Super Posted May 25, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 Cole over Pearce for me, but sure the older folk will say Ray Wilson was better than both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmissionImpossible Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 1 hour ago, ZiderEyed said: Footballs changed more than cricket, to echo @formerly known as ivan. Football is essentially a different game to the one it was 50 years ago. Pitches, conditioning, training, diet, footballs, more double barrelled names. Footballers of today are unquestionably better athletes but it's so hard to compare, for example, Lionel Messi and Pele, because they played different games. For anyone pre-historic enough to have watched Pele, Maradona, Matthews, Best, Charlton and even big John - could they have cut it today, if they were given the same pitches, conditioning, training, diet, footballs, and double barrelled names of the current crop? Cricket has changed far more than football has. New formats and athleticism. Football has changed a great deal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 44 minutes ago, GrahamC said: Minor County that wins trophies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Davefevs said: I’m too young, but from the tv stuff you see, how good was Bobby Charlton? He was brilliant and I don’t think he gets the credit, probably because of Hurst and Moore. Ball was bloody good too. I certainly think Banks has been our best ever keeper, Moore our best ever centre-back, Charlton our best ever midfielder. I would probably go for something like this - taking into account the modern game to some extent: Banks G.Neville, Ferdinand, Moore, Pearce Edwards, R.Charlton, Gascoigne Hurst, Lineker, Greaves Subs: Shilton J.Charlton Adams Ball Beckham Robson Owen Shearer T.Francis think you have to pick one of Moore and Ferdinand. Pair them with a Butcher/ Adams/Terry type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, Super said: Cole over Pearce for me, but sure the older folk will say Ray Wilson was better than both. Waiting for @Ivorguy to say it was actually Joe Cottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said: Waiting for @Ivorguy to say it was actually Joe Cottle You will have a very long wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One BCFC Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 My team.. Banks; Neville, Ferdinand, Moore, Cole; Robson, Gazza, Charlton; Owen, Shearer, Rooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 2 hours ago, BigTone said: Surely it must be the team that won in 1966 Many think the 1970 team was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, The Bard said: that wins trophies.. History now.. Second level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 52 minutes ago, RedDave said: Ashley Cole much better than Stuart Pearce. Terry Cooper better than Cole. And not a cntu either. The exact opposite of a cntu, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, GrahamC said: History now.. Second level. Stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, The Bard said: think you have to pick one of Moore and Ferdinand. Pair them with a Butcher/ Adams/Terry type. Forgot Butcher, good shout. Moore and Ferdinand enough to not need a dominant CH. All about positioning and reading!! 6 minutes ago, One BCFC said: My team.. Banks; Neville, Ferdinand, Moore, Cole; Robson, Gazza, Charlton; Owen, Shearer, Rooney I missed Rooney....doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 55 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said: I don’t know anything about Cricket so can’t comment. I know that football has moved on greatly since the early 20th century. If you put the likes of Wedlock and Billy Wright in a time machine and stuck them in the England’s squad today they’d probably look slow, weak and technically inferior. Training and athletic development in football has been huge. No idea about cricket though. You've moved the goalposts as that wasn't the point you were originally making! Can't argue with your new line of thinking though which is the reason such discussions are always highly hypothetical and never reach a consensus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said: You've moved the goalposts as that wasn't the point you were originally making! Can't argue with your new line of thinking though which is the reason such discussions are always highly hypothetical and never reach a consensus Not really, I just don't share Ivor's disdain for people not being aware of players born in the 1800s. Got no idea about cricket, so no idea whether the game has moved on enough to question the relative ability of players of yesteryear compared to now. Perhaps the more statistical aspect of cricket makes it a bit easier, more variables in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 Sol Campbell rarely ever gets a mention - was immense for England as was Butcher and Adams as he matured Best player I saw live in an England shirt 70s onwards Gascoigne prior to his injury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 25, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Forgot Butcher, good shout. Moore and Ferdinand enough to not need a dominant CH. All about positioning and reading!! I missed Rooney....doh! Also Lineker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Sol Campbell rarely ever gets a mention - was immense for England as was Butcher and Adams as he matured Best player I saw live in an England shirt 70s onwards Gascoigne prior to his injury Post 1970 I certainly agree about Gazza. He was a terrific player for England. Defence - Shilton, Cole, Terry, Adams, Neville Midfield - Gazza, Robson, Barnes, Beckham Strikers - Shearer, Lineker Subs, Owen, Ferdinand, Sheringham, Channon, Beardsley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, Super said: Also Lineker. No, he’s in my starting eleven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Mao Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 Bobby Charlton X10 and Gordon Banks. Jobs a good'un. Only England player who is close to being an all time great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSSEL85 Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 1966 team, simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Robbored said: Post 1970 I certainly agree about Gazza. He was a terrific player for England. Defence - Shilton, Cole, Terry, Adams, Neville Midfield - Gazza, Robson, Barnes, Beckham Strikers - Shearer, Lineker Subs, Owen, Ferdinand, Sheringham, Channon, Beardsley. Good team, but I’d have probably selected a goalie and moved Shilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Red Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Ivorguy said: Still disagree. Every cricket fan in the world knows WG and Hammond, just to name local men. My point stands I think Do you think it's down to the fact that cricket is a stats game, and a players performance is largely