Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Excellent point. Although Beardsley scored and made just as many if not more than Bellamy still. Ginola doesn't rival Robert in that sense. So can we have any stats to prove that? Ginola = 1 goal every 10 games Robert = 1 goal every 6 games Assists are harder to find, but I think Robert wins that hands down too. (I'll keep looking though) Robert contributed one hell of a lot of assists, even without the stats and selective memory, no-one can deny that, not even Gemmill. Well, Grimbo could I suppose. Edit: where is he nowadays? He seemed to disappear with Robert, I guess his favourite topic had gone. Edited October 11, 2006 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I notice the two main Robert fans in the thread were both only 11 when Ginola signed for us, but were of a much more reasonable age when Robert did. Not that I'm suggesting that that means anything about their opinion of Ginola. Fair point, but when you're 11 you're more impressionable to the spectacular. Hence when I saw Ginola do amazing things I should have rated him more than I would now. I just felt that Robert on top of his game added more than Ginola on top of his game. I'm not one to go with stats being the be all and end all but Gol's stats do back up an interesting point that Robert scored far more often than Ginola. I think the difference being that when Ginola played goals came from everywhere in that side, whereas when Robert played we were good, but not quite up there with the class of 96. However I'm not going to have an argument about this as I'm not going to state that Robert was a better footballer than Ginola as fact. Merely just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Misguided opinion Where did Robert come in this poll out of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44117 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't think he figured. It did help Ginola's cause that he went onto play for a London club. But it also helped his cause that he went on to play WELL for that London club, winning the PFA Player of the Year award in the process. He was just a better player than Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I'm not going to state that Robert was a better footballer than Ginola as fact I'll rephrase that, as that's silly. I'm not going to state that Robert was more effective to us than Ginola as fact. I'd say in term of footballing ability Ginola had more skill. I just felt Robert contributed more to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't think he figured. It did help Ginola's cause that he went onto play for a London club. But it also helped his cause that he went on to play WELL for that London club, winning the PFA Player of the Year award in the process. He was just a better player than Robert. Pfff. If Robert scored and created more than Ginola (both similar, attacking players) in a worse team, how is he a worse player? Btw, I mean for us, what either did at other clubs is irrelevant, as that introduces even more confounding variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't think he figured. It did help Ginola's cause that he went onto play for a London club. But it also helped his cause that he went on to play WELL for that London club, winning the PFA Player of the Year award in the process. He was just a better player than Robert. Pfff. If Robert scored and created more than Ginola (both similar, attacking players) in a worse team, how is he a worse player? Btw, I mean for us, what either did at other clubs is irrelevant, as that introduces even more confounding variables. Ginola would run games for 90 minutes at his best and he would have two players marking him a lot of the time. There's more to football than pure stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3902 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This shouldnt even be up for debate, Robert comes nowhere near Ginola as a footballer. The idea that Robert is better is laughable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This shouldnt even be up for debate, Robert comes nowhere near Ginola as a footballer. The idea that Robert is better is laughable Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I don't think he figured. It did help Ginola's cause that he went onto play for a London club. But it also helped his cause that he went on to play WELL for that London club, winning the PFA Player of the Year award in the process. He was just a better player than Robert. Pfff. If Robert scored and created more than Ginola (both similar, attacking players) in a worse team, how is he a worse player? Btw, I mean for us, what either did at other clubs is irrelevant, as that introduces even more confounding variables. Ginola would run games for 90 minutes at his best and he would have two players marking him a lot of the time. There's more to football than pure stats. Players who played during that era for us are always remembered more fondly though. It's like saying that Gillespie was better than Solano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44117 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 It's not though, because Gillespie wasn't better than Solano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I reckon Given is better than Pav was too, believe it or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This shouldnt even be up for debate, Robert comes nowhere near Ginola as a footballer. The idea that Robert is better is laughable Totally agree. Howay, it is up for debate, the difference between them (either way) isn't so vast as to be laughable. They both had strengths and (the same) weaknesses. Re: your previous post Alex, we had Lee in the team then, I would have thought it was he who bossed the midfield most, not Ginola. Not convinced he took two opposition players off the ball either, that argument has been used to support Dyer enough in the past and isn't very convincing imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This shouldnt even be up for debate, Robert comes nowhere near Ginola as a footballer. The idea that Robert is better is laughable Totally agree. Howay, it is up for debate, the difference between them (either way) isn't so