Kane, Lineker, Shearer, Rooney.

20togo said:
they were all good strikers and each had their own different skillsets. Who is the best is all a matter of personal choice. And they were all the best at the time they were scoring important goals for England. That's probably all that matters really.
Click to expand...
Who's your GOAT footballer?
 
All great strikers but Shearer is best for me, then Lineker, then Rooney and then Kane.

I don't watch as much PL or England football as I used to but Kane seems to go missing on the big occasion.
 
Leither said:
All great strikers but Shearer is best for me, then Lineker, then Rooney and then Kane.

I don't watch as much PL or England football as I used to but Kane seems to go missing on the big occasion.
Click to expand...
You could pin the 'going missing' tag on all of them at some point
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
You could pin the 'going missing' tag on all of them at some point
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess so . . maybe Kane sticks in the memory more because it's so recent.

I just remember both the Champions League final and the Euro final thinking . . . where's the main man?
 
Leither said:
All great strikers but Shearer is best for me, then Lineker, then Rooney and then Kane.

I don't watch as much PL or England football as I used to but Kane seems to go missing on the big occasion.
Click to expand...
Missing in action? His stats are favourably comparable to all those mentioned. Even the greatest players of all time have spells where they go missing in action
Leither said:
Yeah I guess so . . maybe Kane sticks in the memory more because it's so recent.

I just remember both the Champions League final and the Euro final thinking . . . where's the main man?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you forget that he had suffered a major injury prior to the Champions League final and it was pretty clear that he wasn't match fit. Pretty obvious you have a dislike of Spurs for some reason.
 
20togo said:
Missing in action? His stats are favourably comparable to all those mentioned. Even the greatest players of all time have spells where they go missing in action


Perhaps you forget that he had suffered a major injury prior to the Champions League final and it was pretty clear that he wasn't match fit. Pretty obvious you have a dislike of Spurs for some reason.
Click to expand...
He shouldn't have played in that Champions League Final. From memory didn't a player get dropped who had scored a hat trick in the semis to accommodate a clearly unfit Kane?
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
He shouldn't have played in that Champions League Final. From memory didn't a player get dropped who had scored a hat trick in the semis to accommodate a clearly unfit Kane?
Click to expand...
Moura got the hat-trick but he wasn't the direct replacement for Kane as they are nothing alike as players. Llorente was more his replacement. It was a shit game spoilt by the award of a dodgy penalty in the first minute. To be fair there's been loads of similar dodgy penalties scored since given by VAR.
 
20togo said:
Missing in action? His stats are favourably comparable to all those mentioned. Even the greatest players of all time have spells where they go missing in action


Perhaps you forget that he had suffered a major injury prior to the Champions League final and it was pretty clear that he wasn't match fit. Pretty obvious you have a dislike of Spurs for some reason.
Click to expand...
I don't like Spurs much . . . I don't really like any southern clubs though.

Not sure what that's got to do with anything . . . I'm talking about Kane not Spurs. I really like Kane and his stats are exceptional but IMO he's not as good as the others listed.

We are allowed to have different opinions you know :)
 
Leither said:
I don't like Spurs much . . . I don't really like any southern clubs though.

Not sure what that's got to do with anything . . . I'm talking about Kane not Spurs. I really like Kane and his stats are exceptional but IMO he's not as good as the others listed.

We are allowed to have different opinions you know :)
Click to expand...
I think it natural that if you dislike a team as you do with Spurs then it's sort of easy to look for and find any sort of criticism of players who play for that club.
 
Shearer for me. As a CF he was unstoppable for a huge chunk of his career; strong as fuck, fast, scored from anywhere. Check out all his Prem goals video on YouTube.

Rooney was ace, what a player. Most talented all round on that list. Street kid and a hard nut.

Lineker was my hero growing up. Poacher with searing pace, not the best anywhere apart from in front of goal. Not bad going to Barca, scoring about 30 goals first season including a hat trick against Real.

Kane is just a phenomenon to be top scorer already. Most international teams must wish they had a no.9 like him.

Ps Dave Bamber will do for me.
 
Jimmy Greaves, his strike rate of goals per game for England and Spurs as well as at Chelsea is far superior to Kane`s, good as Kane is.

Rooney in the finals of every tournament for England ,the games that really count, apart from his first in 2004 when he was very young and very good,, was a total flop and scarcely scored any goals at all.
 
Last edited:
If we're talking just purely how they played for England with weight added to major tournament performances, probably Kane, Lineker, Shearer, Rooney. I do remember Euro 2004 I think it was though where Rooney was unplayable until he got sent off, or injured (damn memory) and it looked like he was going to be a young phenom like Ronaldo, Messi. Never really did it again at a major tournament after that.
 