based on their match stats (batsmen are judged on their batting average and high scores while bowlers on their runs per wicket and test wickets etc). However, the fans perception of a good footballer is influenced less by stats and more by what they witness while watching them play (hence why you get so many split decisions or which player has had a good performance). This therefore enables cricket fans to look at stats of the historic cricketers and you can get a better indication of their performance that you can't do with football. If a cricketer played 150 games for England with a batting average of 145 and a high score of 425, then you can be excused for reasoning that he is one of England's all time greats (hence why so many people have past players in their teams when judging cricketers). However, you can not simply select a footballer and claim they are an all time great based on their stats alone as it doesn't provide enough information on their overall performance. Is the best right midfielder of all time selected on the highest percentage of crosses that resulted in a goal? Or the best centre back of all time the player with the highest average completed tackles per game? I therefore think it is valid to suggest people can leave off historic players in football due to lack of resources available to analyse them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said: Not really, I just don't share Ivor's disdain for people not being aware of players born in the 1800s. Got no idea about cricket, so no idea whether the game has moved on enough to question the relative ability of players of yesteryear compared to now. Perhaps the more statistical aspect of cricket makes it a bit easier, more variables in football. Yes really. At the risk of being a pedant in a light-hearted thread, your original point was about the availability of video footage and choosing players one can remember from one's own lifetime. Your second point was about football being different now compared to the days of Wedlock and Wright. That's called moving the goalposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said: your original point was about the availability of video footage and choosing players one can remember from one's own That's called moving the goalposts. And it's also called subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 I laugh when I see people put in players they have never seen! Literally makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 27 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said: Yes really. At the risk of being a pedant in a light-hearted thread, your original point was about the availability of video footage and choosing players one can remember from one's own lifetime. Your second point was about football being different now compared to the days of Wedlock and Wright. That's called moving the goalposts. I stand by both those things which are separate points. Obviously people will pick more modern footballers because they've grown up watching them, they remember them and there's more video footage. There isn't much/any good video footage of Wedlock and Wright. I think though - as a separate point - footballers of that era wouldn't be able to compete in the modern era (if they were directly transported here from 60 years ago) because of how the game has developed. Cricket is probably much easier to quantify given the stats side of the game relative to football. But you're right - this is rather pedantic on both of our parts so i'll leave it here, must be very boring reading for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted May 25, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, Davefevs said: No, he’s in my starting eleven. Ah sorry mate was looking at another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 11 minutes ago, city2015 said: Do you think it's down to the fact that cricket is a stats game, and a players performance is largely based on their match stats (batsmen are judged on their batting average and high scores while bowlers on their runs per wicket and test wickets etc). However, the fans perception of a good footballer is influenced less by stats and more by what they witness while watching them play (hence why you get so many split decisions or which player has had a good performance). This therefore enables cricket fans to look at stats of the historic cricketers and you can get a better indication of their performance that you can't do with football. If a cricketer played 150 games for England with a batting average of 145 and a high score of 425, then you can be excused for reasoning that he is one of England's all time greats (hence why so many people have past players in their teams when judging cricketers). However, you can not simply select a footballer and claim they are an all time great based on their stats alone as it doesn't provide enough information on their overall performance. Is the best right midfielder of all time selected on the highest percentage of crosses that resulted in a goal? Or the best centre back of all time the player with the highest average completed tackles per game? I therefore think it is valid to suggest people can leave off historic players in football due to lack of resources available to analyse them. Do we need "resources" to know Jimmy Greaves was a great player? Or Bobby Moore? Or Bobby Charlton? Puskas? Di Stefano? I know Maradona is the greatest player to ever walk the earth, Messi and Ronaldo be damned (not even in the top 5). I don't need resources to construct an argument that the 1970 World Cup saw England's finest team take the field. Imo you've got to be good to be selected ahead of any of those players. So fwiw, my team would be: Banks; Newton, Ferdinand, Moore, Cooper; Bell, Gazzer, Charlton, Peters; Greaves, Beardsley. Shilton? Robson? Adams? This is a football team, not an AA meeting! (And Robson would be injured anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, RedDave said: I laugh when I see people put in players they have never seen! Literally makes no sense. Yeah, I never saw Pele... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrick's Marvels Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said: I stand by both those things which are separate points. Obviously people will pick more modern footballers because they've grown up watching them, they remember them and there's more video footage. There isn't much/any good video footage of Wedlock and Wright. I think though - as a separate point - footballers of that era wouldn't be able to compete in the modern era (if they were directly transported here from 60 years ago) because of how the game has developed. Cricket is probably much easier to quantify given the stats side of the game relative to football. But you're right - this is rather pedantic on both of our parts so i'll leave it here, must be very boring reading for others. That's all I was saying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.