Peak Durrant or peak Barry?

Durrant could do everything. He was a midfielder that any team in the world would have wanted.

That injury robbed him of so much, watch his performances from 92/93 and realise he was only about 60-70% of what he was before and he's STILL the best on the park.

Barry was terrific, but Durrant (like Mols maybe) was on a different level entirely.
 
I’m not going to enter the argument about Durrant v Gascogne, because we didn’t get the opportunity to see the contest played out to a finish. But for me there is no argument about Durrant v Barry Ferguson, Durrant was simply the greater talent.
 
That doesn't mean much tbh. the rest of your post I'll not argue too much, we got a better product from Gazza and he reached the heights, but sadly Durrant should have been better.
It probably sounds a bit shite putting it that way, and I know the SFA had people like Malpas and Tom Boyd instead of Davie Robertson, Colin Calderwood instead of Richard Gough and Leighton instead of Goram at times, but Durrant was a year older than Gazza and surely should have been seen more internationally if he was that good?
 
I think my OP question has been badly phrased. I'm not asking who was the better player.

Ferguson was a general, the lynchpin in the middle who dominated possession and the opposition and who conducted the team. He played deeper but also could get forward and scored his share of goals.

Durrant was more a dynamic, quick passing, goal threat midfielder who got ahead of the forwards and whose timing in those runs to score or create was incredible.

Which of those types would we most benefit from tomorrow?
 
Durrant had all the potential in the world. Could’ve gone all the way to the top.

That said, I’m still going for Barry. He didn’t suffer the bad injury and was the best player to come out of Scotland during the change in football to elite level. Barry was a midfield peacock - strutting about, gallas as fcuk. Stood out amongst unbelievable talent. A leader born to win. A warrior who had the technical ability too.

I only hope we have a homegrown player of the ability of either again.
 
I would say Barry

Ian was an incredible player who had a career unfulfilled because of injury. He could’ve been world class, I think Barry at his peak was world class.

Some of his performance against Ince, Scholes, Effenberg etc he could’ve played in any midfield.
 
Durrant by a country mile, Barry was an exceptionally good player but Durrant is the best young Scottish player in my lifetime. He could have been world class that is not hyperbole in the slightest.
 
2 wonderful midfield players who came through the ranks and who gave us iconic Tim slaying moments.
The 2 best players to come through our youth system in the last 40 years.

The Ian Durrant pre injury 1986 to 1988.
The Barry Ferguson 1999 to 2003 before he went to Blackburn.

I genuinely don't think there has been another Scottish born midfield player since Souness who comes close to either.

If you had to pick one of them from those peak years to come back in a time machine and play tomorrow, which one would you want?



The only people who choose Barry must not have seen Durrant in his prime. Dynamite.
I think my OP question has been badly phrased. I'm not asking who was the better player.

Ferguson was a general, the lynchpin in the middle who dominated possession and the opposition and who conducted the team. He played deeper but also could get forward and scored his share of goals.

Durrant was more a dynamic, quick passing, goal threat midfielder who got ahead of the forwards and whose timing in those runs to score or create was incredible.

Which of those types would we most benefit from tomorrow?

Same answer. Durrant.
 
I seen Durrant in his prime. He was outstanding.
Given the fact that he missed a great deal of his career through injury.
I would pick Ferguson.
He Captained the team, was also brilliant and won more trophies.
Durrant went missing in a great deal of games back then.
that's more to do with the players he had around him.
Both great players though.
 
Durrant never reached his peak. Wonderful player as was Barry.
 
By the way, peak both would have been the almost perfect midfield combination.
Barry bossing it and taking it from defence and building attacks.
Durrant a bit in front of him going middle to front, probing and linking and making his late runs.
What a pairing they would’ve been.
 
Looking back over the 9 inar vids. Durrant was so good at times. I’d pick him.

People often forget this, post injury he was still a fantastic player for us, as I mentioned in my post above, he won lots of honours with us, scored in cup finals, had motm performances in cup finals, scored in old firm games, played and scored in the Champions League too.
 
I hope this is not hyperbole but Ian Durrant could have been one of the greats,, Barry was a great player who I loved watching but Durrant was a one in a generation type player, who played the game in a unique way.
 
