Jump to content
IGNORED

England's Greatest XI


Super

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

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! 

 

 

Today's great players are great players with current playing conditions.

Great players from the 60s and 70s were great players in those playing conditions.

I suspect that most of today's great players would have been great players had they been playing 40/50 years ago, as they would have grown up with those conditions, would not have weighed 10 stone dripping wet so would have been physically more suited to coping with the physicality of the game. Similarly most great players of 40/50 years ago, had they grown up in today's world would almost certainly be great players today, as they would benefit from modern conditioning and be fitter and better equipped to cope with the speed of the modern game.

We will all have our differing opinions on whether today's greats are better than greats from the old days - probably heavily influenced by our ages!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 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.

Fine, fine player.  That volley versus USSR....Dasaev is probably still trying to get his balance.  I think there was a header v Wales that was harder than most could kick it.  The complete modern footballer.  Best ever? Probably not, but very, very good, all the same.

It is very difficult to compare across eras, so you just have to try to compare them against their peers in that era, and then make a judgement.  I would say a top player today, would’ve been a top player in yesteryear, and vice versa.  I’m sure had Stanley Matthews played in 1974, he’d have learned the Cruyff turn, and Rainer Bonhof would’ve learned to hit a top-spin free-kick like Ronaldo does.  Similarly I suspect Ronaldo would be a top player with old leather boots on and a muddy pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 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.

 

 

 

On the devil's advocate theme, it would be much the same for a modern striker e.g. Ronaldo. He would definitely be left spinning when he tried to go past "Chopper" Harris in the first few minutes of a game and found himself in row A of the stands and the ref telling him to get on with the game! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Fine, fine player.  That volley versus USSR....Dasaev is probably still trying to get his balance.  I think there was a header v Wales that was harder than most could kick it.  The complete modern footballer.  Best ever? Probably not, but very, very good, all the same.

It is very difficult to compare across eras, so you just have to try to compare them against their peers in that era, and then make a judgement.  I would say a top player today, would’ve been a top player in yesteryear, and vice versa.  I’m sure had Stanley Matthews played in 1974, he’d have learned the Cruyff turn, and Rainer Bonhof would’ve learned to hit a top-spin free-kick like Ronaldo does.  Similarly I suspect Ronaldo would be a top player with old leather boots on and a muddy pitch.

That was Van Basten

Guillet did score in that game with a header though if memory serves correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cider-manc said:

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?

 

Hope LJ doesn't read this post or he will have a headache with so many options to chose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

On the devil's advocate theme, it would be much the same for a modern striker e.g. Ronaldo. He would definitely be left spinning when he tried to go past "Chopper" Harris in the first few minutes of a game and found himself in row A of the stands and the ref telling him to get on with the game! :)

 

Not going to argue with that.

But much is made of the natural ability of players post 74... But none of them could even do a cruyff turn! Even i can do a cruyff turn!*

As i say... just playing devils advocate. :)

 

*sort of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TRL said:

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?

Blimey. Not allowed to ask how someone judges a player.  You okay today ?

If someone has only seen Messi three times then maybe football isnt for them.

Okay, even though I have only seen about 200 minutes of Moore and Bobby Charlton I will put them in my best ever team. Seen 10 minutes of Stanley Matthews but he gets in too now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, TRL said:

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?

Blimey. Not allowed to ask how someone judges a player.  You okay today ?

If someone has only seen Messi three times then maybe football isnt for them.

Okay, even though I have only seen about 200 minutes of Moore and Bobby Charlton I will put them in my best ever team. Seen 10 minutes of Stanley Matthews but he gets in too now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Blimey. Not allowed to ask how someone judges a player.  You okay today ?

If someone has only seen Messi three times then maybe football isnt for them.

Okay, even though I have only seen about 200 minutes of Moore and Bobby Charlton I will put them in my best ever team. Seen 10 minutes of Stanley Matthews but he gets in too now.

 

I don't pay for subscription tv.

I have seen Messi live maybe 4 times in my life. 2 games average what's all the fuss about. 1 game anonymous. Game outstanding.

 

Based on that my opinion should be he is average. But I somehow know he is not average 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TRL said:

I don't pay for subscription tv.

I have seen Messi live maybe 4 times in my life. 2 games average what's all the fuss about. 1 game anonymous. Game outstanding.

 

Based on that my opinion should be he is average. But I somehow know he is not average 

www.youtube.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Blimey. Not allowed to ask how someone judges a player.  You okay today ?

If someone has only seen Messi three times then maybe football isnt for them.

