Jump to content

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


Guest Brian M

Recommended Posts

Guest 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 icon_wink.gif 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.

415R06XG77L._AA240_.jpg

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!) icon_wink.gificon_lol.gif

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

icon_eek.gificon_lol.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 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

icon_eek.gificon_lol.gif

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... icon_wink.gif

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 icon_wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 icon_wink.gif

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. icon_lol.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Brian M has got a stroppy on because of this thread http://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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 icon_lol.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 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." 247.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned Greaves because we were talking purely about goals at the start of the thread even though i have never seen him play. If we are talking about great strikers and there contribution to the team/club depending where they played etc,and not only about goals per game then i would say hands down the gratest striker CFC has ever had is NO. 25.

GIANFRANCO ZOLA bow.gifbow.gifbow.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brian M
GIANFRANCO ZOLA

Now there's a 'great footballer'! bow.gif

But back to the focus of the thread...

People can throw around any argument they like about who's better and who's crap, but in the case of a striker, stats do not lie. A striker either scores goals or he doesn't. And Jimmy did. And how. And like it or not, there's the rub.

PS: oh BOY is there ever gonna be a 'Jimmy is a Legend' article written for young Loz after all this hullabaloo. Consider yourself warned, good Shedenders all! Jimmy will be honoured amongst the pantheon of Chelsea legends in a way that will make sure his star shines until the ending of the world!

wow.gif169.gifwow.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites


GIANFRANCO ZOLA

Now there's a 'great footballer'! bow.gif

But back to the focus of the thread...

People can throw around any argument they like about who's better and who's crap, but in the case of a striker, stats do not lie. A striker either scores goals or he doesn't. And Jimmy did. And how. And like it or not, there's the rub.

PS: oh BOY is there ever gonna be a 'Jimmy is a Legend' article written for young Loz after all this hullabaloo. Consider yourself warned, good Shedenders all! Jimmy will be honoured amongst the pantheon of Chelsea legends in a way that will make sure his star shines until the ending of the world!

wow.gif169.gifwow.gif

Thing is brian, kevin phillips used to get a lot of goals, as does darren bent now there have been several strikers over the years that could get goals, but not necaserily great football players. Just add deano sturige to that list quickly as well. Jimmy was limited. He had his strong points and boy were they strong, When he managed to get that shot on target in invariably went in. Close him down fast however and that shot never came in, put him under a little preshure and that shot more often that not was seen going in to orbit!

This is why Jimmy hasnt got a great goal scoring recored against the big clubs, or in europe or on the international stage. He has to many weekness in his game. Thats why i can only subscirbe to the good goal scorer and nice guy club. He may be a legand as in so much as he gave us somthing we didnt have at the time but he wont ever be considerd amoung the greats IMO. I doubt you would find his name any where near the top 10 or 20 of any greates forighner of all time poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Barak.

There are not many who would question JFH's goal scoring ability. He scored goals. It was what he was good at and fair play to him for that.

But to be looked upon as a Legend by a clubs supporters you have to do a lot more - especially nowadays. I, and I imagine most fans, want to see a players that will give everything every single time they put on that shirt. He might have scored loads of goals (and he has received more than enough credit for doing so over the years), but I very rarely if ever, saw him work his (huge) arse off like other players do. Even allowing for his limitations, you still never got the impression he was a team player. He always seemed to be out for himself. And looking back on his career and his significant lack of honours sums him up really.

JFH - great goal scorer but far from ever being a legend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: oh BOY is there ever gonna be a 'Jimmy is a Legend' article written for young Loz after all this hullabaloo. Consider yourself warned, good Shedenders all! Jimmy will be honoured amongst the pantheon of Chelsea legends in a way that will make sure his star shines until the ending of the world!

wow.gif169.gifwow.gif

We're all looking forward to it.

It will be the biggest work of fiction since "The Da Vinci Code". ballack.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being considered a legend is largely down to fiction anyway.

A large number of people that are considered legends are only considered so because a lot of old people used to like them. In 20 years time, Jimmy will be considered a legend by Chelsea fans, because the opinion of the older fans (Just?) won't count any more, it will be about what the fans that joined in the late '90's thought that will count and they'll have stats to support them.

Legend status is far easier to reach than it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!