Durrant every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It still saddens me to think what we were robbed of by that scumbag.

A genuine once in a lifetime talent.
 
Last edited:
I was only 5 when Durrant got his injury so I'd defer to older bears on this one. My old man to this day is adamant Durrant would've been equal to or better than Gazza, never mind Barry.
I would say there were 3 exceptional young midfield players of that time, Hagi, Gascoigne and Durrant, who was the best?
 
Simply not true, Durrant battled back to win titles and cups with Rangers, scored in cup finals, turned in many wonderful performances, was a pivotal part of our greatest side ever, also scored home and away in the Champions League for us too.
But was he better than Barry after injury? The answer is no.

Keep in mind Durrants injury was at age 21
 
I was 5 when Durrant was assaulted and have no memory of him pre injury so I'm not able to form an opinion.

My first real memory of him was his goal against Marseilles and its still one of the sweetest strikes I can think of.

I
 
I was too young to appreciate peak Durrant but surprised by the way this thread is going.

Ferguson at the age of 21/22 was going toe-to-toe with the likes of Effenberg, Matthäus, Scholes and Ince and playing them all off the pitch.

By the time he left us in 2003, he had added goals to his game, the one thing the young Fergie was lacking.
He suffered a serious knee injury not long having joined Blackburn. I’d wager he’d have left Blackburn for one of the real giants of the EPL within a year or two had he avoided that.

A bit like Durrant in that sense, although of course Ferguson’s injury was not inflicted in an act of sheer malicious evil.
 
Its telling the silence you see about durrant and that injury never seen many journos going on about it that Scotland got robbed of a genuine star

but when John Kennedy got crocked different story

Barry for me because I grew up watching him
 
Being old enough to have seen and enjoyed watching two very gifted players;

Durrant, quite simply the best Scottish midfield talent since Slim Jim.
 
Barry in the years mentioned was a top top player.

Fantastic talent who dominated games against top opposition.

His performance against Bayern at Ibrox in 1999 at age 21 was phenomenal.

Durrant was better.
 
Durrant was just before my time but I refuse to believe he was better than Ferguson.

Barry Ferguson captaining a star studded Rangers team, at 21, and being the best player on the park more often than not, is still under appreciated.

Ferguson’s performance for Scotland in the playoff v England was absolute outstanding as well. I’m sure he was only 20/21 at the time. He was head and shoulders the best player on the pitch that day.
 
I’m not sure, it’s hard to be objective as I’m clouded by an early love of durrant. He was incredible.
BUT for equally 2 years Ferguson was arguably in the top young midfielders in Europe. He marched through the champions league under advocaat against the best in the world and at times made the best of midfielders look amateurish. He made a massive career mistake going to Blackburn and never fully recovered.

I’m going to settle on both were different players. If I could one for tomorrow it would be Ferguson.
 
I remember watching Saint and Greavsie one Saturday and the wonderful Ray Wilkins was the guest.

The two old boys were gushing over Gazza and what a player he was. They were correct, Gazza at that point was the dominant young midfielder in England and was superb.

In steps gentleman Ray to tell them in as many words, "Gazza is extremely good but there's a boy in Glasgow with Rangers who you're ignoring. His name is Ian Durrant and he's going to be in the top 3 midfielders in Europe".

Saint and Greavsie didn't doubt him, it was just that they didn't know too much about him. So, when one of English footballs most experienced midfielders gives that sort of prediction, they couldn't argue.

My aunts dad, Archie Lawrie was the scout who picked up Durrant and they remained friends until his passing.

Ian Durrant was unique.
 
It probably sounds a bit shite putting it that way, and I know the SFA had people like Malpas and Tom Boyd instead of Davie Robertson, Colin Calderwood instead of Richard Gough and Leighton instead of Goram at times, but Durrant was a year older than Gazza and surely should have been seen more internationally if he was that good?

Durrant was only 20/21 when he was injured, the way Scotland was then there is no way a 18-20/1 year old gets into the team. However I may be wrong on that it was a while ago. He wasn't d

Just had a look at a Scotland team from 86, who does he replace here? I'm not saying he isn't good enough, but the mindset of his age against the established players. When you look at that team, remember gough can;t even get a start as a centre half!

 
Back
Top