There's no anti-Arsenal bias or attempt to be 'edgy' in leaving Thierry Henry out of my top 5 when everybody wants him in - the game is about opinions... and not just the ones we all agree on

• e-mail

Just be honest Martin. You did it for the clicks. Stephen, London.

This is an article whose sole objective is to create controversy and get clicks. Rebel66, Vienna.

This is just your typical click bait controversial article. Thierry Henry would 100 per cent make a top five list of any normal person. Looger5, Liverpool.

Click bait king. JohnnyG, Melbourne.

Clickbait. Henry is in the top five all day long. Mr Herbert, Manchester.

Oh, don’t flatter yourselves. Clickbait? You really think I care? If I wanted to, I could do one of these an hour, in my sleep. The fact is, I never go near them. My sports editor teased me about it after I filed this. That he loves list articles, and I never write them, and he hates baseball and American sports and I always reference them. And long before the internet was a thing, newspapers ran list columns. There were no personal computers, nobody to click. It was just interesting. It got people talking. 

Thierry Henry was a Premier League great but he didn't make my top five foreigners list

I can remember ghosting articles for ex-professionals on their greatest England XI 30 years ago. I wrote a book with Malcolm Macdonald published in 1985 and the final chapter was his 10 best goalscorers. Lists in newspapers pre-date your quivering mouse.

This column came about because, with Sergio Aguero breaking Manchester City’s scoring record, there was a lot of debate over whether he makes the Premier League’s greatest foreign players. For my own amusement, last Saturday morning, I started making my own list. I had a lot of names, but difficulty separating them. So I came up with the deciding factor of long-term influence, an impact that went beyond matches. Then I could start crossing names out. 

Had Liverpool won the league, for instance, I’m pretty sure Luis Suarez would have been in. I ended up with a three-way tie for one place: Henry versus Dennis Bergkamp versus Patrick Vieira. I decided to go with one of the players who were part of Arsene Wenger’s initial Arsenal revolution. But I felt so guilty about leaving Henry out, because I thought he was such a great player, that I went for Bergkamp’s flair over midfield general Vieira. And then I thought: ‘That’s interesting.’ One of the most wonderful players I have ever seen, Henry, and he’s not in my top five. That’s when I thought it would make a good column. And, of course, if the five had been the same as everybody else’s it wouldn’t. 

But I didn’t make it that way deliberately; it just happened. The best three foreign players I’ve seen in English football, in terms of pure technique and ability? Cristiano Ronaldo, Suarez, Henry. You’ll note two didn’t make my five greatest, because it wasn’t just about being able to play. It was change, revolution, making a difference, altering perceptions of what is possible. Do I really need someone to tell me Henry ‘oozed class’? Do you need to be told that? It’s a cliche and a very obvious one.  

And that’s why I don’t write lists: because they’re obvious. I also don’t name my England team if it’s the same as the one the manager is picking. That doesn’t mean I name an alternate one to be edgy or controversial. I just don’t go there, as a subject. If Henry was in my list, I wouldn’t have dropped him for the sake of it. I just would have shrugged and thought, ‘Yeah, I think the same as everybody else’ and I would have written the column about Chelsea. I never write for clicks. They happen or they don’t.

Putting Sergio Aguero and N’Golo Kante in while leaving out Henry makes you guilty of recent bias, and discredits your entire piece. You are trying to garner clicks by adding shock value instead of acknowledging a well-known and heavily agreed upon point. GSX, United States.

Oh, I see. It’s heavily agreed upon, so it’s right. I don’t actually think like that. Here’s a piece of music that gives me goose bumps. I think it’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever heard. I hope, by the end, you will be better informed of the respect I have for what is heavily agreed upon.

Point one: some people have short attention spans and struggle to retain information.

From the criteria specified it’s hard to argue. However, this should perhaps have been reflected in the headline. I’m sure half the people commenting here skipped straight to the list and didn't read the article. Luke400, London.

I don’t even have to read the article. Not having Henry in the list is embarrassing for any football fan. CommonSenseDM, London.

Pointless reading past headline. Henry makes top five all day. Paul Banks, Tokyo.

