Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 13:10:02 GMT
The one thing you are missing in your comments is skill.that hasn't changed over the years.do you think that there are defenders better than Bobby Moore. Forwards better than Charlton and best.keepers better than banks.strikers better than greaves or Lineker Or defensive midfielders like stiles or Edwards. How many of the current England side would replace the world cup winners. Sorry but your youthful comments that the game is different today doesn't stack up.the only differences are cheats are tolerated and mediocre players are sold for stupid money and get paid far more than their ability warrants Well, I have a knowledge that only stretches back to around 1989 and I can wholeheartedly say yes, footballers are demonstrably much better now. The current squad would murder the 1990 team. Hands down. I’ve watched the 66 final many times and the players aren’t anywhere near as skillfull as even championship players are today. Martin Peters seems to just run forward and shoot. There are no deft touches, think of Berbatov, a mediocre player from about 10 years ago, and find me players in the 60s who equal that kind of player. George best is about as good as it gets, and I’ve watched him extensively on tribute videos, and messi, Ronaldinho, Bale, et al would eat him alive. He wasn’t playing against decent players, he was playing against half overweight unorganised defences. They were the best in their time, but like many other sports, snooker is a good example, look how many 147s now versus the 80s. The game has got better. It just has. I loved the 90s team and the Holloway team yada yada but although those players shined in THEIR ERA, their product was not as good as players of today. Watch old games and new, and you will see. They aren’t as good. There’s a vid of rovers villa I think with Graydon playing for villa and tell me our current squad wouldn’t piss all over them. More skill, individually, as well as better fitness and tactics. I think you’re suffering from “I remember it, you don’t, and MY era, when football was newer to me and made its impression, was the golden one”. I used to think the football at twerton was so much better, but that’s because I was a teenager and those days are rose tinted. Bobby Moore, just because he has a big, intimidating name, is not a shadow of Rio ferdinand in 2006, Carlos Puyoll or Nemanya Vidic. Sorry. different game, todays game is just quicker, players tackling is completly different, the ball is lighter, pitches better. playing under old style todays players would get stopped in their tracks as for snooker of course there are more 147s, the pockets are bigger
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 21, 2018 14:59:01 GMT
Well, I have a knowledge that only stretches back to around 1989 and I can wholeheartedly say yes, footballers are demonstrably much better now. The current squad would murder the 1990 team. Hands down. I’ve watched the 66 final many times and the players aren’t anywhere near as skillfull as even championship players are today. Martin Peters seems to just run forward and shoot. There are no deft touches, think of Berbatov, a mediocre player from about 10 years ago, and find me players in the 60s who equal that kind of player. George best is about as good as it gets, and I’ve watched him extensively on tribute videos, and messi, Ronaldinho, Bale, et al would eat him alive. He wasn’t playing against decent players, he was playing against half overweight unorganised defences. They were the best in their time, but like many other sports, snooker is a good example, look how many 147s now versus the 80s. The game has got better. It just has. I loved the 90s team and the Holloway team yada yada but although those players shined in THEIR ERA, their product was not as good as players of today. Watch old games and new, and you will see. They aren’t as good. There’s a vid of rovers villa I think with Graydon playing for villa and tell me our current squad wouldn’t piss all over them. More skill, individually, as well as better fitness and tactics. I think you’re suffering from “I remember it, you don’t, and MY era, when football was newer to me and made its impression, was the golden one”. I used to think the football at twerton was so much better, but that’s because I was a teenager and those days are rose tinted. Bobby Moore, just because he has a big, intimidating name, is not a shadow of Rio ferdinand in 2006, Carlos Puyoll or Nemanya Vidic. Sorry. different game, todays game is just quicker, players tackling is completly different, the ball is lighter, pitches better. playing under old style todays players would get stopped in their tracks as for snooker of course there are more 147s, the pockets are bigger Pockets change from tournament to tournament but they are not bigger per se. The cloths are quicker but the balls are resin these days so the balls get more kicks. I’m a massive snooker fan and the game is a million times better. Before Davis, the game was about making 30s mainly and playing a safety. Hendry brought splitting the pack off the blue seriously to the game. Ronnie, well, Ronnie put it all together and neared perfection. Accumulated knowledge and trial and error is something which continues. It’s not all “the same just different era”. Games and tactics evolve, in the same way we don’t play WM, because 442 beat the living daylights out of it, players are learning things as standard which used to be a rarely. For example, the cryuff turn now is just basic football, it’s not something a player gets a name for.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 21, 2018 15:06:18 GMT
Thinking back...
