Andy Cole , good ? bad?

KdjaCL

As an example of the difference between tv vs being at games, the legend Andy Cole in my opinion is the perfect example of what that difference is.

I think he is/was one of the best forwards England ever had, his time at man utd and newcastle proved that. And im well aware of the amount of sitters the guy missed.

I wont explain my reasons for this as it would defeat the purpose of the poll

kdjac

_blank_

Commodore used to sponsor Chelsea, maybe that's a better option in Soccer polls?

mikemac

Think he goes by Andrew Cole these days;)

Livvie

Over-rated. I remember his misses more than his goals. Of all the goals he scored, how many were actually vital? There were some of course, but really not many.

And Eric Cantona didn't rate him either, which will do for me.

Gillie

Missed a lot of chances at times but there are not many English strikers who had the success he had.
98/99 was His and Yorkie's year!

Big Ears

Cole missed quite a few easy chances in his time but as many people will tell you it was only because of his top class positioning that he even had a opportunity to take that chance .

He was a top class striker for me and proved it with the amount of goals he scored .

Thanx 4 The Fish

Saw him live on a number of occasions. Works so bloody hard too, remember him playing at anfield, he went off with twenty or so to go and all of anfield, almost to a man rose to give him a standing ovation.

Eirebear

Any striker will miss a lot of chances, thats part of the job.
His record at man Utd and newcastle speaks for itself really.

leninbenjamin

Eirebear wrote:

Any striker will miss a lot of chances, thats part of the job.
His record at man Utd and newcastle speaks for itself really.

sums it up nicely for me.

aidan24326

Eirebear wrote:

His record at man Utd and newcastle speaks for itself really.

I'd agree with that. He may have missed his share of chances, but if a striker's job is to get goals Cole couldn't be accused of not paying his way. Scored 94 goals in 195 premiership games at United. 55 in 70 games at Newcastle. It's a record that's comparable with the best strikers of the last 15 years so it's a bit unfair on him that some people only highlight the missed chances. If a stiker gets 5 chances and only scores 1 of them, he's still achieved more than the guy that didn't score at all or didn't even get into good positions to have a chance of scoring.

Peyton Manning

His positioning and reading of the game was second to none. The more I watch the 1998/1999 season review, the better his performances seem. That season he was truly one of the top strikers in the world.

LuckyLloyd

Cole was never pretty. Just annoyingly effective. His record demands attention. And, as said above, missing chances is something top strikers are bound to do a fair amount of.

Hobart

Was working for a company who had a box at OT around the time he played for them. I got use of the tickets a few times and saw him play on a number of occasions.

His work rate on the pitch was second to none. Yes he did miss a few, he also scored some great goals aswell. He was a fantastic player.

therecklessone

KdjaCL wrote:

As an example of the difference between tv vs being at games, the legend Andy Cole in my opinion is the perfect example of what that difference is.

I think he is/was one of the best forwards England ever had, his time at man utd and newcastle proved that. And im well aware of the amount of sitters the guy missed.

How many times you see him in the flesh?

The Sparrow

Andy Cole , good ? bad?

How about legend?!

His goal record speaks for itself and as others have mentioned his work rate was very good too. He is just a natural goal scorer but one that has looked after himself and would still score frequently at a high level even now.
When I was growing up he was my favourite player (I even read his autobiography!:o ). I still remember like yesterday coming home from school listening to the news on the radio that Cole had signed for Man Utd from Newcastle and then switching on the tv to see all of the Newcastle fans surrounding Kevin Keegan giving out about it.

He was always a player that divided ppl though, you seem to either rate him very highly or not at all. I was delighted when it came good for him in 1999 with Yorke and for that season I think you can make the case that they were the most effective strikers in Europe.

Just take a look at his overall scoring record and I think any right-thinking person cannot fail to admit that he was at least good.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/shared/bsp/hi/football/statistics/players/c/cole_4692.stm

Total (club) 612 appearances 283 goals
League 479 appearances 224 goals
FA Cup 39 appearances 15 goals
League Cup 25 appearances 20 goals
Europe 69 appearances 24 goals

Lemlin

Isn't he the second top scorer in PL history, second only to Shearer? That record speaks for itself.

Eirebear

aidan24326 wrote:

I'd agree with that. He may have missed his share of chances, but if a striker's job is to get goals Cole couldn't be accused of not paying his way. Scored 94 goals in 195 premiership games at United. 55 in 70 games at Newcastle. It's a record that's comparable with the best strikers of the last 15 years so it's a bit unfair on him that some people only highlight the missed chances. If a stiker gets 5 chances and only scores 1 of them, he's still achieved more than the guy that didn't score at all or didn't even get into good positions to have a chance of scoring.

Put it this way, i grew up watching Ally McCoist at the top of his game for Rangers.
What made him stand out as a striker was the fact that he never let his head go down if he missed a sitter or 6 during a game, he'd be back in the right positions time and time again untill he inevitably put one in the back of the net.
Andy Cole (although obviously not as good ) was the same kind of striker.

Mr. Presentable

Livvie wrote:

And Eric Cantona didn't rate him either, which will do for me.

Cantona didn't rate Deschamps either. What did Cantona ever win, compared with Deschamps?

Andy Cole was a great forward. He had a lot of misses, but they were misses other forwards mightn't have had the chances made to miss.

leninbenjamin

nipplenuts wrote:

Cantona didn't rate Deschamps either. What did Cantona ever win, compared with Deschamps?

if i remember correctly, didn't Cole take a fair few goals off Cantona, by just getting his foot to the ball when it would have gone in anyway? i always though that was why they weren't the best of buds.

Mitch Connor

The biggest thing i liked about Cole was the fact he changed.

At Newcastle he was an out and out striker. The player taking the shots, a fairly one dimensional player. When he moved to UNited, he added so much to his game imo - he became a better worker, and a great link player too. He went from being a striker to, as the OP says, a forward, and he was damn good at it too.

A poster above has said that Cantona didn't rate him, but Cole was not at his best when cantona was around, the two did not seem to work all that well together. When Cantona left, it freed cole up, and Cole stepped up like people wanted him to and became a better player.