Well, it wasn’t pointless because then you would have understood the point. You wouldn’t have to agree with it, but you would at least be informed of the parameters of the debate, and you wouldn’t look a close-minded fool. As for embarrassment, surely that would be commenting without actually reading the piece. But I understand. It’s all about you posting your little bit of dribble. And now you have. Well done, you.

After reading the title, it was straight to the comments and I do not regret it. How in the world can you omit Henry in the top five foreign players? Yandaman, Liverpool.

Well, you’d need to read the article to have that question answered, wouldn’t you, genius?

Leicester won with a unique spirit during a hearty momentum. Kante is given too much credit. Deep down, Henry is in your top three let alone your top five, but we know the truth of this matter: you need a headline. Jantoin, London.

I’ve got plenty of headlines, mate. What I need is more readers who understand them. See below.

Anyone who thinks Kante is deserving of a top-five spot should never watch football ever again. I could list 20 players who are easily better. Jmanchester94, Manchester.

Yes, so could I. But this wasn’t about who is best at football. It was about something more. I did rather explain that, at some length.

Henry for the over-hyped Bergkamp; Ryan Giggs for Eric Cantona likewise. Steven Gerrard, Roy Keane, Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard even, have all got much stronger claims than Kante. TweetyPie, Stockport.

Not to being foreign they don’t.

Your argument for leaving Henry out lacks all credibility when you put Ronaldo as number one. Manchester United had won the Premier League seven times when he arrived in 2003, so therefore you can’t say he transformed them. Henry is the greatest player in the Premier League. The game is about opinions I know, but it’s a bit of a coincidence when everyone has the same opinion about Henry. Pat, London.

Yes, but everyone has the same opinion about Adele and I’m not having that either. Also, can’t you read? I didn’t say Ronaldo transformed Manchester United. He transformed something far greater: the perception of English football abroad. He was the best player in our best season, 2007-08, when our league was regarded as the best in the world. Once he left, that title – albeit unquantifiable – went to La Liga, where it has remained ever since.

You just tried to be edgy man, admit it. There was no pure striker that had Henry’s style before he came to the Premier League, and he came as a winger, from Juventus, after an underwhelming season. Also, Kante needs way more seasons here. You probably know all of this, but then again, it wouldn't have been controversial. Ventor, United Kingdom.

Not an Arsenal fan but Kante ahead of Henry… just, no. It smacks of trying to look for something that isn’t there and trying to appear clever. Kante was not a patch on Henry at his best, even accounting for the fact that they were different types of player. Johnny1, Dublin.

Henry thrilled us for almost a decade with his skill, speed and sublime touches, he was also a match winner. This guy knows nothing of football if he leaves out Henry of the top five players to grace the Premier League. K-Patrick, London.

Thank you all for insightfully pointing out that Henry was a good footballer. I really hadn’t spotted that. And I’m glad you acknowledge, Johnny, that Kante and Henry were quite different players. Might that be the first clue to understanding that they were not being compared on any technical level, on being exciting to watch, on ‘sublime touches’ or any of the blindingly obvious distinctions made here. Are you really all so conformist in your thinking that you believe any view that differs from the norm, has to have a motive behind it? This is not about being edgy or clever but of alighting on a means of separation between great talents. When Daley Thompson listed his greatest British athletes, he did not include Andy Murray. He reasoned that to be on his all-time list an athlete had to be the undisputed No 1 at his or her sport. Murray, he said, was never considered the best in the world (he hadn’t risen to No 1 at the time, but I doubt that has changed Daley’s mind). I disagreed with Daley, because sports are relative. In terms of competition it might be harder to be tennis No 1 in the time of Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic, than to be, say, cycling’s No 1 now. But I could understand and respect his reasoning. And I did at least bother to read it and pay attention.

Yaya Toure was Manchester City’s most influential player. Aguero is just a goalscorer who will be leapfrogged by Gabriel Jesus, Leroy Sane and Kevin De Bruyne as a City great. My top five would be Suarez, Ronaldo, Henry, Vieira/Bergkamp and Kante. Abs, Manchester.

So your top five is actually a top six? I think we can end this section here. Thanks. For. That.

