Wrighty or Henry?

[Ratinho]

ian wright is more of a legend because he a roy of the rovers kind of player.Wright was cult hero,goalscorer supermo,arsenal legend all roled into one. And wright was never affraid of getting his shorts dirty, wheras henry usually hardly tackles as hes affraid of one of his legs breaking. <snip>

You see pal, that's your problem.

You might start off making a decent poin, then you drop into utter mongishness, and descend into it pretty quickly tbh.

No point giving more page time to the drivel that came after the last comment.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you telling me Henry goes in rough on challenges?...thats if he makes them..

 

[RocktheCasbah]

You do spout some bollocks. And you had me agreeing with you. Thierry comes back and makes tackles quite often. Usually he wins the ball too.

And if USArsenal only started supporting Arsenal in 96, then obviously he's gonna prefer Henry to Wrighty. He has only known good times though, lucky git.

 

[Ratinho]

Are you telling me Henry goes in rough on challenges?...thats if he makes them..

No. I'm telling you that 'henry usually hardly tackles as hes affraid of one of his legs breaking.' is not only poorly constructed, but an idiotic statement.

And what I said about the rest of your *****-sense.

 

[GoonerSab]

Both of them

 

[USArsenal]

You do spout some bollocks. And you had me agreeing with you. Thierry comes back and makes tackles quite often. Usually he wins the ball too.

And if USArsenal only started supporting Arsenal in 96, then obviously he's gonna prefer Henry to Wrighty. He has only known good times though, lucky git.

of course I will.. it's only natural... (although Bergy is "it" for me)...

it's just the natural progression of things... 50 years ago, everyone's "legend" was Cliff Bastin.. 10 years ago, it was Ian Wright, 10 years from now, it will be Henry... nothing wrong with it, it just happens that way... the further people drop into the past, the less they are thought of..new supporters come in, never (or rarely) having seen past players, so one concludes their Arsenal "legends" will be different... i dont really see the problem with it... just natural way of history...

doesnt mean i dont have respect for Wright or anyone else that has made Arsenal who they are...

 

[dysphoria]

i'm not a londoner but i can understand the sentiments about wrighty, i started supporting arsenal because of wrighty and i really like the guy.

why? because he'll be from a group of players who essentially were arsenal through and through, even i could relate to his antics and i loved his character. players like ray parlour and tony adams to me just made it for me as well, i've never seen em lose interest in a game or give less then 100%. (flamini looks like the next ray parlour)

characterwise, henry is more like Arsène wenger, wrighty would be more like what kevin kegan was to newcastle.

who's the better player for me? i can't really decide honestly. although the standard of football now is alot higher then it was back then, players now have better access to more modern training techniques and stuff. you could say that henry is gonna break wrighty's record, he makes things happen for others as well and now he's the captain but its because he's alot fitter then wrighty ever was, he has better equipped staff taking care of him and all sorts of other possible reasons. if wrighty was playing now, would his scoring record be what it is?

one thing i'm pretty sure about is, even if it were possible, i don't think wrighty could ever have been captain because he's more of a livewire.

i don't think i could choose between a nice cup of tea and a good glass of wine, i like em for different reasons and comparing them to each other would just lessen them for what they really are i guess..


ps : one real interesting thing, think about many of us gooners have been spoiled, we had wrighty's goals and now we've got henry breaking his record and he's sure to go further. we've got players like bergkamp who've done things i don't think i could have ever came up with in my deams(his goal against sunderland a long time back and the more recent one against newcastle anyone?)

just take a moment to think about the amount of talent we've had over the years. its scary sometimes because i cannot understand for the love of my life how wenger manages time and time again to intergrate the squad and find the talent the way he does.

 

[famous no 10]

Henry for me...oozes class and could even get better...wrighty was great too but Henry shades it.

I've been lucky to see both, and Begkamp at his best as well...and before that Rocastle, Brady, etc, etc...........

My old man says Henry is the best his seen at Highbury and he started watching Arsenal with the Compton brothers! :shock:

 

[Gurgen]

The question is who is the new or next Ian Wright?..imo is jermaine defoe.I wish he played for arsenal.We should have signed him instead of reyes

Just when I thought your reply couldn't get any more stupid...

 

[goonerwarsh]

Wright's goals to game ratio is not 'FAR BETTER' than Henry's - that's ridiculous. He scored 1 goal more than Henry has so far in 15 or so games less - which is a minimal percentage difference entirely accounted for entirely by Henry's slow start to his Arsenal career.