Okay, even though I have only seen about 200 minutes of Moore and Bobby Charlton I will put them in my best ever team. Seen 10 minutes of Stanley Matthews but he gets in too now.

 

Many would do the same, but it's interesting that I've read many comments from fans, reporters and players of that era and most rate Finney as the greater player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TRL said:

I don't pay for subscription tv.

I have seen Messi live maybe 4 times in my life. 2 games average what's all the fuss about. 1 game anonymous. Game outstanding.

 

Based on that my opinion should be he is average. But I somehow know he is not average 

Pretty sure Messi has played on terrestrial TV more than four times as well. Way more than that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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?

Yes, without a shadow of doubt. I assume you mean Big John Atyeo but could I add Big John Charles of Leeds, Juventus and Wales who was even more awesome than our's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cidered abroad said:

Yes, without a shadow of doubt. I assume you mean Big John Atyeo but could I add Big John Charles of Leeds, Juventus and Wales who was even more awesome than our's.

Blasphemy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

www.youtube.com

 

Exactly. Pick out the best bits of many people's career going back many years.

 

So get watching and don't limit yourself to post the date you started watching football.

 

Thank you for backing up my argument 

;p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Pretty sure Messi has played on terrestrial TV more than four times as well. Way more than that

Maybe. And that's probably when I have watched him.

 

Truth be told I am not that interested in watching Barcelona or anything much in the way of modern football, which leaves me a little cold by its commercialism and badge punching journeyman.

That said I don't mind going on YouTube looking at talented I individuals show reels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

What matters to me is who was outstanding at the highest level.  Bryan Robson, Beckham, Barnes, Channon(!) fail this  .  Please do not go on about Beckham's free kick against Greece.  It was a qualifying game against Greece...

                Banks

Neville  Adams Moore  Pearce

Matthews   Ince Gascogine Charlton          

                  Lineker Beardsley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting as we come up to World Cup 2018 none of us have much confidence in the chosen squad

Hope we are all wrong and the England team of 2018 will be remembered in years to come as the team that won the World Cup away from home, and in style, and earn the right to be called the greatest England team ever - even with no City player in it.

 

PS  I still stand by Wedlock, given that those who saw him play told me he really was the best they had seen.  They also ranked Matthews ahead of Finney by the way.  Best winger I have ever seen was Irish, George Best, magical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Players of years ago would be nowhere near as good as players of today. So it could be argued all the best England players are from recent years.

I agree I watch old matches pre 1980s and I find football is very pedestrian and one dimensional with the odd bit of skill. Today's game combines athleticism, skill and pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, One BCFC said:

I agree I watch old matches pre 1980s and I find football is very pedestrian and one dimensional with the odd bit of skill. Today's game combines athleticism, skill and pace.

Is it not beyond your wit to understand that if Bobby Charlton had been brought up 20 years ago he would have been used to the athleticism of the modern game and that his intrinsic football ability would shine through? Jonathan Leko is quick and athletic. Doesn't mean he is better than Chris Waddle was.  Waddle had a brilliant football brain and loads of skill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, That Louie Donowa goal said:

Can’t believe Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas not the centre mids

Patsy Palmer and Terry Thomas would be a better bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

Why do the fans of football, unlike cricket fans, disrespect the past of the game?  Wedlock in central midfield for me everytime.  Why no Billy Wright or Stanley Matthews ?

Wedlock? Interested to know why you think this mate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Is it not beyond your wit to understand that if Bobby Charlton had been brought up 20 years ago he would have been used to the athleticism of the modern game and that his intrinsic football ability would shine through? Jonathan Leko is quick and athletic. Doesn't mean he is better than Chris Waddle was.  Waddle had a brilliant football brain and loads of skill.  

Remember Lineker signing for Spurs and being gutted that Waddle left for Marseille.  Waddle playing much more centrally then too.  Two good feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RedDave said:

Ashley Cole much better than Stuart Pearce.  

Abso-bloody-lutely...but he didn’t miss a penalty in 1990 then score one against Spain in 1996...and the fact that he is cashley and a bit of cock outside of football rather than Pearce who would play for England for free.

technically Cole is far superior to Pearce...Ronaldo’s toughest ever opponent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Is it not beyond your wit to understand that if Bobby Charlton had been brought up 20 years ago he would have been used to the athleticism of the modern game and that his intrinsic football ability would shine through? Jonathan Leko is quick and athletic. Doesn't mean he is better than Chris Waddle was.  Waddle had a brilliant football brain and loads of skill.  

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...