JUST...Who Are Chelsea's Greatest Ever Goal Scorers?

[Brian M]

Now, as you know, I don't see much point in comparing goal scorers from different eras. Things were different back in the day. Crap pitches. Tackles from behind. Heavier balls. Less reliance on zonal marking, etc.

However, as the topic has JUST been re-opened

and my pal JFH has taken yet another public beating, I thought I'd help people take off their rose coloured glasses and discard their myopic 'he belongs on that list, but he doesn't' views by posting the following stats.

Why? Because everybody has their views on who is great, and who is not so great. But ultimately, a striker is bought by a club to SCORE GOALS. And that's what history remembers them for. Not because they ran around a lot. Not because they tracked back and helped their teams in defence. But because they scored goals.

And, much like having a 50 or above average in cricket, a 'great' goal scorer is someone who can score a goal every two games, give or take. And the goal scorers who can notch a goal EVERY game (or thereabouts) are the Don Bradmans of the sport. Or to put it another way, they are freaks of nature! And there are not too many of them.

But anyway, without futher ado, here's the list. And, wouldn't you know it, but the only goal scorer from the modern era who makes the top seven...is none other than the much maligned, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink. A man who not only scored a hatrick against Sp*rs on my birthday. But who is one of the finest out and out goal scorers Chelsea have ever had.

Who knew...

1: Jimmy Greaves 132 (169 games)

1 goal every 1.28 games

2: George Hilsdon 107 (164 games)

1 goal every 1.53 games

3: Bob Whittingham 80 (129 games)

1 goal every 1.61 games

4: Hughie Gallacher 81 (144 games)

1 goal every 1.77 games

5: Bobby Tambling 202 (366+4 games)

1 goal every 1.83 games

6: George Mills 123 (239 games)

1 goal every 1.94 games

7: Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink 87 (156+21 games)

1 goal every 2.03 games

8: Kerry Dixon 193 (413+7 games)

1 goal every 2.17 games

9: Didier Drogba 66 (115+30 games)

1 goal every 2.19 games

10: Barry Bridges 93 (203+2 games)

1 goal every 2.2 games

11: Roy Bentley 150 (367 games)

1 goal every 2.44 games

12: Peter Osgood 150 (376+4 games)

1 goal every 2.5 games

13: Ron Tindall 69 (174 games)

1 goal every 2.52 games

14: Tommy Baldwin 92 (228+11 games)

1 goal every 2.59 games

15: John McNichol 66 (202 games)

1 goal every 3.06 games

16: Eidur Gudjohnsen 78 (177+86 games)

1 goal every 3.37 games

17: Clive Walker 65 (191+33 games)

1 goal every 3.44 games

18: Frank Lampard 92 (314+19 games)

1 goal every 3.61 games

19: Dick Spence 65 (246 games)

1 goal every 3.78 games

20: Gianfranco Zola 80 (260+52 games)

1 goal every 3.9 games

21: Dennis Wise 76 (434+11 games)

1 goal every 5.85 games

 

[c3blu]

The reason i support Chelsea is because as a kid my Dad went to the bridge and saw Greaves score an hattrick, and was a Chelsea fan ever since. Me and my brother have of course followed suit. I dont know how much of the truth is lost in nostalgia but he still say's JG is the gratest centre forward he has ever seen.

The reason he hates Spurs is because when Greaves came back from AC milan we could'nt afford him and he went to Three point lane instead. And everytime Jeff Hurst gets rolled out at England matches he calls him the luckiest man alive, who only played in the final because JG was injured earlier in the tornament.

His goal ratio for us, Spuds and England are second to none.

He does'nt get half the recognition he deserves and although i never saw him play, he was a youth team product of ours and is according to the ol' man, a Chelsea and England Legend.

 

[BlueBeard]

Brian, as you have admitted, that list is based solely on goals. No matter what you say, it's easier for a striker to score goals in this day and age than it was years ago, for all the reasons that you yourself mentioned.

