England's Greatest XI

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah, I never saw Pele...

What about in the Viagra Adverts, or Escape to Victory?

[And Its Smith]

I have been watching football since 1988 so my best team is

                           Seaman

Jones   Ferdinand  D.Walker   Cole

           Beckham  Ince   Gascoigne

                   Scholes   Platt  

                          Shearer  

5 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah, I never saw Pele...

Exactly.  I cannot say that Pele is the best player ever as my opinion doesnt count.  

I can judge from 1988 and I say Messi.  

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I have been watching football since 1988 so my best team is

                           Seaman

Jones   Ferdinand  D.Walker   Cole

           Beckham  Ince   Gascoigne

                   Scholes   Platt  

                          Shearer  

Exactly.  I cannot say that Pele is the best player ever as my opinion doesnt count.  

I can judge from 1988 and I say Messi.  

But "ever" didn't start in 1988...

[Bianconeri]

Banks, Cohen, Wilson, Stiles, J Charlton, Moore, Ball, Hunt, R Charlton, Hurst, PeterS

England has only ever won one major tournament and they did it, ergo the best England team of all time.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, RedDave said:

I have been watching football since 1988 so my best team is

                           Seaman

Jones   Ferdinand  D.Walker   Cole

           Beckham  Ince   Gascoigne

                   Scholes   Platt  

                          Shearer  

Exactly.  I cannot say that Pele is the best player ever as my opinion doesnt count.  

I can judge from 1988 and I say Messi.  

Phil or Rob?

[glynriley]

Nobody has selected Glenn Hoddle.

So you're all wrong...

[Phileas Fogg]

5 minutes ago, Bianconeri said:

Banks, Cohen, Wilson, Stiles, J Charlton, Moore, Ball, Hunt, R Charlton, Hurst, PeterS

England has only ever won one major tournament and they did it, ergo the best England team of all time.

Depends on the question being asked.. if you're answering 'what is the most successful England side ever' then you're right.

If the question, which I think lots of people on this thread are actually answering, is 'who are the best players to have played for England' then it's obviously different.

[And Its Smith]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Phil or Rob?

Rob.  Might be misremembering but recall him as a superb right back who was ruined by injury

18 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

But "ever" didn't start in 1988...

I know.  Didnt say it did.  

I said I cannot have an opinion on the best player ever.  I can have an opinion on the best player since 88 

[Berkshire Red]

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

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)     

Yes of course you do. In future generations will people compare lionel messi to Ronaldo purely based on stats? or will they watch the way messi runs with the ball at his feet and creates chances and goals from absolutely nothing? Do you personally believe Lionel Messi is a quality footballer purely based on his stats or is it because you have watched him in awe of his skill and ability to run past a player with ease. I imagine it's unlikely you've got a season ticket at both real madrid and Barcelona so have you made an opinion of these players from watching video 'resources'?

I have never watched Maradona play live because I wasn't born when he was playing. What do I therefore rely on to cast an opinion of him? I can either:

- Watch the available videos of him running around 5 players and scoring for fun and conclude from this that he was indeed a top player? A very warped perception as anybody's highlight reel can look good - Look at Lois Diony on YouTube.

- I go online and read about him, and read articles by other people who have devoted their time and efforts to analyse these players in great depths. These people do not simply write about his great 'stats'. They analyse video evidence of the way he played and how entertaining his football style was to watch etc etc. They make reference to defining moments in their career such as watching ryan gigg's goal against Arsenal .. not from looking at the stats and seeing he got 1 goal from a sub appearance in the FA cup.

- I get influenced by people talking about him who were around to see him play and talk of his greatness. This is not a reliable source is it? Will people in 10 years time remember Ronaldos bicycle kick against Buffon in the CL semi final and still talk about that moment? YES. Will people talk about him missing an open goal 5 minutes later? NO. People remember what they want to remember.  

If in 90 years time someone looks at the premier leagues statistics and see's David Unsworth is the second highest scoring premier league defender of all time. Scoring more than Rio Ferdinand, Sol Campbell, Ashley Cole, Gary Neville. Then can you conclude that David Unsworth is the second best English defender of the premier league era? Nobody was alive to see that he wasn't? The answer to this point is no because there are several other 'resources' available to prove otherwise, and people need to analyse resources to get the full picture.   