Sergio Aguero breaking City's scoring record was the spark for the original column

Point two: it didn’t actually start in 1992, you know.

I'm sure Martin Samuel is after the Paul Merson award for Least Football Knowledge. Bergkamp is my favourite player, but Henry transformed us more than any other. He transformed the Premier League, he transformed forward play that said you had to operate inside the lines of the 18-yard box, score the goals rather than create them. I cannot fathom this level of stupidity. Fensom1981, Kent.

He started that? Really? Because I swear what you are talking about was actually the creation of a gentleman called Gusztav Sebes, coach of Hungary from 1949 to 1957. Sebes invented the concept of the deep-lying centre forward. Most teams from the period played with a high central striker and two wingers. Sebes pulled his centre forward back to the midfield, and used wingers to augment the midfield when defending. This allowed a swift change from defence to attack, while also drawing defenders out of position as they tracked the central striker deep. Now, as someone who only has Paul Merson’s football knowledge – and if you don’t know what he did for your club, by the way, you really are a mug – this sounds very similar to Arsenal’s withdrawn forward line of Henry, Bergkamp, Robert Pires and Freddie Ljungberg. But it can’t be because, as you say, Henry invented that in 2004 – so Sebes can’t have been doing it 54 years earlier.

How on earth is Kante ahead of Claude Makelele, who was so good a position was named after him? Allthingsconsidered, United States.

What, holding midfield? The position Graeme Souness says he played for Liverpool when they won three European Cups between 1978 and 1984? Yes, Makelele was definitely first to that.

Didn’t Henry transform Arsenal to win in the Invincibles season? Arsenal became a European heavyweight after Henry joined them, reaching the Champions League final and losing to Barcelona, through UEFA bias. You’re merely fishing for comments which you are receiving in abundance. Bips, Melbourne.

I think it takes more than a Champions League final defeat followed by one semi-final appearance in the 12 seasons after to make a European heavyweight, Bips. Arsenal are cruiserweights, at best. Their last eight seasons have comprised seven straight exits in the first knockout stage, and now a year in the Europa League. As for that glorious runners-up season, it was based on defensive organisation not scintillating attack. The ties with Real Madrid and Villarreal were won 1-0 on aggregate each time; Juventus were beaten 2-0 on aggregate. Half of Arsenal’s knockout matches to the final ended in goalless draws. As for the final, Jens Lehmann was deservedly sent off; the alternative would have been to play advantage, when Barcelona would have scored. As, in that moment, Arsenal’s tight, counter-attacking game plan would have been rendered useless, they would have had to open up and my guess is Barcelona would have won by three. They were that good on the night. As it is, they won 2-1 and Arsenal fans have dined out on the injustice ever since. Maybe that is the story you have been told – because you surely can’t have watched the match, or you would know the best side won.

Point three: occasionally, somebody gets it.

Everyone is saying, ‘Why no Henry?’ – but Samuel literally writes why he has personally not chosen to include him. Surely read that before asking? There are so many amazing players to choose from, a choice of five isn’t nearly enough to cover it. Therefore, he has chosen to base his five on slightly different parameters to the norm. You can’t deny that the players chosen here are greats, so all that’s left is a difference of opinion on how much they influenced the game. He’s not saying Kante is a better player than Henry. My five would be different to Martin’s, but what is the point of asking where Henry is? Why not give an opinion yourself so that your choices can be picked apart, instead of some inane dribble about Samuel not knowing football? Jones789work, Manchester.

To be fair, some people did, but they often tended to be the five names most would have predicted (Cantona, Henry, Suarez, Ronaldo, Gianfranco Zola) and, as I said, had I shared that opinion I would not have made it a column. I didn’t see one serious name that was truly different or challenging, except the thoughts of this chap…

A top five seems like a cop out. There are so many to choose from and you just take the easy option of picking big players who achieved. Many more foreign players had a greater impact for lesser clubs. Nick, Hull.

…but then he didn’t leave his list, which was disappointing. If you’re out there, Nick, I’d be fascinated with your top five unsung foreign heroes. And while we wait, the semi-appropriate Hero Theme. Not for those quick to offence, by the way.

