England Goalscoring List

[GrahamC]

33 minutes ago, spudski said:

I saw this post today, and the comments below it. 

I know you can only score against what's put in front of you... however, it puts some stats into perspective.

 

It’s not factually correct, for starters.

Some of his 18 penalties came against the sides that he’s listed, so he’s double counted them in order to make Kane look poorer.

Never trust someone (he’s a Liverpool fan) who does that.

I think it is very easy to argue players of previous eras played against fewer poorer sides, because frankly when the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia existed there were fewer European countries to start with, plus the San Marino’s, Gibraltar’s, Faroe Islands etc, didn’t play international football, but you lose credibility if you use incorrect information like this.

[grifty]

45 minutes ago, spudski said:

I saw this post today, and the comments below it. 

I know you can only score against what's put in front of you... however, it puts some stats into perspective.

 

No it doesn’t.

He is now England (men’s) top ever goal scorer. End of.

He’s not been proclaimed Englands top ever goal scorer against opposition people think are good, or Englands top ever goal scorer not including penalties.

If he had scored 55 penalties for England he would be Englands top ever goal scorer

If all 55 had come against San Marino, he would be Englands top ever goal scorer.

[Super]

Isn't it obvious that most goals will be scored against the lesser teams? Pretty sure the majority of Haaland's goals this season would be against team in the bottom half.

[glynriley]

19 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

It’s not factually correct, for starters.

Some of his 18 penalties came against the sides that he’s listed, so he’s double counted them in order to make Kane look poorer.

Never trust someone (he’s a Liverpool fan) who does that.

I think it is very easy to argue players of previous eras played against fewer poorer sides, because frankly when the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia existed there were fewer European countries to start with, plus the San Marino’s, Gibraltar’s, Faroe Islands etc, didn’t play international football, but you lose credibility if you use incorrect information like this.

Exactly. There were still poor sides around, they were just different to now.

Take Bobby Charlton for example. Scored 3 against USA in an 8-0 win, 3 against Luxemborg in a 9-0 win, 3 against Mexico in an 8-0 win, 3 against Switzerland in an 8-1 win. Add in home internationals every season.

Not to downplay Bobby Charlton's acheivements, because you can only score against the opposition you play, but there do seem a lot of people trying to denigrate Harry Kane.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by glynriley

[Rob k]

Very difficult to compare eras, the Jimmy Greaves, etc back in the day would last about 10 mins in todays game as wouldnt be fit enough, so many variables to consider when saying who the best is.

[ChippenhamRed]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I saw this post today, and the comments below it. 

I know you can only score against what's put in front of you... however, it puts some stats into perspective.

 

It doesn't put anything into perspective because it doesn't compare the stats with other successful international strikers from strong international teams - all of whom will naturally play most of their games against inferior opposition, because there are more qualifiers than there are finals matches - and even in finals, you play some very average teams in the early rounds.

The relative quality of opposition Kane has faced will be broadly the same for all of England's strikers down the years for this reason. Yet he has scored more than any of them, with a very healthy ratio. And he's also been our consistent number one pick up front during a relatively successful period for the national team, when we've reached a Euros final and a WC semi and quarter final. So if anything, he's playing the better teams more regularly and made a very important contribution to that success.

It's a great achievement, and I don't really understand why there seems to be a need to pick it apart, rather than simply celebrate it.

[Numero Uno]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I saw this post today, and the comments below it. 

I know you can only score against what's put in front of you... however, it puts some stats into perspective.

 

I see the Donald Trump of BS7, Joey Barton, is jumping on this factually incorrect Bullshit Bandwagon now. How surprised I was to see that…..bloke scores 54 goals in eighty odd appearances and all you see are totally miserable bastards putting him down and not even able to do it with real facts.

[spudski]

47 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

It’s not factually correct, for starters.

Some of his 18 penalties came against the sides that he’s listed, so he’s double counted them in order to make Kane look poorer.

Never trust someone (he’s a Liverpool fan) who does that.

