Premier League Hall Of Fame

SlickRic

Alan Shearer and Thierry Henry have been announced as the two inaugural inductees into the Premier League Hall of Fame.

on one hand, it's mental that a Utd player didn't get into the first 2 slots, while at the same time, it's hard to argue with the selection. If Giggs wasn't going through what he's going through, then there'd maybe be a bigger issue with him not getting in those first two slots.

Thoughts?

SlickRic

SlickRic wrote: »

Alan Shearer and Thierry Henry have been announced as the two inaugural inductees into the Premier League Hall of Fame.

on one hand, it's mental that a Utd player didn't get into the first 2 slots, while at the same time, it's hard to argue with the selection. If Giggs wasn't going through what he's going through, then there'd maybe be a bigger issue with him not getting in those first two slots.

Thoughts?

What? Why do you find that mental but a Liverpool player or a player from many of the other top flights clubs not being in the top two not mental?

Shanotheslayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What? Why do you find that mental but a Liverpool player or a player from many of the other top flights clubs not being in the top two not mental?

Because United dominated the Premier league era for so long. What's so hard to comprehend?

SlickRic

Deleted User wrote: »

What? Why do you find that mental but a Liverpool player or a player from many of the other top flights clubs not being in the top two not mental?

tldr ... I think Giggs is a shoo-in for top 2 slots if he's not in the situation he is in currently.

with Utd being the fairly dominant force for 20 of the 29 years we've had in the Premier League, and many of their players having a ridiculous amount of league medals, it's just kinda funny that one of them doesn't get in.

keano_afc

I, for one, look forward to general consensus and agreement on every inductee into this Hall of Fame.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Because United dominated the Premier league era for so long. What's so hard to comprehend?

What's so hard to comprehend is that we should apparently be upset about at least one of two slots not being from the dominant team, even though the two people filling these two slots are totally deserved.

SlickRic

SlickRic wrote: »

tldr ... I think Giggs is a shoo-in for top 2 slots if he's not in the situation he is in currently.

with Utd being the fairly dominant force for 20 of the 29 years we've had in the Premier League, and many of their players having a ridiculous amount of league medals, it's just kinda funny that one of them doesn't get in.

Well they should probably be the first team to be inducted, if such a thing happens. Player inductees on the other hand should not be cherry picked just because they were from a dominant team.

GLaDOS

OP has made a hames of the thread title...

gerrybbadd

Giggs will get his place when this all blows over, as will Scholes, Keane, Denis Irwin, Peter Schmeichel and many other Utd players.

Henry & Shearer are well deserved. I'd like to see Ian Wright going in, Denis Bergkamp is well deserved also

SlickRic

GLaDOS wrote: »

OP has made a hames of the thread title...

Lol!

Fixed.

I full on looked at that for 2 minutes wondering what the fúck you were on about.

StringerBell

Shearer okay, record goalscorer I understand that but I would have had a couple of different people ahead of Henry in those first two slots - not to say he shouldn't be a shop in for the hall of fame either obviously.

JPA

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Giggs will get his place when this all blows over, as will Scholes, Keane, Denis Irwin, Peter Schmeichel and many other Utd players.

Henry & Shearer are well deserved. I'd like to see Ian Wright going in, Denis Bergkamp is well deserved also

Giggs will never get in with the situation he is in.
First United player will be Wayne Rooney.

Shanotheslayer

Deleted User wrote: »

What's so hard to comprehend is that we should apparently be upset about at least one of two slots not being from the dominant team, even though the two people filling these two slots are totally deserved.

Nobody mentioned the word upset except you.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Nobody mentioned the word upset except you.

Sorry, someone instead used the word "mental", a stronger term signifying that they don't understand why it is the case.

greendom

Giggs may get in somewhere down the line. He's not ahead of those 2 whatever about his current circumstances

Liam O

JPA wrote: »

Giggs will never get in with the situation he is in.
First United player will be Wayne Rooney.

Cantona and Keane should be there before someone who retired this year.