Point four: a bunch of Kantes.

I suggest you read your own column from a couple of years ago. You lambasted Roy Hodgson for selecting his Ballon d’Or three of Javier Mascherano, Philipp Lahm and Manuel Neuer. I accuse you of being a similar football snob. Henry is only behind Lionel Messi and Ronaldo, no one else. The Kantes of this world are two a penny. Roger, Portsmouth.

But they’re not Roger, otherwise he wouldn’t have completed a feat unparalleled in 129 years of English football. Equally, Kante is the exception from my shortlist, the only defensive player. I picked four forwards, one holding midfielder. Hodgson’s three comprised solely defenders, ignoring the greatest forwards, Messi and Ronaldo. It seemed rather affected, too faux-sophisticated. Leave out one of them – but both?

Proof, as if we needed it, of Samuel's anti-Arsenal bias. Thierry Henry was an absolute genius. And Kante? Has he caused more of a transformation than Patrick Vieira? Think how long Vieira worked his influence on Arsenal's midfield and compare that with Kante. The Leicester and Chelsea man has done a great job, but is not in the same class as Vieira. Joe, Auckland.

So I’m biased against Arsenal because I just put one Arsenal player in my five, and not, what, three (considering you seem to have no objection to my inclusion of Bergkamp)? Don’t you think the bias might be with you? 

Two decent seasons as a defensive midfielder, bringing nothing going forward. Kante’s good at his job, but not in top 20 best. George79, United Kingdom.

Just decent were they? Not exceptional in the history of English football. The only player to win back-to-back titles, at two different clubs, playing a full season for each. And he brings nothing going forward? So breaking up the play and giving it to enable a swift counter-attacking transition was not the crucial part of Leicester and Chelsea’s strength? Maybe there is another sport you might understand better. Although not draughts because that’s counter attacking, too.

You’re incorrect, Mr Samuel. Mark Schwarzer did the exact same thing as Kante and won titles with Chelsea and Leicester in consecutive seasons. He might have been a bench warmer but he’s got the medals to prove it. Research please. Caribeblue, Mexico.

Research please? Do some of your own. Schwarzer joined Leicester on January 6, 2015, so did not complete a full season with Chelsea, the year they won the title. Equally, he played zero league games for Chelsea that year, and zero for Leicester in 2015-16. If he has medals, it is because his clubs have given him one, not because he is entitled for games played. Anyway, here’s some real research. There are six players who have won the English league title in consecutive seasons with different teams – but Kante is alone in completing a full season with both. Ralph Gaudie joined Sheffield United as a centre forward in 1897-98, before moving to Aston Villa the following year. However, Gaudie was not a full season at Sheffield United and made a total of just 11 appearances combined for the two clubs. Joe Clennell, another forward, left Blackburn Rovers in January of their title-winning season, 1913-14, and won the league at Everton the following year, 1914-15. Quitting Blackburn midway meant he only played four times for their title-winning side. Len Moorwood was a goalkeeper who turned out three times for West Brom in 1919-20 and once for Burnley in 1920-21, while Owen Hargreaves was another cameo: a single appearance for Manchester United in 2010-11 and the same again for Manchester City the next year. Schwarzer is down even from that: 0 and 0. This leaves Cantona as the only player to truly pull it off in the modern era – but even he did not play the full season at Leeds in 1991-92 or in winning the first Premier League title with Manchester United a year later. Kante stands alone in playing 37 and 35 games respectively and the full season at each club. That’s unique. And that’s research. So don’t patronise me with your half-baked, false, theories.

Kante has had two fantastic seasons, but top five of the Premier League era on the back of that? Henry and dozens of others had far bigger impacts not only on their teams, but also on the league and its status as the most watched in world football. They did it over a number of seasons, not just two. Kante wouldn’t even be in my top 50, let alone five. If he maintains it for the next four or five years I’ll think about it, but even then, he would probably still be behind Vieira in his position. TyOdi, Weston-Super-Mare.