I'm interested to know your opinions on how you know all these players are so great and you're so convinced Ronaldo and messi aren't in the top 5 players of all time? Statistically they prove to be up there? What source of information have you got that can let you convincingly say this? I have just read that Jimmy Greaves scored 8 goals in 28 games in the 69/70 season .. That doesn't sound quite up to Ronaldos 311 goals in 292 appearances in La Liga? What other evidence is there for say that he was better?

[Fordy62]

David Nugent. Scored a worldy once and so badly disrespected to never again be picked. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

15 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Rob.  Might be misremembering but recall him as a superb right back who was ruined by injury

I know.  Didnt say it did.  

I said I cannot have an opinion on the best player ever.  I can have an opinion on the best player since 88 

But I thought this thread was about "England's Greatest XI" not "England's Greatest players wot I have seen".

Perhaps one of us is in the wrong thread

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Rob.  Might be misremembering but recall him as a superb right back who was ruined by injury

Liverpool RB, decent enough but I wouldn’t be putting him in a best xi though.  Opinions though.

8 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

David Nugent. Scored a worldy once and so badly disrespected to never again be picked. 

Was it Defoe’s shot that was trickling into the net that he made sure went in?

[downendcity]

55 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What about in the Viagra Adverts, or Escape to Victory?

Not sure which of the two was his biggest flop.

 

[downendcity]

1 hour 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.

By the same token how many of today's "great" players would look quite as good playing in the 60s or 70s playing on pitches that looked more like Weston beach with the tide out, heavy leather footballs that weighed a ton when wet, wearing heavy leather boots and without the protection from referees that they enjoy these days, so they could expect proper tackles and a fair few that were not so proper!

Great players from yesterday year would also be great players today, if they enjoyed current training methods, dietary regimes and played on today's billiard table pitches and without the risk of career threatening challenges from the likes of Harris, Styles, Hunter every week.

[cider-manc]

Being the best footballer is very subjective. For instance you could have a full back who is world class going forward and an average defender, or you could have one who is world class at defending but average going forward. Same position with different ways of playing with different stats that people will have different opinions on what they would say makes the best full back out of the two. Likewise you can’t compare the likes of defoe to andy caroll despite them playing the same position. Only when you get a player who is world class at all parts do people tend to agree ie Bobby moore was as graceful on the ball as he was aggressive off it (also being englands only wc winning captain helps mind ...) but most players are either or.

It really comes down to how you class the greatest and under what conditions.. which is very different in everyones opinion. Some people will mock the inclusion of john barnes... Despite the fact in the 80s he played for what is widely considered one of the greatest ever liverpool teams and in 1990 the most successful england side since 1966... But he played for some of the poorest ever liverpool and england teams in the mid 90s. Do you dismiss him on his later career or include him for the height of it.

With cricket you can say via stats who is the best at what. The best batsman score the most runs, the best spin bowler takes the most wickets etc even to the point where it doesn't matter if youre no good/good at other parts of the game. Ie Shane warne could bat a bit, was a decent fielder and is the greatest australian spin bowler of all time... He would still be their the greatest spin bowler even if he couldnt bat or catch.

Another reason football fans don't look back as far (and i'm just speculating here....) is i imagine that more footballers have played football for england than cricket players have played cricket for england. The england cricket team selects a squad and takes them away for 3 months at a time and has them on central contracts... The football team has 4 matches in that period and selects 80 odd different players some of whom make 2 minute cameos... I can't remember who was in the last team never mind 50 years ago. Basically i'm suggesting there is a lot more to choice.

 

 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah, I never saw Pele...

He was at the time far and away the best player on the planet. Magnificent footballer and way ahead of his time. 

Since then his 'best ever player' title has been handed over to Lionel Messi.

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, city2015 said:

I'm interested to know your opinions on how you know all these players are so great and you're so convinced Ronaldo and messi aren't in the top 5 players of all time? Statistically they prove to be up there? What source of information have you got that can let you convincingly say this? I have just read that Jimmy Greaves scored 8 goals in 28 games in the 69/70 season .. That doesn't sound quite up to Ronaldos 311 goals in 292 appearances in La Liga? What other evidence is there for say that he was better?

He was a lethal striker.

Saw a quote from a defender who marked him in one match and said that he marked Greaves out of the game. Greaves didn't have a kick for 88 minutes but he won the game with 2 goals. That's what he did.