CSF

greendom wrote: »

Giggs may get in somewhere down the line. He's not ahead of those 2 whatever about his current circumstances

The current accusations might make it tricky for him. They’re not small ones, so all depends on if he is found guilty.

PhlegmyMoses

JPA wrote: »

Giggs will never get in with the situation he is in.
First United player will be Wayne Rooney.

And yet Wayne Rooney has had his own brushes with the law and ugly moments in his career.

It'sactually an interesting sideshow for the HoF. Does what people get up to outside of football preclude them? What lines do we draw? If one of the inductees batters his wife afterwards, does he get removed?

Mitch Connor

I think Keane, Rooney, Rio should be United players in there.

Not sure if Rooney is long enough retired to be considered yet - I know there is a cut off, haven't looked in to what it is. If he was eligible, I think he should have been there ahead of Henry. I don't think there is a world that Shearer isn't the first in there.

Cantona had a huge impact at United and could get in on that, but I don't think individual performance would have him above Henry or Shearer.

Ronaldo would obviously be shouted about but he only had 3 really top seasons - Henry and Shearer have a longer run.

I do think it is required to look beyond the trophy hall, you need to look at the individuals performances.

Mitch Connor

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And yet Wayne Rooney has had his own brushes with the law and ugly moments in his career.

It'sactually an interesting sideshow for the HoF. Does what people get up to outside of football preclude them? What lines do we draw? If one of the inductees batters his wife afterwards, does he get removed?

The difference with Giggs is the 'ugliness' is happening now. Rooneys stuff (for the moment) is in the past and can be hand waved away. If you put Giggs in now you are putting in someone in active legal proceedings over domestic abuse/assault. It would be an absolute disaster to name Giggs now.

noodler

You'd imagine longevity will play a bit part here.

ie. No Ronaldo, Suarez or maybe even Torres.

Bergkamp, Keown, Campbell, Terry, Lampard, Cech, Zola, Gerrard and the aforementioned UTD players will be good shouts for the next six.

Fowler, Owen and a bunch more if.ot gets expanded.

PhlegmyMoses

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The difference with Giggs is the 'ugliness' is happening now. Rooneys stuff (for the moment) is in the past and can be hand waved away. If you put Giggs in now you are putting in someone in active legal proceedings over domestic abuse/assault. It would be an absolute disaster to name Giggs now.

Yes, I agree right now but I was responding to the suggestion that he will never get in

y0ssar1an22

no love for gareth barry

its not all about them goals :pac:

Mitch Connor

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Yes, I agree right now but I was responding to the suggestion that he will never get in

Oh right.

Yeah, if he is found not guilty then in a few years he might get the nod.

Augme

Rooney transgressions all involved consenting people though. That's a massage difference between what giggs could be found guilty of. If he is found guilty there is no chance he ever makes it.

atilladehun

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

no love for gareth barry

its not all about them goals :pac:

Too much love for him. High quality player but not the elite level he was made out to be.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

You'd imagine longevity will play a bit part here.

ie. No Ronaldo, Suarez or maybe even Torres.

Bergkamp, Keown, Campbell, Terry, Lampard, Cech, Zola, Gerrard and the aforementioned UTD players will be good shouts for the next six.

Fowler, Owen and a bunch more if.ot gets expanded.

Torres was in the prem longer than Zola, I think?

I doubt either of them would make it, and, to be honest, I don't think either deserve it to be honest. The point of a HoF is to recognise players who've served the sport well over their entire careers. A premier league hall of fame should recognise players who were good servants of the game in England, regardless of their trophy hauls or medals.

Players that should be included, but aren't as "Hollywood" as others:
Barry,
Milner,
David James,
Tim Howard,
Jagielka
Heskey (I know),
Noble,
Cahill,
Phil Neville

PhlegmyMoses

Augme wrote: »

Rooney transgressions all involved consenting people though. That's a massage difference between what giggs could be found guilty of. If he is found guilty there is no chance he ever makes it.

Rooney was drink driving and had issues in a US airport around a year ago as well.