I think it is very easy to argue players of previous eras played against fewer poorer sides, because frankly when the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia existed there were fewer European countries to start with, plus the San Marino’s, Gibraltar’s, Faroe Islands etc, didn’t play international football, but you lose credibility if you use incorrect information like this.

 

39 minutes ago, grifty said:

No it doesn’t.

He is now England (men’s) top ever goal scorer. End of.

He’s not been proclaimed Englands top ever goal scorer against opposition people think are good, or Englands top ever goal scorer not including penalties.

If he had scored 55 penalties for England he would be Englands top ever goal scorer

If all 55 had come against San Marino, he would be Englands top ever goal scorer.

 

8 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I see the Donald Trump of BS7, Joey Barton, is jumping on this factually incorrect Bullshit Bandwagon now. How surprised I was to see that…..bloke scores 54 goals in eighty odd appearances and all you see are totally miserable bastards putting him down and not even able to do it with real facts.

I didn't say I agreed with the tweet. I was purely pointing out the thread and it's comments. 

The stats show he's England's top scorer. End of.

However...as shown on this thread and others, it causes debate. 

Kane has scored the most for England. 

People debate whether he's England's ' greatest ' goalscorer. 

Which is nigh on impossible to for everyone to agree on. 

[Super]

The idiot has spoken

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joey Barton

 

@Joey7Barton

 

 

People comparing Wayne Rooney and Harry Kane? WR in a completely different stratosphere. Levels and levels and levels above.

 

[GrahamC]

11 minutes ago, Super said:

The idiot has spoken

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joey Barton

 

@Joey7Barton

 

 

People comparing Wayne Rooney and Harry Kane? WR in a completely different stratosphere. Levels and levels and levels above.

 

Shouldn’t that **** be concentrating on trying to work out how to get points against the likes of Accrington Stanley, who have done the double over his shower this season?

 

[Robbored]

For me Jimmy Greaves was the best England goalscorer of them all and had he not been injured Geoff Hurst would not have  been the World Cup final in 1966.

Greaves was a natural born striker. His intuition to be in the right place at the right time was truly awesome - something that can’t be taught.

[Maltshoveller]

8 hours ago, Rob k said:

Very difficult to compare eras, the Jimmy Greaves, etc back in the day would last about 10 mins in todays game as wouldnt be fit enough, so many variables to consider when saying who the best is.

But IF Jimmy Greaves was playing today

would he not be training like modern players Eating like modern players so making him a fitter player than he was back then 

[Maltshoveller]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

 

 

I didn't say I agreed with the tweet. I was purely pointing out the thread and it's comments. 

The stats show he's England's top scorer. End of.

However...as shown on this thread and others, it causes debate. 

Kane has scored the most for England. 

People debate whether he's England's ' greatest ' goalscorer. 

Which is nigh on impossible to for everyone to agree on. 

There seems to be loads of posters on here who dont know the difference between FACT and OPINION (not you spud)

simple way to show them

FACT = Kane is Englands top goalscorer

Opinion = Kane is Englands Greatest goalscorer 

I

[Robbored]

45 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

But IF Jimmy Greaves was playing today

would he not be training like modern players Eating like modern players so making him a fitter player than he was back then 

With today’s advances in pretty much every aspect of pro football Greaves would have been even quicker and sharper than he was in his prime.

He’d be comparable to the likes of Haaland or the amazing Thierry Henry with his goal scoring acumen.

[reddoh]

On 24/03/2023 at 11:27, Davefevs said:

That makes it read like Clough scored 471 goals…he didn’t!

That was his total.

I think the other thing is that all bar one came in the second flight.

Looking at that 

he got injured 1962-63

missed the promotion season

manged just 3 games before retiring

all bar 1 goal was before I was born and I don't remember it.

Think you are a bit harsh on what could be considered a good career "Young Man"

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, reddoh said:

Looking at that 

he got injured 1962-63

missed the promotion season

manged just 3 games before retiring

all bar 1 goal was before I was born and I don't remember it.