Not only that, but different circumstances have to be taken into consideration. For instance, Dave Sexton, in his infinite wisdom(?), played Peter Osgood in midfield for quite a long time - you may have seen pictures of Ossie wearing the #4 shirt? So it's not really a fair comparison. as the stats are including games when players weren't even playing as strikers.

Likewise, Bobby Tambling played on the left wing/left midfield for most games in his last 3 or 4 years at Chelsea. If he'd stayed up front with either Barry Bridges or Peter Osgood, he'd have got far more goals than he did.

Plus, I was going to add some stats of my own, but you can't really get a true picture when you take into account all of the substitute appearances. Some of those appearances were just a few minutes, so it really wouldn't be fair to include them as an appearance, and therefore the stats are bolloxed before you start (statisticians terminology!)

Having said all that, I felt I had to include these: -

Robert Fleck 4 (43 + 5)

1 goal every 12 games

Trevor Aylott 2 (27 + 3 games)

1 goal every 15 games

 

[Brian M]

Having said all that, I felt I had to include these: -Robert Fleck 4 (43 + 5)

1 goal every 12 games

Trevor Aylott 2 (27 + 3 games)

1 goal every 15 games

In which case let me add:

Chris Sutton (38 games)

1 goal every 12.6 games or, to put it another way, 1 goal every 3,333,333 quid!

PS: like I said at the top of the post, comparing players from different eras is futile. But...ya know...I didn't open up this can of worms, so...

There are always reasons why a player did or didn't score. He played out of position. He didn't have any great wingers playing with him. He didn't... . But at the end of the day, we have to conclude that all the excuses in the world count for little, when all's said and done. Goals are goals are goals.

I've never said Jimmy is the greatest striker in the history of the game, just that he was a great striker who deserved respect from the Chelsea fans, not ridicule and scorn because he happened to be lazy, or happened to have a bum you could park Volvos in. He scored 1 goal every 2 games, and that's what counts. And before anyone jumps on the 'No team he ever played in won anything because of Jimmy!' just ask yourself this: what did the Chelsea of Dixon ever win? The league? Nope. The FA cup? Nope. The European Cup Winner's Cup? Nope. Need I go on? And yet you don't hear me slagging off Dixon. Why? Because he was a great striker and a Chelsea legend. Just like Jimmy. Only with smaller buttocks...

 

[Lofty]

The thing with statistics is you can usually twist them whichever way you want to apply to which ever theory you want to prove/disprove. Now I've said that, one glaring ommission from your list, someone you don't always automatically think of as a striker:

Ian Hutchinson, who scored 58 goals in 137 appearances, and who's career was surely one of the most horrendously blighted with injuries in the entire annals of the game. Looking at the pure maths, one every two and a bit is pretty impressive, right? But then you have to consider how many of those appearances were made while still not fully recovered from injury ... and then you're into the realms of what might have been, guesswork and speculation, if you like.

 

[Backbiter]

what did the Chelsea of Dixon ever win? The league? Nope. The FA cup? Nope. The European Cup Winner's Cup? Nope. Need I go on?

Yes. You need to go on to ask about 2nd division championships and internationally renowned Full Members Cups. IIRC we haven't won that since the days of Dixon, even with all Abramovich's billions.

 

[BLUENUT]

Jimmy Greaves.....and that's without seeing him play.

Anyone I know who is old enough, and who actually knows anything about football, and have seen him play have said Greaves.

Imagine a player with Robben's pace, Drogba's resilisnce or 'clatter-ability', Zola's agility and you have Jimmy Greave, oh and he used to score a goal every 1.28 games. Also scored on every professional debut.

Wish there was more footage of his era, but not in a Spurs shirt!

Oh BTW c3blu is my brother

 

[BlueBeard]

Jimmy Greaves.....and that's without seeing him play.Anyone I know who is old enough, and who actually knows anything about football, and have seen him play have said Greaves.

Imagine a player with Robben's pace, Drogba's resilisnce or 'clatter-ability', Zola's agility and you have Jimmy Greave, oh and he used to score a goal every 1.28 games. Also scored on every professional debut.