20togo said:
Missing in action? His stats are favourably comparable to all those mentioned. Even the greatest players of all time have spells where they go missing in action


Perhaps you forget that he had suffered a major injury prior to the Champions League final and it was pretty clear that he wasn't match fit. Pretty obvious you have a dislike of Spurs for some reason.
Click to expand...
Pretty obvious you're a Spurs fan and can't abide the slightest criticism of the man. Bet you have Lineker second as well.😉
 
PdxTangerine said:
If we're talking just purely how they played for England with weight added to major tournament performances, probably Kane, Lineker, Shearer, Rooney. I do remember Euro 2004 I think it was though where Rooney was unplayable until he got sent off, or injured (damn memory) and it looked like he was going to be a young phenom like Ronaldo, Messi. Never really did it again at a major tournament after that.
Click to expand...
Broke a metatarsal.
 
Leither said:
All great strikers but Shearer is best for me, then Lineker, then Rooney and then Kane.

I don't watch as much PL or England football as I used to but Kane seems to go missing on the big occasion.
Click to expand...
Shearer for me too. At his peak he was absolutely dynamite and scored all types of goals.
 
Wizaard said:
Pretty obvious you're a Spurs fan and can't abide the slightest criticism of the man. Bet you have Lineker second as well.😉
Click to expand...
Kane's record speaks for itself. You won't find anywhere on this thread a post from me where I've put the four players in any order. What I do recall is you questioning Kane being selected thinking that DCL from Everton should play instead of him for England. Far be it for me to question your judgement. Maybe you consider that as only the"slightest criticism" . But there again, you seem to prefer CJ over Bowler too.
 
20togo said:
Kane's record speaks for itself. You won't find anywhere on this thread a post from me where I've put the four players in any order. What I do recall is you questioning Kane being selected thinking that DCL from Everton should play instead of him for England. Far be it for me to question your judgement. Maybe you consider that as only the"slightest criticism" . But there again, you seem to prefer CJ over Bowler too.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I understand why Mick picks him at the moment. World of difference.
 
Always liked watching Lineker score - always looked a threat and always seemed to score just when we needed him to.
Has Kane become top scorer just because these days we play so many minnows?
 
Kane reminds me a bit of Ben Burgess - great for the club you support, lovely guy and yet never really ‘got him’.
 
Nuttalls Mint Toes said:
Always liked watching Lineker score - always looked a threat and always seemed to score just when we needed him to.
Has Kane become top scorer just because these days we play so many minnows?
Click to expand...
That definitely has something to so with it . . . there are far more 'easy' games now.

I believe he has also scored 18 penalties for England which is a big percentage . . . in fact if you take his penalties out his goals to game ratio for England is worse than Peter Crouch!! 😂
 
hard one this ....
Rooney had a lot of success at club level but like has been said didnt really do much for England in later tournaments
Kane has been immense for England though scoring in internationals seems easier these days??? more wekaer opponents? and though he has scored a lot of prem goals he has never really challenged himsefl at club level
Linekar played in Spain and always turned up for WC for England
Shearer scored everywhere he played but never really did that much for England...

we have been quite lucky as, as a nation we always seem to find a goal scorer... Owen would be another you couldadd to this list?
 
but if I had to sign one at his peak for my club??? Shearer!
if I had to choose one at his pick to play in an England team in a WC???? Linekar or Kane?
 
there's a myth about England playing weaker opponents now. Going back to 1960 we played Luxembourg in a world cup qualifier and won 9-0. In my view there are a lot more stronger footballing nations now than there were back then.
 
20togo said:
there's a myth about England playing weaker opponents now. Going back to 1960 we played Luxembourg in a world cup qualifier and won 9-0. In my view there are a lot more stronger footballing nations now than there were back then.
Click to expand...
Rubbish . . . since the eastern European countries broke up it's obvious there are more weaker teams.

It's like saying if the England national team was split into north, south, east and west it wouldn't make for a weaker team.
 
Leither said:
Rubbish . . . since the eastern European countries broke up it's obvious there are more weaker teams.

It's like saying if the England national team was split into north, south, east and west it wouldn't make for a weaker team.
Click to expand...
yeh, you are right. And of course Croatia are much weaker now than when they were part of Yugoslavia.
 
20togo said:
yeh, you are right. And of course Croatia are much weaker now than when they were part of Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...
You've just proved my point . . . Yugoslavia broke up into 6 football teams.

Out of the 6 only one is any good . . . they have changed from one good team (Yugoslavia) to one good team (Croatia) and 5 poor ones (Slovenia, North Macedonia, B&H, Serbia & Montenegro).

So in more recent times England have potentially 5 more easy games.
 
Leither said:
You've just proved my point . . . Yugoslavia broke up into 6 football teams.

Out of the 6 only one is any good . . . they have changed from one good team (Yugoslavia) to one good team (Croatia) and 5 poor ones (Slovenia, North Macedonia, B&H, Serbia & Montenegro).

