If Henry had the pace of Shearer would he have been...

as succesful as he was?




Obviously we can never know for sure... It is all about opinions so no bitching

Probably not.

He had ridiculous tech and finishing too, the pace was a boost though, so no, probably not as successful.

as succesful as he was meaning as successful as actual henry or shearer?

sounded like you meant the first one which would obviously be no

XxBradKennedyxX wrote:as succesful as he was meaning as successful as actual henry or shearer?

sounded like you meant the first one which would obviously be no

Don't see why it is so obvious that it is no. Are you saying he was incapable of adapting to a different way of playing?

His pace was a major asset so I'd say no.

sorry but I dont understand how a player losing one of his key aspects to his game could make him a better player, he still would have been a very good player but I dont see how he wouldnt be worse, losing your pace has no actual advantages...

XxBradKennedyxX wrote:sorry but I dont understand how a player losing one of his key aspects to his game could make him a better player, he still would have been a very good player but I dont see how he wouldnt be worse, losing your pace has no actual advantages...

This.

Where did I say he would be better?

I asked if he would of been as succesful.

Successful how? Performances or trophies?

Trophies and personal awards.

He wouldn't have been as good so he would have had less chance of being successful, obviously.

Of course he wouldn't as successful as he was if you're only taking something away from his game.

Would Messi be as successful as he is if he had no feet?

The Miz wrote:Trophies and personal awards.

Trophies possibly if his team mates compensated for his decrease in performance(which would happen with a lack of pace), personal awards absolutely no way.

Probably no.

Zzonked wrote:Of course he wouldn't as successful as he was if you're only taking something away from his game.

Would Messi be as successful as he is if he had no feet?

Probably. He's Messi.

No because that was obviously part of his game.

Yes because he's god

Ricardo wrote:He had ridiculous tech and finishing too, the pace was a boost though, so no, probably not as successful.

Probably not.

But that is not to say he wouldn't be able to play another role on the pitch.

I voted yes, not because I'm biased, but because Henry was an amazing player, if he didn't have his pace, I don't see why he wouldn't have been able to adapt his game from a young age and just be a player that made his name in and around the penalty area, like RvN.

ZlatanFabregas wrote:I voted yes, not because I'm biased, but because Henry was an amazing player, if he didn't have his pace, I don't see why he wouldn't have been able to adapt his game from a young age and just be a player that made his name in and around the penalty area, like RvN.

A player like Ruud isn't as good as a player like Henry though. Not as good = team less successful.

Silly thread

Fine Shagger wrote:

ZlatanFabregas wrote:I voted yes, not because I'm biased, but because Henry was an amazing player, if he didn't have his pace, I don't see why he wouldn't have been able to adapt his game from a young age and just be a player that made his name in and around the penalty area, like RvN.

A player like Ruud isn't as good as a player like Henry though. Not as good = team less successful.

Ok... So if Henry is a better player = more successful

I wonder would he still fail to score in literally every single major final he played in if he had no pace.

Yes.

He didn't need pace, but its like saying if shearer didnt have the heading ability that he did would he have been as successful as he was. Its a silly question.

Don't really get this thread much, it's taking a key part of his game away and asking if he'd be as successful as he was with that key part of his game?

His pace was massive, would just run at and past any one, it's like taking Xavi's passing away and wondering if he'd be as successful.

Passing is a much more important aspect of Xavi's game than pace was of Henry's though. You can play as a striker if you don't have pace, you can't play as a central midfielder if you can't pass.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Passing is a much more important aspect of Xavi's game than pace was of Henry's though. You can play as a striker if you don't have pace, you can't play as a central midfielder if you can't pass.

Obviously, I was just exaggerating but my point still stands, taking Henry's pace away would make him worse and he'd be less successful.

Do you still think Gerrard is better than Iniesta by the way?