Wish there was more footage of his era, but not in a Spurs shirt!

Oh BTW c3blu is my brother

I agree with all of that, except Greaves' 'clatter-ability'.

Being young as I am, I only ever saw Greaves play against Chelsea when he was at Spuds or West Ham - and every time, Chopper Harris had him in his pocket - Greaves was terrified of him!

 

[just]

Zola, Cantona, Baggio, Di Canio and of course our own DD. Just a quick off the cuff list of strikers who are obviously utter failures with a worse goals per game career ratio then Jimbo and who, as Brian so rightly points out, will quickly be forgotten by the historians because they didn't score enough goals.

Obviously, (seeing as in Brian's world forwards are brought ultimately to score goals), they would never have held down a place in the Brian M all-time select XI, ahead of one Mr J.F Hasselbaink.

Incidentally, Bri, you've slipped up again with your Chelsea knowledge. Chelsea won the 2nd div title, ZDS and Full Member's Cup when King K was with us. Tinpot trophies they maybe, but we'd never have won them with old wavy arms.

 

[Backbiter]

Another thing about the stats: subs appearances skew the goal ratios. We need you to add up minutes on the pitch and divide them by the number of goals scored, with goals against better teams (based on relative positions in the league when we played the opposition) given a greater weighting than, say, goals in the cup against Notts County.

When you've done that maybe you could post a new ranking?

 

[Englishman]

what did the Chelsea of Dixon ever win? The league? Nope. The FA cup? Nope. The European Cup Winner's Cup? Nope. Need I go on?

Yes. You need to go on to ask about 2nd division championships and internationally renowned Full Members Cups. IIRC we haven't won that since the days of Dixon, even with all Abramovich's billions.

And something Liverpool have never won. Not even in their glory days.

 

[just]

Brian M has got a stroppy on because of this thread http://www.chelseafcforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4633http://www.chelseafcforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4633

Jimmy has always received acknowledgement for his goal-scoring record, even from me. But in contrast, Brian has always refused to accept the wider issues surrounding Jimmy's all-round ability, (or rather the lack of it), and how that affected the team. In fact it was all re-hashed on here, (yet again), only a few weeks ago.

of course Geezer isn't inferring that we didn't win the league because of Jimmy's goals. To suggest that is fatuous in the extreme. My guess is that he is pointing to the fact that JFH was a one dimensional striker who offered little to the side apart from his goals (as opposed to Drog who is a great striker, who gets assists, works his b*****ks off and is probably our best defender from set-pieces, a team player), as a result, if he is stopped so is the team. A great striker has medals to show for his efforts. JFH has none. Let's not forget that he scored loads of goals for Athletico Madrid and they got relegated.

I'd save it JM. You're wasting your time when it comes to Brian and Jimbo. Believe me, I've tried.

But you are, IMO, exactly right. It's the way the team had to be set-up and play to accomodate Jimmy that hurt us. The comparison with Drogba is spot on. Drogba is a team player. His "team play" brings other players into the game, takes pressure of defenders etc. Jimmy, as Tea Bar Boy pointed out, played for Jimmy.

When JFH played up front for us here's just a few of things we more often than not, couldn't do:

1. Play long balls behind defenders into space......................... Jimmy wouldn't run for them, ergo, we surrendered possesion cheaply.

2. Get midfielders bombing on past the forwards......................Jimmy wouldn't cover their forward runs.

3. Hit early crosses into the opponents box from out wide.........Jimmy didn't have the will or aerial ability to get on the end of them, ergo, we surrendered possesion cheaply.

4. Defend high up the pitch.................................................... Unlike Drogba, Jimmy wouldn't even spell defend let alone close opposition players down.

5. Play a lone striker/wide striker formation.............................Jimmy had to have a partner playing close to him to be potent.

6. Move our strikers across the line.........................................Jimmy had to play centrally no matter what.

And if you compare Jimbo to the really top-notch EPL strikers of his time he was always found wanting. He was a level below Shearer, RVN, Henry, both in terms of goalscoring and just as importantly, all-round ability.