vast as to be laughable. They both had strengths and (the same) weaknesses. Re: your previous post Alex, we had Lee in the team then, I would have thought it was he who bossed the midfield most, not Ginola. Not convinced he took two opposition players off the ball either, that argument has been used to support Dyer enough in the past and isn't very convincing imo. Doing a Leazes tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44117 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Renton, opposition teams would regularly double up on Ginola and he would skin the pair of them. I was gutted when Dalglish sold him, and bought Ketsbaia to replace him iirc. At least that's what Alan Oliver said that's what we were signing him for. Edited October 11, 2006 by Gemmill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Renton, opposition teams would regularly double up on Ginola and he would skin the pair of them. I was gutted when Dalglish sold him, and bought Ketsbaia to replace him iirc. At least that's what Alan Oliver said that's what we were signing him for. Ketsbaia got his squad number iirc. Ketsbaia man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This shouldnt even be up for debate, Robert comes nowhere near Ginola as a footballer. The idea that Robert is better is laughable Totally agree. Howay, it is up for debate, the difference between them (either way) isn't so vast as to be laughable. They both had strengths and (the same) weaknesses. Re: your previous post Alex, we had Lee in the team then, I would have thought it was he who bossed the midfield most, not Ginola. Not convinced he took two opposition players off the ball either, that argument has been used to support Dyer enough in the past and isn't very convincing imo. Doing a Leazes tbh. It's not intentional if I am. Stating that something isn't worthy of discussion because the comparison is 'laughable' could also be construed as something Leazes might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I wasn't suggesting you were doing it on purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 It's not though, because Gillespie wasn't better than Solano. And Ginola wasn't better than Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Renton, opposition teams would regularly double up on Ginola and he would skin the pair of them. I was gutted when Dalglish sold him, and bought Ketsbaia to replace him iirc. At least that's what Alan Oliver said that's what we were signing him for. I'll be honest and say I didn't see much of Ginola play 'live' because tickets were like gold dust then, but I can't help thinking Ginola was not as consistent as you make out, and like I say, the stats tell a different story, even if there is a case for them to be misleading. Anyway, they were both good players, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, except to say, I think it was Ginola's decision to leave, and iirc he managed to insult the area too, so don't blame Dalglish for everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44117 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 It's not though, because Gillespie wasn't better than Solano. And Ginola wasn't better than Robert But he was though. And your analogy was a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Renton, opposition teams would regularly double up on Ginola and he would skin the pair of them. I was gutted when Dalglish sold him, and bought Ketsbaia to replace him iirc. At least that's what Alan Oliver said that's what we were signing him for. I'll be honest and say I didn't see much of Ginola play 'live' because tickets were like gold dust then, but I can't help thinking Ginola was not as consistent as you make out, and like I say, the stats tell a different story, even if there is a case for them to be misleading. Anyway, they were both good players, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, except to say, I think it was Ginola's decision to leave, and iirc he managed to insult the area too, so don't blame Dalglish for everything! Tbh Ginola was amazing for his first 6 months and was pretty inconsistent after that. I still prefer him to Robert though who is probably the most frustrating player I've ever seen at SJP. And having seen a lot of both of them I'm far more qualified to comment than you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44117 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Renton, opposition teams would regularly double up on Ginola and he would skin the pair of them. I was gutted when Dalglish sold him, and bought Ketsbaia to replace him iirc. At least that's what Alan Oliver said that's what we were signing him for. I'll be honest and say I didn't see much of Ginola play 'live' because tickets were like gold dust then, but I can't help thinking Ginola was not as consistent as you make out, and like I say, the stats tell a different story, even if there is a case for them to be misleading. Anyway, they were both good players, so I'll leave it at that. Oh, except to say, I think it was Ginola's decision to leave, and iirc he managed to insult the area too, so don't blame Dalglish for everything! Aye I think he'd wanted away for a while actually. When a London club came calling it wasn't a hard decision, but Dalglish definitely wasn't keen on him which probably helped make his mind up. Unlike Robert though, Ginola went on to show us what we were missing at his next club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li3nZ 1 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This is such a STUPID discussion. Ginola is better, end of story. This: UEFA CUP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwy_MrjR3R8 Mind blowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21056 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 This is such a STUPID discussion. Ginola is better, end of story. This: UEFA CUP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwy_MrjR3R8 Mind blowing. One of my favourite goals, but this one is pretty close and bear in mind he equalled it a few minutes later (in the premiership too). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qclSuli3Qjs...ted&search= Neither proves much tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now