Chris Sutton or Mark Viduka

[TheCelt67]

Yep, couldn't get a game at all for Chelsea and was let go.

Sutton was fantastic for Celtic as was Viduka. Celtic fans will always choose Sutton because of how successful he was there and the fact he wanted to stay at the club where as Marko was ambitious enough to f**k off at the first opportunity. Most neutrals to the game would say Viduka was a much better technically gifted player though.

You never actually answered whether the "mediocre mid table" Chelsea you speak of is the same "finished 3rd the season before Sutton was signed, then finished 5th, won the FA Cup, and made it to the QF's of the Champions League in Suttons only season" Chelsea that I am speaking of. Or are we just hoping to ignore your lack of knowledge?

Sutton, played 30 games in his only season at Chelsea, not bad going for someone who "couldn't get a game at all". No question Sutton was a failure at Chelsea, but at least know what you are talking about before spouting the first thought that pops into that empty head of yours.

Sutton was fantastic for Celtic, and I will choose Sutton with the bias of what he done for us at Celtic, but Viduka is certainly the more gifted of the two, I don't dispute this, but pointing out your idiocy isn't that same as saying Sutton is better than Viduka.

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

Celtic fans are bitter that Viduka shafted them.

Sutton wasn't even as good as Hartson.

Sutton was much better than Hartson.

As for the question, Viduka was the more talented footballer. He really should have achieved more in the game with the level of talent he possessed.

[Rocky Balboa]

You never actually answered whether the "mediocre mid table" Chelsea you speak of is the same "finished 3rd the season before Sutton was signed, then finished 5th, won the FA Cup, and made it to the QF's of the Champions League in Suttons only season" Chelsea that I am speaking of. Or are we just hoping to ignore your lack of knowledge?

Sutton, played 30 games in his only season at Chelsea, not bad going for someone who "couldn't get a game at all". No question Sutton was a failure at Chelsea, but at least know what you are talking about before spouting the first thought that pops into that empty head of yours.

Sutton was fantastic for Celtic, and I will choose Sutton with the bias of what he done for us at Celtic, but Viduka is certainly the more gifted of the two, I don't dispute this, but pointing out your idiocy isn't that same as saying Sutton is better than Viduka.

So the Chelsea side Sutton flopped in wasn't mediocre in comparison with modern day sides no? He ended up playing against Paul Fenwick and Marvin Andrews instead of Jaap Stam and Sol Campbell.

Everyone also forgets that Celtics incredible run to the UEFA cup final began by getting pumped off a mediocre (that word again) Basel side at St Jakobs. Viduka got to the final by winning every game they played in and played the majority of his career in arguably the best league in the world and that included a champions league semi final also.

Sutton done well for himself on limited ability alongside better players such as Shearer and Larsson. Viduka was the main man whenever he played and carried Celtic when Henrik got snapped in France.

As for your insults, they are best ignored.

[TheCelt67]

So the Chelsea side Sutton flopped in wasn't mediocre in comparison with modern day sides no? He ended up playing against Paul Fenwick and Marvin Andrews instead of Jaap Stam and Sol Campbell.

Everyone also forgets that Celtics incredible run to the UEFA cup final began by getting pumped off a mediocre (that word again) Basel side at St Jakobs. Viduka got to the final by winning every game they played in and played the majority of his career in arguably the best league in the world and that included a champions league semi final also.

Sutton done well for himself on limited ability alongside better players such as Shearer and Larsson. Viduka was the main man whenever he played and carried Celtic when Henrik got snapped in France.

As for your insults, they are best ignored.

The Chelsea side of today has no relevance here. You referred to them as a "mediocre mid table side". They weren't, they were a decent side who qualified for the Champions League, made the QF's and won the FA Cup. They, I am fairly certain, broke their transfer record to sign Sutton, so to say "he wasn't good enough" is daft. Sutton failed at Chelsea, no disputing it, but his record at Blackburn it is obvious why a bigger club would be interested in the first place.

I also fail to say what relevance the rest of you post has, I have already said Viduka is the better of the two players, I would only pick Sutton for my side purely on the bias of what he done for Celtic.