All opinion of course but what I really want from my Centre forward is goals and Cole's goals speak for themselves. Especially when compared to Tevez. He also left the club without a chip on his shoulder and did not slag off everyone once he'd gone. Again, unlike Tevez.
Still one of the top five striker's of the premier league, on goals scored. Without checking so not sure exactly. I never understand why Andy Cole is so underrated.
Fair view point but if you want goals then you should be choosing RvN. cole always needed seven chances to score
No argument there, Ruud is the best out and out striker we've ever had. Up there with Law. This was just comparing 99 to 08 though.
Andy Cole was probably the better poacher, but in terms of all round play Tevez was miles superior. Tevez sacrificed his own personal glory by working his socks off for the team, so his goal return might not be quite as good as Coles
You still believe that Andy Cole needed 7 chances to score. He was better then Fowler who was so overrated by the scum.
Lampard is one of the few Chelsea players i don't actually mind. There have been and still are a lot of tossers at Chelsea, but Lampard isn't one of them. He has a great attitude to training, and he's never in the papers for the wrong reasons. He's a model professional in that respect
Not a lot between them tbh. Both where decent strikers but neither where world class. Neither could cement a place in the England team as players like Shearer, Owen and Sheringham where superior
When talking about the number of chances they needed, there was a massive difference between them. Fowler rarely missed the target and had a very good shot to goals ratio. However, Cole was at the top of his game for longer.
Shearer was a great striker, who probably could have gone on to be recognised as one of the greatest of his era. You have to respect him for wanting to spend his career with his home club Newcastle, but he could have achieved so much more had he come to us
His all round game imo was never fully appreciated. It wasn't just work-rate, but he was a stocky ****er who had the strength but also brilliant balance coupled with individual technical ability on the ball. As a person he turned out to be a rat, but as a player he was world class.
Career stats Cole 229 in 509 Fowler 186 in 460 Now I'm no mathematician but it seems to me that Cole had a slightly better goals to games ratio
Out of interest, does this include the time Fowler was pissing about in Australia playing Sunday league football. Where someone as legendary as him should be getting at least two a game? Yet wasn't.