 He is England's fourth highest international goalscorer (44 goals), Spurs highest ever goalscorer (266 goals), the highest goalscorer in the history of English top flight football (357 goals), and has also scored more hat tricks (six) for England than anyone else. He finished as the 1st Divisions top scorer in six seasons. Of course, all of this was before the premier league, so probably doesn't count anymore.

He was also playing in an era where he would have been kicked up in the air in just about every game - I doubt Ronaldo would have lasted 5 minutes back then. 

[cider-manc]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

By the same token how many of today's "great" players would look quite as good playing in the 60s or 70s playing on pitches that looked more like Weston beach with the tide out, heavy leather footballs that weighed a ton when wet, wearing heavy leather boots and without the protection from referees that they enjoy these days, so they could expect proper tackles and a fair few that were not so proper!

Great players from yesterday year would also be great players today, if they enjoyed current training methods, dietary regimes and played on today's billiard table pitches and without the risk of career threatening challenges from the likes of Harris, Styles, Hunter every week.

Playing devils advocate....Would They? It's mad to think but the cruyff turn didn’t exsist until 1974... It's now a regular part of every game. Even If you could get a player from the 60s on the same diet and pitches as the modern era their heads would still be left spinning by the first average winger who turned back on themselves to cross it in.

 

 

 

[TRL]

2 minutes ago, cider-manc said:

Playing devils advocate....Would They? It's mad to think but the cruyff turn didn’t exsist until 1974... It's now a regular part of every game. Even If you could get a player from the 60s on the same diet and pitches as the modern era their heads would still be left spinning by the first average winger who turned back on themselves to cross it in.

 

 

 

Much like today's defenders then

[BigTone]

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

Many think the 1970 team was better.

Did they win it ?

[TRL]

8 minutes ago, Robbored said:

He was at the time far and away the best player on the planet. Magnificent footballer and way ahead of his time. 

Since then his 'best ever player' title has been handed over to Lionel Messi.

Rudd Gullit for me. Left back, right back, centre back, wing back, winger, centre midfield, off the striker, centre forward. He could play them all at a very high level.

 

For me the most complete footballer that ever lived.

 

Yes better players in certain positions. Bet never has there been a more complete footballer.

 

Best player ever for me.

[And Its Smith]

36 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

But I thought this thread was about "England's Greatest XI" not "England's Greatest players wot I have seen".

Perhaps one of us is in the wrong thread

How have you judged a player you never saw play then?

[Phileas Fogg]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

By the same token how many of today's "great" players would look quite as good playing in the 60s or 70s playing on pitches that looked more like Weston beach with the tide out, heavy leather footballs that weighed a ton when wet, wearing heavy leather boots and without the protection from referees that they enjoy these days, so they could expect proper tackles and a fair few that were not so proper!

Great players from yesterday year would also be great players today, if they enjoyed current training methods, dietary regimes and played on today's billiard table pitches and without the risk of career threatening challenges from the likes of Harris, Styles, Hunter every week.

Haha, and to think I got accused of ‘moving the goalposts’!

Your theoreticals give a disadvantage to modern players playing in the ‘olden days’ by assuming the pitches will be bad and different rules..

But then you give an advantage to players of yore transported to the modern era by supplementing them with modern training and diet! Talk about having your cake and eating it! 

 

 

[TRL]

4 minutes ago, BigTone said:

Did they win it ?

Even the player who played in 66 reckon the 70 team was better. Shows best doesnt always mean winner

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

He was a lethal striker.

Saw a quote from a defender who marked him in one match and said that he marked Greaves out of the game. Greaves didn't have a kick for 88 minutes but he won the game with 2 goals. That's what he did.

 He is England's fourth highest international goalscorer (44 goals), Spurs highest ever goalscorer (266 goals), the highest goalscorer in the history of English top flight football (357 goals), and has also scored more hat tricks (six) for England than anyone else. He finished as the 1st Divisions top scorer in six seasons. Of course, all of this was before the premier league, so probably doesn't count anymore.

He was also playing in an era where he would have been kicked up in the air in just about every game - I doubt Ronaldo would have lasted 5 minutes back then. 

Indeed he was. Jimmy Greaves was my schoolboy hero.  

As you say he did SFU for 85mins but was there to score the winner. Imv the greatest English goalscorer in my life time.

[The Batman]

There will always be a generational war when it comes to deciding something like this.

