Because he started his sentence with 'I think'.Well if he never saw Dixie play then how can he say that 'Haaland IS English footballs greatest striker ever'.
Because he started his sentence with 'I think'.Well if he never saw Dixie play then how can he say that 'Haaland IS English footballs greatest striker ever'.
Fair enough. The OP has let me down here.Because he started his sentence with 'I think'.
Dixie smoked 60 woodbines a day, drank 8 pints of bitter for breakfast and worked the mines 6 days a week. Would like to see Haaland compete with that.99%of the public wouldn't factor Dixie Dean into the list purely because most people haven't heard of him, on top of that, there is hardly anyone alive in the world who actually saw him play, let alone play during his peak.
There are hardly any video clips of him playing, just the odd black and white clip, certainly nowhere near enough for anyone to form their own judgement all these years later. Ultimately, there is a stigma attached to the early days of football, the quality was obviously a lot lower back then, the talent pool was smaller, sports science wasn't a thing... It's a completely different time and era.
Im not sure anyone here could really say in good faith that Dixie Dean is the best ever given none of us ever saw him play, we are just basing it on stats and the opinions of people who did get to see him play. Which is fine, but it's hard to talk with confidence about someone whom you never saw kick a football.
Dixie was the best of his generation, and that's all that should matter. Comparing two elite strikers 100 years apart is silly. Haaland is obviously the superior player but he's benefited massively from 100 years of advancements in football, science etc. It's a rigged and pointless comparison.
Totally agree, he is a master baiter.He is a baiter, in fact I would go one further and say he is a master of that art.
Or words to that effect.
To his point, Haaland isn't in the top 10
Obviously?99%of the public wouldn't factor Dixie Dean into the list purely because most people haven't heard of him, on top of that, there is hardly anyone alive in the world who actually saw him play, let alone play during his peak.
There are hardly any video clips of him playing, just the odd black and white clip, certainly nowhere near enough for anyone to form their own judgement all these years later. Ultimately, there is a stigma attached to the early days of football, the quality was obviously a lot lower back then, the talent pool was smaller, sports science wasn't a thing... It's a completely different time and era.
Im not sure anyone here could really say in good faith that Dixie Dean is the best ever given none of us ever saw him play, we are just basing it on stats and the opinions of people who did get to see him play. Which is fine, but it's hard to talk with confidence about someone whom you never saw kick a football.
Dixie was the best of his generation, and that's all that should matter. Comparing two elite strikers 100 years apart is silly. Haaland is obviously the superior player but he's benefited massively from 100 years of advancements in football, science etc. It's a rigged and pointless comparison.
Haaland is one lazy sod, bet he only smokes lights, drinks lager for breakfast and sends a canary down the pit before he goes to do a shift like the fancy schmancy metrosexual he is.Dixie smoked 60 woodbines a day, drank 8 pints of bitter for breakfast and worked the mines 6 days a week. Would like to see Haaland compete with that.
Well he’s clearly telling lies because he doesn’t.Because he started his sentence with 'I think'.