Shearer or Suarez?

Shearer wouldn’t have a chance in the modern game.

No pace, not much of an athlete and not a great link-up player. He’d probably bang in the goals at Championship level. But unfortunately the game at the top level has changed and players like him wouldn’t have enough of the physical attributes to be as impactful as they were in the 90s.

Hang on....wait.....whit ?
 
Shearer wouldn’t have a chance in the modern game.

No pace, not much of an athlete and not a great link-up player. He’d probably bang in the goals at Championship level. But unfortunately the game at the top level has changed and players like him wouldn’t have enough of the physical attributes to be as impactful as they were in the 90s.

Over the years i’ve read a lot of utter shite on here but that is up there.
 
Shearer, The complete striker. Hard as nails and clever with it too. Suarez is a superb world class player in his own right though. I would pick Shearer ahead of him every time though.
Was going to say the same, as you say shearer was the complete striker and had everything in his game
 
Shearer wouldn’t have a chance in the modern game.

No pace, not much of an athlete and not a great link-up player. He’d probably bang in the goals at Championship level. But unfortunately the game at the top level has changed and players like him wouldn’t have enough of the physical attributes to be as impactful as they were in the 90s.
That’s just mental
 
I'm wondering if some of the posters are a bit younger & remembering the latter Alan Shearer, rather than the prime Shearer who had pace, power, and could score goals from anywhere.
 
I'm wondering if some of the posters are a bit younger & remembering the latter Alan Shearer, rather than the prime Shearer who had pace, power, and could score goals from anywhere.

Prime Shearer scored 172 goals in 4 and a half seasons, that's including coming back from a cruciate ligament injury that kept him out for 8 months.

The injury at Goodison where he basically destroyed his ankle in 1997 was the one that forced him into modifying his game and even then he still hit nearly 200 goals in the next 7 years.

The idea that Shearer couldn't hack it in today's Premier League is insanity.
 
Prime Shearer scored 172 goals in 4 and a half seasons, that's including coming back from a cruciate ligament injury that kept him out for 8 months.

The injury at Goodison where he basically destroyed his ankle in 1997 was the one that forced him into modifying his game and even then he still hit nearly 200 goals in the next 7 years.

The idea that Shearer couldn't hack it in today's Premier League is insanity.

Agreed. I think if they were talking about someone like Ian Wright, I could understand their thinking as he played more like a young Defoe, but Shearer was more like a Drogba type with his all round game.
 
Shearer wouldn’t have a chance in the modern game.

No pace, not much of an athlete and not a great link-up player. He’d probably bang in the goals at Championship level. But unfortunately the game at the top level has changed and players like him wouldn’t have enough of the physical attributes to be as impactful as they were in the 90s.

Championship level?! You are at the trolling mate or you are a youngster!
 
Can't argue with Shearers goal record but peak Suarez > Shearer pretty comfortably imo. Too many folk can't see past English Football at times.
 
I’ll interpret the question as who would I have wanted to see at no 9 for us. Shearer every time. Suarez is a wonderful player but Shearer would have scored goals and terrorised the Tims as well. Plus he kicked TLRB in the heid.
 
Shearer wouldn’t have a chance in the modern game.

No pace, not much of an athlete and not a great link-up player. He’d probably bang in the goals at Championship level. But unfortunately the game at the top level has changed and players like him wouldn’t have enough of the physical attributes to be as impactful as they were in the 90s.
I regularly read opinions on here I disagree with, but generally think “fair enough, maybe they are a better judge than me”. Sometimes I read a post and wonder what on Earth the poster is thinking. It’s very rare that I read something and question whether the poster has ever watched a game of football in their life.
The people choosing Suarez fall into the first category. This post very, very much falls into that 3rd ....
 
Shearer for me.

I am sure some of the posters who prefer Suarez will be younger (under 35) and didnt appreciate how good Alan Shearer actually was.

Cant believe he never went to the 2002 and 2004 tournaments with England. He would have done a job for them at those.
 
Are folk serious when they call Shearer a poacher ?

Shearer had the lot as a striker - Pace, power, aggression, headers, volleys, free kicks. Didn't matter if it was 5 yards or 35 yards - that net was getting burst.

The idea he was just a poacher is wrong.

I also find this a laughable suggestion.

Shearer wins this for me.
 
Everyone saying that Shearer was the better goal scorer - Suárez has already scored c.30 more goals in c.100 fewer games for club and pretty much double Shearer’s tally for country (more games but better ratio).
Even if you just look at their time in England (or exclude his time in Holland), Suarez has a better ratio.
 
Last edited:
As above, two very different players so a difficult argument. As an out and out striker Shearer is better than Suarez. However, Suarez can do a lot more on the wings and supporting from behind. Also a very good finisher but not at the level Shearer was.

Shearer is a bit of a prick however Suarez is a completely, total and utter c##t so Shearer wins for me.
Shearer for me as well and your reasoning more or less covers it.
 
My first thought was Shearer beast of a player, but when i look at their careers in more detail I am leaning towards Suarez. Think he is the better football player and also has scored more goals at club and international level and still has a couple of years left. 371 goals in total, around 50 more goals than Shearer.
 
Comparing footballers is based only on opinion, mine is that Shearer was better by a long way.
 
Longevity- Shearer for me. Shearer wasn’t just a poacher. Could be a nasty bastard when needed too.

Watching the Euro 96 games back last month and one thing you took from the England games was how tough and dirty Shearer was. A great player perfect for the English game.
 
Shearer was amazing, strong, fast, great running down the lines when needed. Great finisher, a shot nearly as powerful as the hammer, great in the air. A real top drawer centre forward.
 
I’d rather have Suarez. Better all round I’d say plus I think as a defender he’d be an absolute nightmare to play against.
 
Different generations pretty much and the game has evolved even in the past 15-20 years.

Shearer was the ultimate old fashioned British centre-forward.

Suarez has or had far more strings to his bow.
 
Shearer for me.

I am sure some of the posters who prefer Suarez will be younger (under 35) and didnt appreciate how good Alan Shearer actually was.

Cant believe he never went to the 2002 and 2004 tournaments with England. He would have done a job for them at those.

People become better players the longer they have stopped playing as well though and there's a definite element of nostalgia when looking back at older eras or players you enjoyed growing up so it works both ways.

For a couple of years, Suarez was arguably the best player on the planet behind Messi and Ronaldo who are both in the top 5 players ever to play the game. Was Shearer ever at the level that he was considered the best number 9 on the planet?
 
Taking all round game into it I go with Shearer, suarez all round game included biting and an awful lot of dragging studs down players achillies.
 
Shearer was a top class player but you could argue that Suarez was the best player in the world around about 2013 - 2016, certainly top 5. I don't think Shearer ever reached they heights.

Suarez all day for me.
 
Back
Top