My Grandfather told me that the best player he ever saw play live was Duncan Edwards. Had it not been for the Munich Air Crash he said he would be the one who'd have captained England to glory in 1966. Yet all many people know of him nowadays are a few youtube videos.

There have been some adverts for Nike, Adidas, pepsi etc where they have merged current players with former players, i recall one child selected 1974 Franz Beckenbauer when having a kick around. Would be great if one of them did that where it had CGI players from different era's playing together.

When i first started playing football, mum told me I could score the goals like Gary Lineker or be the midfield dynamo like Brian Robson - me being me decided I wanted to aspire to the high scoring midfielder and do both. Lineker was not just some fox in the box, he was lightning quick and would give most defenders a scare if they played a high line. Robson was just ace. But compare them to, for example Greaves and Edwards, there would definitely be a mix and match as to which ones would be in a best 11 or not. Could be all 4, could be none of them. The older generation would more than likely say Greaves & Edwards, the younger would say Lineker and Robson, whereas the Millennial's would come up with some others.

Pretty sure Gareth Barry would not be in anybody's all time England 11. David Nugent however has a 100% scoring record for England. That's something nobody can take away from him.

[TRL]

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

How have you judged a player you never saw play then?

Well that wasnt the qustion. If you are putting in your own stipulations probably best you don't reply.

 

At the end of the day I could say Albert adomah is the best player ever as I have only seen Messi occasionally on tv and YouTube, never live over a period of time to judge him.  It's a pointless blocker you are trying to put in.

 

What happens if I have only ever seen Messi play on tv 3 times and he has had a shocker in all of them.  Is he shite? Or do I decide he is not shite due to football writers opinions, fans opinions and statistics?

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, TRL said:

Rudd Gullit for me. Left back, right back, centre back, wing back, winger, centre midfield, off the striker, centre forward. He could play them all at a very high level.

For me the most complete footballer that ever lived.

Yes better players in certain positions. Bet never has there been a more complete footballer.

Best player ever for me.

Sure Gullit was a fantastic all round footballer but to me he lacked that magical ability to qualify as a world great . Pele, Messi, Maradonna, Cruyff and Ronaldo all had/have it - the special skill to lose defenders and to ghost past those that found him. A very rare talent indeed.

[TRL]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Sure Gullit was a fantastic all round footballer but to me he lacked that magical ability to qualify as a world great . Pele, Messi, Maradonna, Cruyff and Ronaldo all had/have it - the special skill to lose defenders and to ghost past those that found him. A very rare talent indeed.

Without doubt all magical and in terms of skill ability head and shoulders above him. But as complete footballers not close

 

I'd put Maradonna at the top of those. He pretty much won napoli 2 titles. I know the had a couple of other decent players but never has 1 player turned an average side the way he did. Once he left it went down hill pretty quickly.

 

Best could be in there but his talents were never seen on the world stage

 

Sorry gone off track.. none of them are English :laugh:

[cider-manc]

1 minute ago, TRL said:

Much like today's defenders then

Ha- you know what i mean.

In the 1950s england thought they were the best in the world..  Played hungary in 1953 and got embarrassed 6-3 by a new way of playing.... Which involved close control of the ball and passing and moving!! (actually that is pretty much still the same for the england team....)

In the 60s you had the invention of the sweeper and defensive tactics. 

In the 70s total football. 

In the 80s it was "pass and move" but ridgid in formation.

In the 90s you had the birth of the modern player on dietary regimes etc formations also became more fluent.

In 2000s you had the invention of wingbacks and lone strikers so teams could flood midfield.

In 2010s you had tiki-taka.

What i'm saying is if players from any era were dropped into another they would have to relearn the way the game is played. It's not just a case of players getting the right diet and decent pitches as some claim.

You could also argue that some previous greats wouldnt have made it in the modern game because of the required life style. lets face it... Some players got by on natural ability when they were allowed to show up and play drunk and unfit. But they would get suspended and fined nowadays and would be in the "wasted talent" list. Lots of players fall still fall by the wayside for similar reasons..  Whos to say the likes of best, gazza, adams, merson (just picking some high profile cases here) would even have clubs bothering with them nowadays. 

Whilst not doubting players from the pasts ability...  Pace is also a massive factor in today's game. You can teach everything else but the truth is players tend to be quicker nowadays. Maybe some of footballers greats would suffers now as they just couldnt run fast enough?