Take Terry then, who should be a shoo in considering his playing career. Banned for 4 games for racist remarks and retired from the international set up as a result. Suarez a similar story.

And even before the latest accusations against Giggs, I'm sure most people wouldn't want him inducted into the HoF after his shenanigans.

Basically, if they go down that road early then they are setting a marker down and they need to stick to it. I'm not arguing for Giggs here, he is a scumbag. But there will be a lot of players with dodgy histories that will be considered for this.

machiavellianme

Sigh, yet more pointless awards to cause fans to fall out over. How many different awards streams are there now? A complete waste of time because its all subjective and likely to suit some agenda rather than actually mean something.

bucketybuck

I am genuinely surprised that Cantona is not the first name in.

Yes Shearer is an obvious choice but it doesn't need to be the best ever player or the most successful ever player, there are plenty of other awards for that. Hall of Fames generally start with the most influential players from the early days of the competition and that is Cantona, no question about it.

I would have expected all the early inductees to be the likes of Cantona, Beardsley, Schmeichel, Tony Adams, Bruce, Klinsman etc etc, there is plenty of time for the Henrys and Gerrards to get picked.

machiavellianme

bucketybuck wrote: »

I am genuinely surprised that Cantona is not the first name in.

Yes Shearer is an obvious choice but it doesn't need to be the best ever player or the most successful ever player, there are plenty of other awards for that. Hall of Fames generally start with the most influential players from the early days of the competition and that is Cantona, no question about it.

I would have expected all the early inductees to be the likes of Cantona, Beardsley, Schmeichel, Tony Adams, Bruce, Klinsman etc etc, there is plenty of time for the Henrys and Gerrards to get picked.

So a chap who was in the Premier league from 92-97 and wasn't exactly a model citizen in that time should trump the greatest goalscorer in the division who lasted from 88-06?
I am genuinely surprised that people can be that biased!

bucketybuck

machiavellianme wrote: »

So a chap who was in the Premier league from 92-97 and wasn't exactly a model citizen in that time should trump the greatest goalscorer in the division who lasted from 88-06?
I am genuinely surprised that people can be that biased!

Cantona defined the early days of the PL, what is biased or hard to understand about that?

If it is just about the number of goals scored then that should be easy to list out. Boring, but easy.

machiavellianme

bucketybuck wrote: »

Cantona defined the early days of the PL, what is biased or hard to understand about that?

If it is just about the number of goals scored then that should be easy to list out. Boring, but easy.

Defined? Really? Which dictionary or encyclopedia is that in? I remember 1992 and Cantona was similar to how Pogba is now. Arrogant, talented but by no means the fulcrum of everything. The team was just as capable without him. He wasn't even the best player in his own team, nevermind in the league. He mightve been your personal hero or something and plenty of other kids adored him after the kung-fu kick or the stupid collar thing but that doesn't mean he "defined" much, and certainly not based on anything measurable.

PhlegmyMoses

machiavellianme wrote: »

Defined? Really? Which dictionary or encyclopedia is that in? I remember 1992 and Cantona was similar to how Pogba is now. Arrogant, talented but by no means the fulcrum of everything. The team was just as capable without him. He wasn't even the best player in his own team, nevermind in the league. He mightve been your personal hero or something and plenty of other kids adored him after the kung-fu kick or the stupid collar thing but that doesn't mean he "defined" much, and certainly not based on anything measurable.

What an awful take really. Alternate reality stuff. I have no issue with Cantona not being in first but you just aren't even close to being right here my man.

bucketybuck

machiavellianme wrote: »

Defined? Really? Which dictionary or encyclopedia is that in? I remember 1992 and Cantona was similar to how Pogba is now. Arrogant, talented but by no means the fulcrum of everything. The team was just as capable without him. He wasn't even the best player in his own team, nevermind in the league. He mightve been your personal hero or something and plenty of other kids adored him after the kung-fu kick or the stupid collar thing but that doesn't mean he "defined" much, and certainly not based on anything measurable.