If he maintains it? If he maintains what? Winning the league with a relegation candidate, or winning the league with a team that came 10th? Or both? I know, let’s see if anyone does it, ever again, and then see if they get in your 50. You know when Watford went fourth earlier this season, did you notice anything? This time, when pundits wondered whether they could maintain it, nobody laughed. Previously there would have been guffaws. Watford? Come fourth? Have you gone crazy? But now, people no longer mock the idea of a small club overachieving. Why? Leicester. Leicester have changed what we consider possible; or at least made the impossible seem attainable. I don’t know if you recall what it was like, the days when Queens Park Rangers, West Ham, Norwich or Watford could be in the mix come April – but in many ways the league was better for it. Football was more open, more unpredictable. And we thought those days had gone. But now we wonder if there could be another Leicester. I’ve seen a lot of great things in the sports arena in my life. But I have never, ever, felt as I did the day I drove to Leicester to see the title presentation. Even following my familiar route into town, I don’t think it had sunk in. I kept telling myself: Leicester have won the league; I am going to see Leicester win the league. And Kante was the beating heart of that. So you’re right. He shouldn’t be in there on the back of two good seasons. For me, and for a lot of people who know what it is like to follow a small club, he only needed one. And now, a takedown even Kante would be proud of.

N'Golo Kante - won back-to-back Premier league titles with two different clubs

How is Kante a great? He has scored about five goals in a three-season career as an outfield player. He has the worst passing accuracy. He has almost no assists. He cannot ping a pass, cannot take a corner, cannot take a free-kick, cannot dribble with the ball. He has only a high ball interception rate. Branislav Ivanovic and John Terry scored 16 goals between them in the 2014-15 season both being defenders. Not taking anything away from Kante but to be a great you must be a complete footballer. Kante wouldn’t get into the Real Madrid or Barcelona team. Watch him play for France and he’s bang average. Who would you rather have in your team: Vieira, Makelele, Alonso or Kante? Tricktrack, London.

Your first statement says it all. When the opening point someone makes about a footballer’s influence starts with goals and assist statistics, then that person does not know much about football. Kante is one of the most influential players I can think of because his presence makes others better. We saw the difference when Chelsea played Manchester United, although you probably did not notice because he did not score. Chinski the King, Nigeria.

Chinski, you are indeed the king. What an interception. I could add that if a person cannot understand the goal potential as an overlapping full back (Ivanovic) or as a centre half from set pieces (Terry) compared to a defensive midfield player (Kante), then what is the point? Equally, naming Makelele as preferable rather undermines the argument if goals are a criterion, seeing as Kante has scored as many in two and a bit seasons in England as Makelele did in his 11 seasons for Real Madrid, Chelsea and Paris Saint-Germain.

Point five: why Didier Drogba and Zola were absent.

Not only should Henry be in there, but Drogba should as well. He was another player who absolutely terrorised opposition defences, and did it over a period of time. I’d actually also put another Chelsea player above Kante at this point: Zola. He was a joy to watch, and even though I hated Chelsea he was one of those players you couldn’t help but love for their passion and joy for the game. John GT, London.

The problem with most readers is they let their sentiments get over their understanding. You only need to read and understand the criteria. Riyad Mahrez might have won the PFA Players’ Player of the Year at Leicester but what about the following year? Chelsea won the Premier League the following season, and Chelsea and Leicester had something in common. Kante. His work rate has changed the game so much. So Kante, not Mahrez, is the revolutionary. What I don't get is why Drogba isn’t on the list. He meets all the criteria and better than most on the list. Chelsea previously hadn’t won the league for 50 years, only Cantona equals his four title wins and, Ronaldo aside, he’s the only one to win the Champions League while playing in a Premier League side. Olumide A, Lagos.

All fair points and, obviously, both Zola and Drogba would have made an extended list of, say, 10. My feeling is that, strange as this may seem for a club with such a significant foreign contingent, what happened at Chelsea was driven by two English players: John Terry and Frank Lampard. Terry’s leadership and inspirational defensive qualities and Lampard’s goals from midfield were what propelled them into the elite. Zola was a pioneer, too, of course – but Chelsea as the force we now know started after his departure. And we’re stopping there. We’ve had some fine contributions from Nigeria today. Here’s another one. Until next time.