Long Live The King of Kings - Henrik Larsson Retires.

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 4:22pm

Quote:

Striker Henrik Larsson fought back the tears as he said farewell to football and admitted his decision to retire had left an "emptiness".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...pe/8332552.stm

Apologies if this is a shite soundtrack, I've no speakers.

YouTube - Henrik Larsson tribute video

A true legend.
One of the best, if not the best Striker that's ever played in Scotland.
One of the best players ever to play in Scotland.
The best foreign player ever to play in Scotland.
The best Celtic player I've ever seen.
European Golden Boot winner (2000–01)
Footballer Writers Player of the Year: (1998–99, 2000–01)
Players' Player of the Year (1998–99, 2000–01)
UEFA Cup Top Goalscorer (2002-03)
SPL Top Goalscorer (1998–99, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04)
Scottish Football Hall of Fame (inducted 2006)
Swedish Football All-time best Swedish football player
All-time leading SPL scorer (158 goals)
UEFA Greatest Swedish Footballer of the last 50 Years: (2003)

4 Scottish Premier League titles
2 Scottish League Cups
2 Scottish Cups
2 La Liga Titles.
a Spanish Super Cup
a Swedish Cup.
A English Premier League Title
A Champions League Winner.

And h*nskelper.

YouTube - Henrik Larsson. Legendry Goal

stef4 · 29th October 2009, 4:27pm

there isn't one player in the celtic team that could lace his boots, nevermind fill them. a genuine legend!

Westy · 29th October 2009, 4:34pm

I'd argue that Laudrup was better...

But aye one of the best players to ever play in Scotland.

He single handedly won that CL for Barca btw.

**Kenny Everett** · 29th October 2009, 4:38pm

Aye, but you'd argue the earth was square

Laudrup was different class, I'll grant you.. but not up to henrik (in my opinion).

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 4:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westy

I'd argue that Laudrup was better...

Course you would...

Laudrup was a great player, Henrik was a step above.
You'll be hard pushed to find anyone outwith FollowFollow and VanGaurd bears who'll agree with you.

Westy · 29th October 2009, 4:44pm

Laudrup was always 2/3 moves ahead of everybody else. Lightning quick, amazing with the ball at feet, great finisher.

Overall I think Laudrup is better, Henrik was a better finisher aye. Strikers always get more plaudits than midfielders. But if you were judging them everything about them, Laudrup would edge it.

But aye they would be the first two names on the best players XV to play in Scotland.

Met Henrik in Bellshill a few times, couldn't have been nicer. One of the few Celtic players I actually liked.

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 4:47pm

Listen, this is no about Laudrup...As much as you'd like it to be.
Away and look at what each player won, then come back to me.

Westy · 29th October 2009, 4:51pm

I don't measure players on what they won. Some of the best players ever, never won a thing. Thats stupid.

You can't say Henrik was better than Laudrup because he won more than him.

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 4:54pm

Well you can aye.
Some great players that never won thing, were so loyal to a certain club that it harmed their career (to some extent).
Henrik Larsson spent years as the best player in Scotland, went onto Barcelona and won the champions league. Then he joined Man Utd.

Whatever measure of a player you want to take, Larsson was better.
BL was good aye, but he's not held in the same regard as Larsson anywhere, by anyone.

Laudrup played 10 games for Milan or something, then moved to Rangers.
Then went onto Chelsea and mediocrity.

stef4 · 29th October 2009, 4:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westy

Some of the best players ever, never won a thing.

who?

crazydiamond85 · 29th October 2009, 5:02pm

At least Westy isn't comparing him to Kris Boyd

I honestly think he was the best player I ever seen live.

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 5:07pm

He would be, if I hadn't seen Zidane, Ronaldinho, Messi, Ronaldo, Ramon Vega.

Westy · 29th October 2009, 5:12pm

Laudrup was better I think.

Maybe it'd be good to get a non biased point of view. Ask some folk who don't support Rangers or Celtic.

And footballers that won very little that should have won more, Davie Cooper is one. George Best only had 3 winners medals.

You cannae really compare players by how many medals they won. I mean Mo Ross and Kevin Muscat won the treble with us!

Henrik does have an immpressive well deserved haul but that doesn't make him better than other players who have won less.

Zippy · 29th October 2009, 5:23pm

To come back from that leg break and score 50 goals in a season is mind-boggling, easily the best player I've seen in the Hoops and the best player to have played in Scotland for me. There's a baw hair between the two players (Larsson and Laudrup) but what he done at Celtic and what he done afterwards makes Larsson better in my eyes.

Jaemi · 29th October 2009, 5:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westy

I don't measure players on what they won. Some of the best players ever, never won a thing. Thats stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stef4

who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westy

And footballers that won very little that should have won more, Davie Cooper is one. George Best only had 3 winners medals.

Still waiting

You might be right but I'm trying not to be biased.

Whether you agree with it or not, what a player achieved in his career is the best way we have of comparing who's better or worse. I agree there have been a few exceptions, however HL has excelled at every level and has won both trophies and plaudits for doing so.

Really, I'm no being biased.
BL was a brilliant player, I just think that....(dunno how to phrase this) his wider ability, acheivements and respect, isn't in the same bracket as Henrik's.

You said it yourself. In a CL Final between Arsenal and Barcelona, Henrik Larsson stood out and changed the game.