So in more recent times England have potentially 5 more easy games.
Click to expand...
you've not read my post properly have you? England played weak opposition back in 1960 as I highlighted with Luxembourg and our 9-0 win. That is a fact. England played weak opposition when Shearer was playing. Your blinkered black and white view wants to dismiss teams as good or bad. Were Yugoslavia ever really more of a top team than Croatia have been? For instance Slovenia have qualified for two world cup finals but you just dismiss them as bad. Why? Same with so many African countries too. Iceland beat England not many years back. Going back 60 years or so nowhere near as many teams entered the tournaments but in many cases countries teams are now much stronger than they were. Yugoslavia did no better at tournaments as one nation as some of those countries have done as individual nations. Yet you dismiss them as bad. North Macedonia last year knocked out Italy in qualification but hey you call them shit too.

And of course, we only get drawn against one of the so called minnows for qualification, so it's not a case of playing five more easy games, it's only one per tournament qualifying. Countries are evolving footballing wise. Oh and you prove my point too. Don't like a team, then it's easy to criticise a player. Next you'll be telling me, you don't like Rangers 'and Hearts.

It's rather amusing that something you seem to not care about or watch too much you seem to have strong opinions about.
 
20togo said:
you've not read my post properly have you? England played weak opposition back in 1960 as I highlighted with Luxembourg and our 9-0 win. That is a fact. England played weak opposition when Shearer was playing. Your blinkered black and white view wants to dismiss teams as good or bad. Were Yugoslavia ever really more of a top team than Croatia have been? For instance Slovenia have qualified for two world cup finals but you just dismiss them as bad. Why? Same with so many African countries too. Iceland beat England not many years back. Going back 60 years or so nowhere near as many teams entered the tournaments but in many cases countries teams are now much stronger than they were. Yugoslavia did no better at tournaments as one nation as some of those countries have done as individual nations. Yet you dismiss them as bad. North Macedonia last year knocked out Italy in qualification but hey you call them shit too.

And of course, we only get drawn against one of the so called minnows for qualification, so it's not a case of playing five more easy games, it's only one per tournament qualifying. Countries are evolving footballing wise. Oh and you prove my point too. Don't like a team, then it's easy to criticise a player. Next you'll be telling me, you don't like Rangers 'and Hearts.

It's rather amusing that something you seem to not care about or watch too much you seem to have strong opinions about.
Click to expand...
I don't really have a particularly strong opinion on it I'm just calling you out for making an incorrect statement.

It's very easy to cherry pick one off games . . next you'll be telling me Southampton are better than Man City or Sheff Weds are better than Newcastle?

As I said before out of the 6 teams that came out of Yugoslavia there is only one good one. The others are poor.

My definition of poor = below Scotland in the world rankings!!

In the past there was only one minnow in the group stages . . now there are usually two. Please don't try and convince me Malta & North Macedonia aren't minnows!!

So I rest my case.
 
Thinking of strike partnerships, it's usually a case of an out and out striker (Lineker, Shearer) with a deeper lying second striker (Rooney, Kane). So it's Lineker or Shearer with Rooney or Kane. As others have based their assessments on tournaments with England, I'd go for Lineker and Kane as my strike partnership.
Kane is the best English striker as he can also play up front on his own, whereas Lineker got moved to the right of a front three when Cruyff became Barcelona manager.
 
Shearer
Lineker / Kane
Rooney

Does also depend on are we talking for club or England, Rooney played for a club winning titles and trophies where Shearer scored most of his goals playing for Newcastle which must of been harder with lesser players supporting him. Very close between Kane and Lineker though
 
20togo said:
You've no case at all. You are totally blinkered in your outlook. You're full of prejudice maybe even a bigot. Previous posts can always come back to haunt you. You denied you were a Hibs fan recently but previously you've said you like them, You revelled in Rangers getting beat because of your love for Celtic, Nothing incorrect from me just factual evidence based on what you've said.
Click to expand...
Blimey . . you have a real problem.

I'll leave it at that and ignore you.
 
People are saying that Kane is the greatest marksman.
Surely the person who scored the most goals from outfield is the best?
Whoever that is.
 
Davepick said:
People are saying that Kane is the greatest marksman.
Surely the person who scored the most goals from outfield is the best?
Whoever that is.
Click to expand...
We all have our favourites dav, so it's all a matter of personal opinion who is the best. The four mentioned in the title of the thread were all fantastic strikers when playing for England and as mentioned throughout there are plenty of others too. Football has evolved in many aspects of the game over the last fifty or sixty years or so and different styles belong in different eras. Kane is the current top English striker and his record is superb when looking at the stats but and even though we may not be around to see it, some-one will come along and beat his record. Going back forty years I never thought that anyone would beat Bobby Charltons record of 49 goals and it took along time to do it but now both Rooney and Kane have passed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top