Think you are a bit harsh on what could be considered a good career "Young Man"

I didn’t say he didn’t have a fine career, merely commented it wasn’t 400+ goals (as alluded to)…and it was in the 2nd division…on a thread about England’s greatest goal scorers...which is why he probably didn’t get hardly any international recognition.

 

[nebristolred]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

With today’s advances in pretty much every aspect of pro football Greaves would have been even quicker and sharper than he was in his prime.

He’d be comparable to the likes of Haaland or the amazing Thierry Henry with his goal scoring acumen.

Somehow I doubt that. I think @Rob k would be right - he'd get steamrollered by today's opposition. Just watch any highlights of the 66 World Cup and it is just so slow. While he would have had the benefit of today's medicine/sports nutrition, etc, there are a few things working against him.

First, the elite were generally not as athletic back then, which is proven by the sheer amount all the world records that have tumbled across the board in all sports/disciplines since Greaves made his debut. Add to that the pool these days is bigger to choose from, so the best are likely even better having worked their way to the top, and scouting is likely improved since then as well.

I'm off on a tangent here, and it's nothing to take away from players of the past. They were still great players and the greatest of their era, but I think it's fair to say that the players these days are far better, and the players of 50 years from now will be better still. It's yet another reason why it's basically impossible to compare players of different eras.

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, Robbored said:

With today’s advances in pretty much every aspect of pro football Greaves would have been even quicker and sharper than he was in his prime.

He’d be comparable to the likes of Haaland or the amazing Thierry Henry with his goal scoring acumen.

Guess which current English striker compares pretty favourably with the amazing Thierry Henry and his "goal scoring acumen".

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Somehow I doubt that. I think @Rob k would be right - he'd get steamrollered by today's opposition. Just watch any highlights of the 66 World Cup and it is just so slow. While he would have had the benefit of today's medicine/sports nutrition, etc, there are a few things working against him.

First, the elite were generally not as athletic back then, which is proven by the sheer amount all the world records that have tumbled across the board in all sports/disciplines since Greaves made his debut. Add to that the pool these days is bigger to choose from, so the best are likely even better having worked their way to the top, and scouting is likely improved since then as well.

I'm off on a tangent here, and it's nothing to take away from players of the past. They were still great players and the greatest of their era, but I think it's fair to say that the players these days are far better, and the players of 50 years from now will be better still. It's yet another reason why it's basically impossible to compare players of different eras.

My simple answer for comparisons, are that most of the great players of yesteryear would’ve become great players of today, and vice-versa.  I know some will disagree, but I don’t go with the thought that just because today’s players are fitter, more athletic, etc, that it makes them better than the greats of the past.

[nebristolred]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

My simple answer for comparisons, are that most of the great players of yesteryear would’ve become great players of today, and vice-versa.  I know some will disagree, but I don’t go with the thought that just because today’s players are fitter, more athletic, etc, that it makes them better than the greats of the past.

I should be clear, I don't 'rate' today's players as being better, or as having made bigger achievements. Maradona and Pele are the same as a Ronaldo or Messi, I just meant if you picked one up and plonked them in a game from another era it would be a bit different. But when it comes to football stats and observations I am not the most clued up, and I will quite happily bow to your superior knowledge .

Edited March 27, 2023 by nebristolred

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

I should be clear, I 'rate' today's players as being better, or as having made bigger achievements. Maradona and Pele are the same as a Ronaldo or Messi, I just meant if you picked one up and plonked them in a game from another era it would be a bit different. But when it comes to football stats and observations I am not the most clued up, and I will quite happily bow to your superior knowledge .

It’s all about opinions…certainly nothing to do with knowledge (superior or inferior) when trying to compare across eras.  There is no right or wrong.

Im sure you’re right, that if you plonked Kane in our 66 side he’d be the best player out there.  But that’s a bit unfair (in my eye) because of the evolution of “football(ers)”.

[Robbored]

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Guess which current English striker compares pretty favourably with the amazing Thierry Henry and his "goal scoring acumen".

