Henry or Bergkamp

[Letters]

Henry's best was better than Bergkamp's best I reckon. So him.

I'd settle for Bergkamp though, in fairness.

I agree, but I think with the team we have now Bergkamp would make more difference. So him.
Henry, brilliant as he was, would just sulk at the quality (or lack thereof) of the players he'd have to play with now, I reckon Bergkamp would get stuck in more and make more difference.

[Cripps_orig]

Henry without Bergkamp wasnt as good tbh

Bergkamp without Henry is still the best player we have ever seen play for us

[Letters]

IMO Henry was a better player although it's close. They were our 2 best players by a distance though and to see them in the same team together for so long was a privilege.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I agree, but I think with the team we have now Bergkamp would make more difference. So him.
Henry, brilliant as he was, would just sulk at the quality (or lack thereof) of the players he'd have to play with now, I reckon Bergkamp would get stuck in more and make more difference.

I think Bergkamp's main strength was his creativity but I'm not sure creativity is really the one area we're lacking in. Scoring goals is, sorry, I'll rephrase - scoring enough goals, is. Henry might well sulk with us now but when he did sulk, I don't think he was in his prime.

[Letters]

IMO part of why we're not scoring enough goals right now is because of a lack of creativity. That's why I think Bergkamp might make more difference. That said, Bergkamp and Henry were both prolific at scoring and creating.

Let's have both

[Marc Overmars]

Bergkamp was also a moody git at times. Although not in an Henry glare kind of way.

To be honest you wouldn't take that away from them though, they demanded the best because they were the best.

Henry's 5 consecutive seasons of 30+ goals is unprecedented, so that's why I'd give him the edge. Even when the team was shite in 2006 that didn't stop him.