A few players compared. Championship team to current L1.
Skill this is, not how effective -
Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one
I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 15:29:38 GMT
Thinking back... A few players compared. Championship team to current L1. Skill this is, not how effective - Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players technical possibly but as i say you cant so much look at a player nowadays without giving away a foul,
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Feb 21, 2018 18:10:24 GMT
I don't profess to be an expert - I'll leave that with DC. To answer your question, if I must, then the basic requirement of a team remains to get the ball in the net more times than the opposition. However, the art in getting the ball in the net has changed by some distance since my introduction to the game in the 70s. From a standard 4-4-2 to the revolutionary wing-backs favoured by Mr Holloway (who when found out didn't have a plan B) to diamonds, Christmas trees, up to DC with up to 4 different formations (plans/projects) during a game. The game is quicker, the balls are lighter, the players are more physically stronger, the pitches better (well perhaps not The Mem! ). Add to the mix: diets; nutrition; medical padvances, monitoring and knowledge; training facilities have improved; coaching methods have changed; there have been rule changes that have benefitted some and hindered others; video analysis and data (the 'Moneyball' effect, like it or not) ... off the top of my head. The one thing you are missing in your comments is skill.that hasn't changed over the years.do you think that there are defenders better than Bobby Moore. Forwards better than Charlton and best.keepers better than banks.strikers better than greaves or Lineker Or defensive midfielders like stiles or Edwards. How many of the current England side would replace the world cup winners. Sorry but your youthful comments that the game is different today doesn't stack up.the only differences are cheats are tolerated and mediocre players are sold for stupid money and get paid far more than their ability warrants This is going to look like I'm going against my word, from my last post! - I can't argue against your point about the players you mention - it would be impossible for me to do so. - But at the same time it is ludicrous for you to dismiss my comments that they don't stack up. Over the past week I've seen/heard a couple of things, from other sports, that are relevant to this. - Christopher Dean was being interviewed on the Winter Olympics, and they showed the famous Torvill & Dean routine to Bolero. It was put to him that it was such an iconic performance, and that surely it would still win Gold today. He shook his head, smiled, and said something along the lines that it was at the top of the game at the time, but technical ability had moved on, and it would just be part of the norm today. - Sir Wes Hall, in The Cricketer March edition, said "... comparisons of cricketers from different eras are odious." We often hear that you can't compare different eras. That in itself is saying the games/players are different.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Feb 21, 2018 21:16:05 GMT
(John Stones, for example, better than Bobby Moore?) The one constant that great players have is intelligence/vision (not GCSE's). THAT is why foreign players outscore homegrown "stars".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 22:46:26 GMT
Thinking back... A few players compared. Championship team to current L1. Skill this is, not how effective - Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players technical possibly but as i say you cant so much look at a player nowadays without giving away a foul, Exactly. Our 1990 team would all be sent off after about 10 minutes. Can you imagine Eric Nixon charging out of his goal and Kung Fu kicking Carl Saunders in today's game? He would get banned for about 100 years, back in 1990 that wasn't even a foul.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 21, 2018 23:04:58 GMT
technical possibly but as i say you cant so much look at a player nowadays without giving away a foul, Exactly. Our 1990 team would all be sent off after about 10 minutes. Can you imagine Eric Nixon charging out of his goal and Kung Fu kicking Carl Saunders in today's game? He would get banned for about 100 years, back in 1990 that wasn't even a foul. My point exactly. They were players of the time, and not as skillfull as modern players. Unless the game reverts backwards, in 20 years we’ll be saying the same of this team. I’ve seen some pathetic football mainly back from 60s and 70s, it just winds me up when people seem to cling to the idea players were so much better. My dad does this all the time....it’s just memories being powerful.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 21, 2018 23:05:14 GMT