Harry Kane obviously. However Kane is a different type of goalscorer to how Henry was and Haaland is. Henry was all about pace and trickery and very rarely, if ever scored a header and he scored some amazing individual goals. We don’t see Kane jinking past defenders and side footing the ball into the net. Greaves scored every type of goal and is as close to Henry as we’ve ever seen.

I saw Greaves play live at WH Lane and he was anonymous for 80 mins but scored two goals……..

[nebristolred]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s all about opinions…certainly nothing to do with knowledge (superior or inferior) when trying to compare across eras.  There is no right or wrong.

Im sure you’re right, that if you plonked Kane in our 66 side he’d be the best player out there.  But that’s a bit unfair (in my eye) because of the evolution of “football(ers)”.

Sorry I meant to write 'don't rate', but missed out the don't! Yeah I'm 100% in agreement with you to be fair.

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

With today’s advances in pretty much every aspect of pro football Greaves would have been even quicker and sharper than he was in his prime.

He’d be comparable to the likes of Haaland or the amazing Thierry Henry with his goal scoring acumen.

 

Absolutely no way you can tell if that would be the case.

Greaves smoked, drank heavily and was quite small compared to many modern players. 

There is no way of knowing how these people from the games' past would perform if they'd been born in 1990 or 2000, as opposed to 1940 or 1900. 

In terms of the game, it's almost like a different sport. The route through to it has changed; the dressing room culture, hell, even the average size and build of young people.

There are so many variables, I don't think we can say 'X or Y was a brilliant athlete in their era, if they were re-generated, they'd be brilliant now'. 

But Greaves was an incredible goal-scorer in his era. That can never be denied. 

[ExiledAjax]

15 hours ago, Robbored said:

Harry Kane obviously. However Kane is a different type of goalscorer to how Henry was and Haaland is. Henry was all about pace and trickery and very rarely, if ever scored a header and he scored some amazing individual goals. We don’t see Kane jinking past defenders and side footing the ball into the net. Greaves scored every type of goal and is as close to Henry as we’ve ever seen.

I saw Greaves play live at WH Lane and he was anonymous for 80 mins but scored two goals……..

Ok, but we will never know, for certain, whether a hypothetical Jimmy Greaves born in 1993 would currently be scoring 25 goals a season in the Premier League. 

But we do know that Harry Kane is doing that. 

My opinion is that Kane is statistically and actually England's (and therefore Britain's) greatest goalscorer.

Ps. This was fun.

 

[Port Said Red]

On 27/03/2023 at 11:34, spudski said:

I saw this post today, and the comments below it. 

I know you can only score against what's put in front of you... however, it puts some stats into perspective.

 

Ha Ha, Nigeria, African Champions a "lesser nation" Senegal were also African Cup of Nations Champions in 2021, when we met them in the World Cup when Kane scored against them.

[AshtonGreat]

On 27/03/2023 at 15:54, Super said:

The idiot has spoken

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joey Barton

 

@Joey7Barton

 

 

People comparing Wayne Rooney and Harry Kane? WR in a completely different stratosphere. Levels and levels and levels above.

 

He was a good player, Wayne, but overrated definitely

[downendcity]

On 27/03/2023 at 23:33, Red-Robbo said:

 

Absolutely no way you can tell if that would be the case.
Greaves smoked, drank heavily and was quite small compared to many modern players. There is no way of knowing how these people from the games' past would perform if they'd been born in 1990 or 2000, as opposed to 1940 or 1900. 

In terms of the game, it's almost like a different sport. The route through to it has changed; the dressing room culture, hell, even the average size and build of young people.

There are so many variables, I don't think we can say 'X or Y was a brilliant athlete in their era, if they were re-generated, they'd be brilliant now'. 

But Greaves was an incredible goal-scorer in his era. That can never be denied. 

Part of me always wonders how good the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, and yes Kane, would be if they smoked 20-30 a day and got through as many pints and shorts in a week, as did Greavsie back in the day.

[Oh Louie louie]

Anybody recall Dennis Wise's only goal? Pretty sure I ran home from school for that game, not a classic.