Ok. I suspect this is more about a dislike you have for Cantona than any preference I have for him, but no worries.

Again you come with the "best player" thing though. I never said Cantona was the best player, or the top goalscorer, or the least controversial. In fact my original post expressly stated that those sort of things often weren't the criteria for a hall of fame.

Your first post was about how a hall of fame is a waste of time, now you seem concerned about what criteria I was using. You are quite welcome to dismiss my opinion entirely, no odds to me, but I will remain confident that Cantona with all his kung fu kicks, seagulls following trawlers, collars popped and title winning goals was indeed the most influential player in those early days of the Premier league.

Doff

Why is all the talk about goalscorers? Many games are won and lost on the performance of the defenders. I would love to see a proper iconic defender inducted like Kolo Toure.

TFBubendorfer

Doff wrote: »

Why is all the talk about goalscorers? Many games are won and lost on the performance of the defenders. I would love to see a proper iconic defender inducted like Kolo Toure.

Kolo wasn't even the best Premier League player in his own family

TitianGerm

bucketybuck wrote: »

I am genuinely surprised that Cantona is not the first name in.

Yes Shearer is an obvious choice but it doesn't need to be the best ever player or the most successful ever player, there are plenty of other awards for that. Hall of Fames generally start with the most influential players from the early days of the competition and that is Cantona, no question about it.

I would have expected all the early inductees to be the likes of Cantona, Beardsley, Schmeichel, Tony Adams, Bruce, Klinsman etc etc, there is plenty of time for the Henrys and Gerrards to get picked.

He jumped into the crowd and kicked a fan. That's going to affect his inclusion massively.

machiavellianme

bucketybuck wrote: »

Ok. I suspect this is more about a dislike you have for Cantona than any preference I have for him, but no worries.

Again you come with the "best player" thing though. I never said Cantona was the best player, or the top goalscorer, or the least controversial. In fact my original post expressly stated that those sort of things often weren't the criteria for a hall of fame.

Your first post was about how a hall of fame is a waste of time, now you seem concerned about what criteria I was using. You are quite welcome to dismiss my opinion entirely, no odds to me, but I will remain confident that Cantona with all his kung fu kicks, seagulls following trawlers, collars popped and title winning goals was indeed the most influential player in those early days of the Premier league.

That's the thing, I quite like Eric. A decent player and had a bit of controversy, but in no way did he define anything that belongs in a hall of fame. Hall of infamy perhaps? :pac:

PhlegmyMoses

TitianGerm wrote: »

He jumped into the crowd and kicked a fan. That's going to affect his inclusion massively.

And Terry racially abused somebody and Gerrard punched the head off a DJ. This is going to be a dodgy route to go down imo

TitianGerm

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And Terry racially abused somebody and Gerrard punched the head off a DJ. This is going to be a dodgy route to go down imo

Gerrards didn't happen on the field though so I wouldn't exclude him, same as Rooney. Giggs will get in in a few years when everyone has forgotten about the current situation or if he's found innocent.

Not sure on Terry but I'd guess because he's English he'll be given leeway and I'd expect that he will be included.

I wouldn't have Suarez in because of the biting and Evra thing and likewise Cantona may miss out because he jumped into the crowd. The actions of both players here are not something the PL look favourably on and I'd bet their reputations were tarnished within the PL because of it.

Shanotheslayer

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And Terry racially abused somebody and Gerrard punched the head off a DJ. This is going to be a dodgy route to go down imo

Even still, if you where to say actions outside of the football pitch are not included. Terry/Cantona both happened on the pitch.

It's a fine line but I think unless people are nit picking some of them are obvious

Ryan Giggs - Slept with his brothers wife, a Pr1ck but shouldn't exclude him from this. If proven to have assaulted 3 women, then he's excluded.

Rooney - Likes to bang 99 year olds. Weird, but shouldn't exclude him from this :pac:

Beckham - Rumoured to have cheated on Victoria, shouldn't exclude him etc etc.