Having paid my money and sat and watched JFH at the Bridge for the whole of his Chelsea career his limitations were always glaringly obvious to me. As such, it was always my contention that we would have been more successful as team with a striker who may have scored less goals than Jimmy but who always contributed in other ways, including those I mention above. The goals would not have been a problem. They would simply have come in greater numbers from other players in the side. A more mobile, hardworking, skilful forward would have made that happen.

Jimbo was/is a quality finisher. As I have said many times to Brian, that has never been in doubt. For that he deserves praise. But unfortunately that is his one big plus point, and for me, that one plus doesn't outweigh all the minuses. We would never, in a million years, have won the title with Jimmy Floyd Hasslebaink playing week in week out as our main forward.

 

[BLUENUT]

I agree with all of that, except Greaves' 'clatter-ability'. Being young as I am, I only ever saw Greaves play against Chelsea when he was at Spuds or West Ham - and every time, Chopper Harris had him in his pocket - Greaves was terrified of him!

I meant from the aspect of being smashed a few times but still offer something to the game, unlike Mr Robben.

too be fair....Who wasn't terrified of Chopper

 

[Barn]

DD's crap.

He's the sole striker in the best Chelsea team ever and still he can't get his ratio down to below 1 every other game.

My old man also reckon's JG is the best striker he's ever seen "by a bloody mile an all".

 

[forbzy]

A few other strikers who had decent ratios during their Chelsea careers:

David Speedie - 47 in 162 (1 in 3.44 games) - not bad for a support striker to kerry Dixon

Judas Durie - 51 in 123 (1 in 2.4 games) - he may be hated but you can't argue with those figures

Mark Stein - 21 in 51 (1 in 2.42 games) - impressive when you consider it took him a while (10 games?) to score his first goals for Chelsea

Clive Allen - 7 in 16 ( 1 in 2.29 games) - a short spell at Chelsea but Clive Allen was a great finisher.

 

[Brian M]

"A goal every two games, my good Just. A goal every two games. So twist the facts any which way you like, but that's been the mark of a GREAT striker since the game began. And no amount of internet hot air will change it."

 

[TomP]

But ultimately, a striker is bought by a club to SCORE GOALS. And that's what history remembers them for.

And that is the heart of the debate.

I would put it to you that the correct statement should be: Strikers (and any other player in the squad, or even the backroom staff at the club) are bought to win matches and win titles.

Obviously, goals are the means of attaining these achievements, and it helps if you have someone who can knock them in on a regular basis, but the number one aim for a club is to win trophies.

So, the important stats are as follows:

Drogba and Lampard - 2 titles

Pretty much everyone else on the list - 0 titles (a few cup wins with the likes of Zola, Wise, Osgood etc)

 

[Enrico]

Drogba and Lampard - 2 titles

I'd burn them both at the stake as a sacrifice to have a 30 yr old Zola back.

 

[The Moos]

But ultimately, a striker is bought by a club to SCORE GOALS. And that's what history remembers them for.

And that is the heart of the debate.

I would put it to you that the correct statement should be: Strikers (and any other player in the squad, or even the backroom staff at the club) are bought to win matches and win titles.

Obviously, goals are the means of attaining these achievements, and it helps if you have someone who can knock them in on a regular basis, but the number one aim for a club is to win trophies.

So, the important stats are as follows:

Drogba and Lampard - 2 titles

Pretty much everyone else on the list - 0 titles (a few cup wins with the likes of Zola, Wise, Osgood etc)

But that's not really fair, is it?

You can have a player who has an average of 2 goals per game and you might still not win a single title.

To win titles you need a good squad, not just one great player, an entire squad.

The squad also needs a good manager (usually) who can make the squad work together and produce good results.

Drogs and Lamps might have got more titles than anyone else but they are also a part of a very, very good squad.

We have great or world class players on almost every position. Did we have that in the days of Zola, Wise and Osgood?

I doubt it.