So i'll think you'll find that Wrighty is more prolific than Henry, fifteen games is pretty much half a league season. Comparing generations is impossible, the game is completely a different one now to what it was even 10 years ago. It's fair to say that we have been spoiled with some of the players we've had the pleasure to watch over the last few years. Wrighty, Bergkamp, Vieira, Overmars we could go on for a long time. But I would say that whilst i've been following Arsenal, Henry is the most complete player i've seen.

I watched the 79 cup final and couldn't believe the differences in the game, the physique of the players, and the speed of the game itself, it was very strange

 

[kevin earley]

GOT TO GO WITH HENRY
its a much more slick game now and lucky for us henry is MR SLICK

 

[USArsenal]

Wright's goals to game ratio is not 'FAR BETTER' than Henry's - that's ridiculous. He scored 1 goal more than Henry has so far in 15 or so games less - which is a minimal percentage difference entirely accounted for entirely by Henry's slow start to his Arsenal career.

So i'll think you'll find that Wrighty is more prolific than Henry, fifteen games is pretty much half a league season.

true, but when you're talking over a total span of 300 matches or so, 15 is a small percentage...wright averaged 0.64 goals per match, Henry averages 0.61.... he was just refuting people who were saying "Wright was a better goal scorer" by saying it's not as drastically different than you think it is... not to mention 29 of Wrighty's goals were scored in what is now called the Carling Cup...


i think an interesting statistic would be to find out the percentage of goals each player has scored compared to the team as a whole in their matches... i dont have the time to compile it, but if someone had that readily available, i would be curious to see the outcome...

or maybe i do have the time...

 

[agnishevchenko]

henry is a more complete footballer than wright. period!

 

[USArsenal]

useless statistics:

-Wright scored 33.75% of his teams total goals in the time he was at Arsenal
-Henry has scored 27.63% of his teams total goals in his time at Arsenal

I could not get assist records past the 95-96 season, so i will only judge this next based on the last 2 FULL seasons for each player:

-Wright was involved (goals and assists) in 47.81% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons (not counting 97-98 where he didnt play much)....

-Henry has been involved (goals and assists) in 47.79% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons.... (almost exactly the same as Wright's percentage)

the difference between Wright's last 2 seasons and Henry's is....
-Arsenal scored a total of 144 goals in Wright's last 2 full seasons...
-Arsenal scored a total of 224 goals in Henry's last 2 seasons....


full of useless stats am i...

 

[tox]

Its important to realise that when Ian Wight was at Arsenal he was basically their only real goalscorer, everything went through him and other players such as Alan Smith, who had a very good scoring rate before Wrighty came along had to sacrifice goals to supply Wrighty by playing in a more supportive postion for him.

Henry on the other hand is not only a goal scorer but a great provider. The amout of times Henry has laid something off unselfishly to give an assist when in the same situation Wright would have gone for the shot will probably speak volumes in terms of explaining their goal 'rate'.

 

[DC Gunner]

useless statistics:

-Wright scored 33.75% of his teams total goals in the time he was at Arsenal
-Henry has scored 27.63% of his teams total goals in his time at Arsenal

I could not get assist records past the 95-96 season, so i will only judge this next based on the last 2 FULL seasons for each player:

-Wright was involved (goals and assists) in 47.81% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons (not counting 97-98 where he didnt play much)....

-Henry has been involved (goals and assists) in 47.79% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons.... (almost exactly the same as Wright's percentage)

the difference between Wright's last 2 seasons and Henry's is....
-Arsenal scored a total of 144 goals in Wright's last 2 full seasons...
-Arsenal scored a total of 224 goals in Henry's last 2 seasons....


full of useless stats am i...

Wright missed most of his last season with Arsenal due to bad hamstring injury, didn't he :?:

Don't take my next question wrong:

Last sunday's game, anybody thinks Ian Wright would have been more aggressive against the Chelski's Defense?

They both Are my Heros :angel

 

[Tegh]

Whos better ian wright or thierry henry at their peak?..

Imo ian wright is the better goal-scorer.Thus,making him the greatest goal-scorer for Arsenal in their histroy.However, i feel Henry is more of a complete player than Wright,in the sense that he passes, assists others, wheras wright would simply be the man at the end of the passes to score the goals.Ian Wright was born to score goals,wheras Henry wasnt.Henry had to practice becoming a striker.