If you look hard enough at most players you'll probably find something wrong. Be it a horror 2 foot tackle, spitting at someone, diving, handballing to knock a nation out of a tournament etc etc

PhlegmyMoses

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Even still, if you where to say actions outside of the football pitch are not included. Terry/Cantona both happened on the pitch.

It's a fine line but I think unless people are nit picking some of them are obvious

Ryan Giggs - Slept with his brothers wife, a Pr1ck but shouldn't exclude him from this. If proven to have assaulted 3 women, then he's excluded.

Rooney - Likes to bang 99 year olds. Weird, but shouldn't exclude him from this :pac:

Beckham - Rumoured to have cheated on Victoria, shouldn't exclude him etc etc.

If you look hard enough at most players you'll probably find something wrong. Be it a horror 2 foot tackle, spitting at someone, diving, handballing to knock a nation out of a tournament etc etc

So Terry and Suarez out because racism right?

Augme

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Rooney was drink driving and had issues in a US airport around a year ago as well.

Take Terry then, who should be a shoo in considering his playing career. Banned for 4 games for racist remarks and retired from the international set up as a result. Suarez a similar story.

And even before the latest accusations against Giggs, I'm sure most people wouldn't want him inducted into the HoF after his shenanigans.

Basically, if they go down that road early then they are setting a marker down and they need to stick to it. I'm not arguing for Giggs here, he is a scumbag. But there will be a lot of players with dodgy histories that will be considered for this.

Of course they set down a marker. Get found guilty of assisting multiple women and you aren't in the hall of fame. None of the other players have done that or committed acts that would be equivalent to it either, in terms of potential punishment and sentencing in a court of law.


You can highlight terry and Gerrards etc but they were also both found not guilty by a court. If Giggs is found guilty there is just no way back for him.

PhlegmyMoses

Augme wrote: »

Of course they set down a marker. Get found guilty of assisting multiple women and you aren't in the hall of fame. None of the other players have done that or committed acts that would be equivalent to it either, in terms of potential punishment and sentencing in a court of law.


You can highlight terry and Gerrards etc but they were also both found not guilty by a court. If Giggs is found guilty there is just no way back for him.

But Terry was found guilty of racism by the FA and was banned. Racism is awful. So he is out right?

PhlegmyMoses

You see the point in trying ti make here right? Everyone here is creating their own arbitrary criteria for what would preclude a player and it gets murky. On the pitch or off the pitch seems to matter to some. Grading the level of the infringement seems to matter to others (Got away with it in court, x is not as bad as y). I hope that the people organising the HoF have a good idea of what they are trying to highlight and celebrate and are more aligned than everyone here.

Shanotheslayer

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You see the point in trying ti make here right? Everyone here is creating their own arbitrary criteria for what would preclude a player and it gets murky.

Isn't that the case with literally all HoF's?

WWE have one iirc. Chris Benoit was taken out of it after his actions

PhlegmyMoses

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Isn't that the case with literally all HoF's?

WWE have one iirc. Chris Benoit was taken out of it after his actions

Chris Benoit has never been in the WWE HoF and will never be considered and they make that pretty clear.

But in here we currently aren't allowing Giggs (for a singular incident off the pitch), Cantona (for a singular incident on the pitch) and then grading the various other indiscretions of players with fans of one or the other taking various sides. Hopefully this HoF will be consistent and if they are taking a players moral fibre into account then they should do so for all players. Getting into that area is very murky

Augme

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But Terry was found guilty of racism by the FA and was banned. Racism is awful. So he is out right?

Well, no. You judge everything in a case by case basis. Exactly like they do in every other situation like this. You can't simply have one black and white rule that will cover every eventuality. Simply allowing anyone in no matter what is simply being unrealistic as well.

jacool

I would say that James Milner is a suitable fit for this type of award.
Played with 5 different Premier League clubs over a career of 20 years.
Won Premier League titles with 2 different clubs.
Was once the youngest goal scorer in the Premier League.
All he needs to do now is go back to his original club and win the league with them next season, to be the first triple winner

Dante

Giggs would be hard to beat.