, Higgins, White. O'Sullivan might well be number one in 5 years time though.
The one interesting career of those 5 is O'Sullivan because he has managed to change himself from a youngster with demons which threatened to overshadow his career into a serial winner despite his mental problems. I've huge respect for that personally.
White should definitely have turned a couple of his defeats into victories.
Higgins I think did about as well as his talent deserved.
Hendry was a machine mentally and got every ounce he could out of himself.
Davis was a similar character.
O'Sullivan is the interesting one - as I said above as he seems to have had two careers almost.
To bring it back to the initial debate. I don't like judging players on ability as it's so hard to quantify. I do think we overestimate the talent of sportsmen who self-destruct their careers though. It's nostalgia mixed with "what might have been". For every hundred people who might have been something there is the one person who actually achieved that and I respect achievement more than anything in sport.
Was Gascoigne the best English player ever? On achievement - no. On talent - everyone will measure this differently. I don't know, is the honest answer. I can't quantify talent. He had talent but how do I compare his talent to the talent of a goalkeeper or centre-back, or the talent of someone playing now? Really we need a question which will be interpreted by everyone the same way to begin with. What is "best"? For me it's achievement because at least that can be measured to some degree.
A joy to watch. Easily in the genius class, though if he was a drink he'd be Messi-lite.
Measuring him against his talented English peers in terms of his importance to the team at the time; this is how I'd rank him
Club Level
Barnes
Le tiss
Bearsdley
Hoddle
Gascoigne
International level
Gascoigne
Bearsdley
Hoddle
Barnes
Le tiss
Make of that what you will....
Really interesting question. I think it was well answered above, but for me it's hard to rank snooker players when snooker has evolved so much that you have Neil Robertson (who has only won one world championship) scoring more centuries last season than Alex Higgins did in his whole career. Hendry was the best I've seen. He had it all and could do it all under pressure. Davis couldn't match Hendry for potting and O'sullivan, Higgins and White (especially White) couldn't get near him for tactics.
See, thats the thing. I just thought the snooker comparison was worth making. A lot of great football players hardly ever got the recognition they deserved because of their "flair"
Look at rodney marsh, stan bowles, tony currie, frank worthington, alan hudson, Not too many caps between the lot of them.
For me, Gascoigne at his peak was a match winner. I dont see how you could ever leave him out.
To demonstrate that there were some excellent footballers playing before 1965
And your example is one who made his debut two years before 1965 and whose peak was later? Brilliant.
Absolutely this.
Plus, Rooney gave so many lackluster performances for England that I wouldn't even put him on the same page as Gazza, let alone in the same sentence. Gazza played each match as if he was it was a "win for England or die" situation.
I know many posters have mentioned that Gazza hadn't achieved as much as other England players. I can't really agree with that. Maybe he hasn't achieved nearly as much as others in club football and he most certainly did not fulfill his full potential, but... Gazza led England to the semi-finals in both 1990 and 1996 (and had the chance to lead England to the final in 1996) so he achieved as much if not a lot more than the other players mentioned in this thread.
Both the 1990 and 1996 defeats were extremely close and heartbreaking with England arguably deserving the win. England was never as successful or played as well since Gazza.
where his most telling contributions were in the group games - in the knock out stages he did little of significance - in 1990 England won with a last minute Platt goal V Belgium and a Platt goal and 2 Lineker penalties V Cameroon. V Germany the team played well and PG was part of the team but in no way was he the stand out player.
In 1996 the only non group game was V Spain where we drew 0-0 at home (they had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside) and luckily won on penalties. Then we lost a fairly even game to Germany on penalties.
So please do not tell me that PG was a significant contributor on the world stage at international level in tournaments - cos the facts simply do not back this up.
platt scored from a gascoigne freekick and linekars penalties were won as result of gascoignes through balls threading their defense if i remember rightly.
that germany semi in 96 we were very unlucky to lose, after hitting posts and gascoigne himself just missing a goal on the stretch, if he was a few cms taller he would have scored it and we were through.
Your sarcasm doesn't become you.
If you're going to make the statement "best ever" then only including players over the last 30 years or so makes a mockery of the question. Change it to "best in the last 30 years" and it's fine.
Essentially someone who has seen players that others haven't is in a stronger position to comment as it stands, than those who are limited.
I seriously wonder what a player has to do in an England shirt to have his contribution considered "significant" if Paul Gascoigne in 1990 and 1996 doesnt meet the criteria?
Perhaps only playing for Uruguay will suffice.....
Gary Lineker, great finisher as he was, always looked a far better player when Beardsley played alongside him up front.
If you're discussing based on just International football you can make a case. If we're talking overall, then that's a different matter.
It's actually got to a point where what Rooney has done throughout his career is becoming underrated. People are mentioning Gascoigne at his peak, go back and watch Rooney at his absolute best and you'll see why people were putting him up there with Ronaldo and Messi.
Well if based purely on ability rather than achievement I would still put Hoddle, Le Tissier and maybe Beardsley above Gascoigne. Gascoigne was just more flashy with it.
There are plenty of English midfielders who had sublime skills, who are forgotten about, Frank Worthington, Trevor Cherry, Gordon Cowans to name a few.
I've thought that for a while about Rooney.
Rooney and Beckham are possibly the two most underrated overrated players I know. I can sort of understand people just seeing Beckham's celebrity image, but I've never understood what people don't like about Rooney.
Hes English, successful, is good at what he does and has a lot of cash. Therefore he has to be a flash overachieving c*** who isnt that good really to half of the England fans and a flash underachieving c*** who isnt that good really to the other half.
Its just the perils of being an England player these days.
Maybe he should prove the haters wrong by finally delivering for England instead of just moaning about fans who pay to watch him not give a shit at another international tournament.
Rubbish.
There are many things you could accuse him of, but I don't think you could ever level that accusation at him. If anything I think he tries too hard sometimes when he's not playing well.
Spot on. And at the same time these people slagging them off somehow can't make the connection with that and players appearing to not enjoy playing for England.
He has achieved absolutely everything with one of the biggest club sides in the World over a 10 year period. That has happened because he is an excellent footballer. He has delivered time and time again for United and if you feel he and others havent done it for ENgland then maybe you should be looking closer at the England set up over the years that has seen these top class players apparently underachieve.
Its ridiculous to suggest that these guys dont want to play for England. They turn up to the squads, get abused by the fans and then turn up again. They dont need it, the could EASILY sack it off if they didnt want to be there yet they all keep turning up. You need to look a little deeper to find out why these guys who win trophy after trophy after trophy while playing for their top clubs dont seem to gel with England. Maybe the first place to look is why it is that as soon as they lose a game its because they apparently dont care.