It is hard to separate them,as to say which one is better.But if one could only choose one of them in the team i think people would choose Henry.was at any point Ian Wright considered world class?

The question is who is more of a arsenal legend ?...I think Wright was more loved by the arsenal fans than henry is now. Maybe because of the nationality,or maybe personality..Wright was like a typical londoner,so arsenal fans could relate to him etc..

anyway,who is more of a arsenal legend, wright or henry?..you decide!

I agree whoel heartedly. Ian Wright is the bomb, he got his goals quicker than Henry did, and it's remarkable how well he did considering he didn't make it as a player until he was quite old, due to some bad luck, and dumbass scouting on behalf of other clubs. In one instance he was a trialist, performed better than any of their current strikers, and they still let him go, their loss.

I also agree with what Canuck said:

Wrighty was more of a character though. Great guy.

As for Wrighty, he wasn't just a goal scorer, he was a great player, and character. His determination and presence spurred the team on, and he wasn't a bad team player either, he helped set up quite a few goals.

Anyone saying anything about his international career, read his auto-biography. All that's relevant is stated there. Graham Taylor was a total idiot, didn't give Wrighty a chance, and because he broke into the world of football late, he didn't have as long as Henry has had to establish himself, which makes it even more remarkable.

I also agree with the guy who said Wrighty was our main source of goals as he often played up front alone. Arsenal also weren't considered to be one of the top two teams back then if i recall, although they were definitely a force to be reckoned with, so imagine Wrighty playing with a more successful side. (No disrespect to the side of the 90's, as they had some awesome players, Limpar, Merson, Parlous, Bergkamp, Adams, Bould, Dixon, Winterburn, Seaman.) As for the comment on the Carling Cup, it's reputation has declined over the years, when we won it twice with Wrighty it wasn't considered to be a Mickey Mouse cup.

Legend.

 

[USArsenal]

useless statistics:

-Wright scored 33.75% of his teams total goals in the time he was at Arsenal
-Henry has scored 27.63% of his teams total goals in his time at Arsenal

I could not get assist records past the 95-96 season, so i will only judge this next based on the last 2 FULL seasons for each player:

-Wright was involved (goals and assists) in 47.81% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons (not counting 97-98 where he didnt play much)....

-Henry has been involved (goals and assists) in 47.79% of his teams goals in his last 2 full seasons.... (almost exactly the same as Wright's percentage)

the difference between Wright's last 2 seasons and Henry's is....
-Arsenal scored a total of 144 goals in Wright's last 2 full seasons...
-Arsenal scored a total of 224 goals in Henry's last 2 seasons....


full of useless stats am i...

Wright missed most of his last season with Arsenal due to bad hamstring injury, didn't he :?:

Don't take my next question wrong:

Last sunday's game, anybody thinks Ian Wright would have been more aggressive against the Chelski's Defense?

They both Are my Heros :angel

my stats were not including that last season when he was injured for most of it.. it was for the previous 2 seasons (that's why i said "full" seasons)...

you cont compare what Wright may have done in that match, since it is a different game now.. you can say he would have been more aggressive, but he wouldnt have had the MF support or the time to do much either since Chelsea's defence pretty much shut us down all day... different times, different teams, different playing styles.. impossible to compare.. that's like asking how Henry would have done back then, no one has an answer for it...

 

[USArsenal]

he didn't have as long as Henry has had to establish himself, which makes it even more remarkable.

establish himself how? with Arsenal? the reason I ask is because Wright and Henry scored the same amount of goals for the club in their first season (26).... im not sure what you mean by establish himself...

 

[DC Gunner]

my stats were not including that last season when he was injured for most of it.. it was for the previous 2 seasons (that's why i said "full" seasons)...

Ok, I see now ops:

you cont compare what Wright may have done in that match, since it is a different game now.. you can say he would have been more aggressive, but he wouldnt have had the MF support or the time to do much either since Chelsea's defence pretty much shut us down all day... different times, different teams, different playing styles.. impossible to compare.. that's like asking how Henry would have done back then, no one has an answer for it...

I was merely asking a question about a style of play and not trying to cast a negative. While I enjoyed seeing both of them scoring plentiful of great goals, I like Wright's forward style of play more than Henry's. Additionally I have always felt that Wright was more Overt while Henry seemed calmer "not that is a negative perse".

But I can't emphasize more: they are both our players and we should be glad that they are. :twisted: