asredastheycome
Well-known member
Shearer the other guy not even close.
No even a worthy conversationSeen Drogba at the Riverside when he first joined Chelsea and his movement was great but he couldn't hit a barn door despite scoring. How wrong can you be.
Shearer has the individual accolades and goals records but i always feel when these type of discussions present themselves players who didn't play for the elite clubs and win titles and trophies consistently will always have that * next to their name.
For all Shearer was excellent, an unbelievable player and did have 1 league title win, Drogba was the best player in the best team winning multiple leagues, cups and European trophies. That trumps banging in a hat trick against sheff wed and winning the premier league player of the month for March!
Yes, no doubtIf Newcastle sign Shearer instead of Asprilla do they win the league in 96???
And again if Newcastle at that time had Drogba at his peak they would have won the league.If Newcastle sign Shearer instead of Asprilla do they win the league in 96???
If you did a straw poll of those players about who was Chelseas most important player during that period, im pretty confident every single one of them chooses Drog. His game was about a lot more than just goalscoring tooDrogbas initial spell at chelsea lasted 8 seasons. He was only Chelseas top scorer in 2 of those seasons. Anelka outscored him during 2 seasons and Lampard 4 seasons from midfield. Drogba was not their best player at all, he got one player of the season for them but Lampard, Terry, Cech and Essien were far more important over most of that time .
Drogba might have had a better peak, in 09-10 he got 29 goals in 32 league games. He also won the premier league 4 times and the Champions League. 65 goals for the Ivory Coast too is good going, better than Shearer's 30 for England. Looking back, he seemed to miss a lot of games mind.
Shearer did it for longer though, despite a bad injury and had a much better overall goal record, despite playing in worse sides, albeit, the sides he did play for were a bit "gung ho", so that probably evens out.
I also think Shearer played at a time when the standard of defending was a bit worse too, and Drogba played under some fairly defensive managers.
So, for me I'd say Drogba got to a higher level, and thus would be quantified as better at his peak, but the peak didn't last long (7 years). Shearer wasn't far behind that level though, and did it for twice as long, so has to go down as better overall.
I dont think he will, i reckon alot will pick lampard and terry and it would likely be a three way split.If you did a straw poll of those players about who was Chelseas most important player during that period, im pretty confident every single one of them chooses Drog. His game was about a lot more than just goalscoring too
I wasn’t asking in who was better way, I was asking in a, 9 months after signing Asprilla they sign Shearer. Drogba would have been about 18 in 96 so I’m not sure he would have made that much difference to be honest.And again if Newcastle at that time had Drogba at his peak they would have won the league.
And that is the crux of the argument for me. Drogba scored/played in/contributed in games with more at stake. Shearers biggest games bar his first season at newcastle when they were challenging were the two games a season against the Mackems!. If shearer went to man utd hed have way more trophies than Drogba without doubt.
It doesn’t make him better though does it. They also had a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th place finish. So they weren’t just mid table every season. Drogba was playing in the 2nd most expensively assembled squad in world football and the majority of the time he was getting out scored by a midfielder.And that is the crux of the argument for me. Drogba scored/played in/contributed in games with more at stake. Shearers biggest games bar his first season at newcastle when they were challenging were the two games a season against the Mackems!
Drogs were finals and games against madrid/barca/bayern etc etc