Disagree with you Gregory. The players of today would not have “murdered” the 1990 team or any team from the 60s or 70s or 80s. They might have won a fair few matches and probably lost some. Good players from any era would have the ability to adapt and play because in essence the objective of the game remains the same, score more goals than your opponent. Bobby Moore would still have been the great defender now that he was then. Bobby Charlton would still have been the free running midfielder now that he was then. Players today might have more strength but in a way what good does it do them because no one is allowed to tackle and when there is a 50/50 ball the player losing it will fall over to win a free kick so in a way negating the strength they may have. Defensively, full backs would not let wingers get the crosses in that full backs do at the moment. The wingers would be marked much closer. This meant that wingers then had to be better at close control to beat their full back. They would also have been able to cross accurately and provided a far better service than wide men today. Often today crosses don’t even clear the first defender, they did then. I know you said you only knew about post 1989 Rovers but to say football is “demonstrably” better now is just wrong. Jarman, Graydon, Kenny Stephens all had far better control, better skills and a greater ability to beat their men than the wide men I’ve seen here over the past 10 years with the possible exception of Billy Bodin over the past year. Stuart Taylor, Larry Lloyd, Vaughan Jones, Gary Mabbutt, Mike Green, were all as good and probably better than our CHs today and some did it at a higher level as well. Goalies are no better overall now than they were then. Jim Eadie, Martin Thomas, Nigel Martin, Dick Shepard, Laurie Taylor and Brian Parkin area all as good as and some better than we have had over the past 10 years. And some of those would control their six yard box and would probably not have given away the goal on Saturday! And how many threads have we had over the past year about the ineffectiveness of some of our attackers? I’m pretty sure we would not have had those threads with Alfie Biggs, Geoff Bradford, Ian Hamilton, Robin Stubbs, Bobby Jones, Bruce Bannister, Alan Warboys, Archie Stevens, Barry Hayles, Marcus Stewart, Gareth Taylor, John Taylor and plenty of others. In terms of tactics used, the preparation of players and healthy life styles yes the game has moved on but don’t confuse that with thinking players now are better or more intelligent because I don’t think they are. Goalkeepers are not trained to control their box as they were although I’m sure they are as good as ever at shot stopping, it’s different, not necessarily better. Defenders then could tackle and did so very effectively. I suspect now with the change in laws or interpretation of them defenders are discouraged from tackling and can’t do it in the same way. It’s different, not better. Attackers were more forward looking players without much of a defensive role, today is different with teams defending more as a team with even Ellis expected to come back and help. Yes it’s a very different game now with different tactics, different expectations of the players and referees interpreting rules very differently. I think players then were as good and would have adapted to the game today. Mind you if it was refereed by today’s refs you may well be right about the result. Most of the defenders would have had a couple of red cards by half time!! 😉 UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Feb 22, 2018 11:21:27 GMT
Thinking back... A few players compared. Championship team to current L1. Skill this is, not how effective - Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players You are right of course about technical ability but that is not everything - it is about making the most of what you have got. Of your list above, would always pick Bruno over Gaffers and Reece over Lines (Lines is just not my type of player whilst I absolutely loved Reecey and thought he was the most underrated of our squad at the time. Lines is technically a better player but doesn't have Reece's heart....). Would also prefer Martyn to Smith, but not Parkin. Locks would get the nod over Billy Clark, but like Reece I thought the Judge was seriously underrated and an excellent club servant. Would also pick Boris ahead of any of the current squad on RW. If we are still measuring players on technical ability, I'd argue that of all the players I have seen, David Williams and Vitalijs Astafjevs are technically superior to any of our current squad and I'd make the case for Mickey Barrett too Despite being one of the less gifted players to pull on the quarters, Bruno is my all time favourite player and I think would still cause mayhem today if the ball was played into his vicinity. Whether or not he'd last the full 90 with today's referees and modern players propensity to fall over at the merest hint of contact is another matter altogether.......
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 22, 2018 17:02:09 GMT
Thinking back... A few players compared. Championship team to current L1. Skill this is, not how effective - Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players You are right of course about technical ability but that is not everything - it is about making the most of what you have got. Of your list above, would always pick Bruno over Gaffers and Reece over Lines (Lines is just not my type of player whilst I absolutely loved Reecey and thought he was the most underrated of our squad at the time. Lines is technically a better player but doesn't have Reece's heart....). Would also prefer Martyn to Smith, but not Parkin. Locks would get the nod over Billy Clark, but like Reece I thought the Judge was seriously underrated and an excellent club servant. Would also pick Boris ahead of any of the current squad on RW. If we are still measuring players on technical ability, I'd argue that of all the players I have seen, David Williams and Vitalijs Astafjevs are technically superior to any of our current squad and I'd make the case for Mickey Barrett too Despite being one of the less gifted players to pull on the quarters, Bruno is my all time favourite player and I think would still cause mayhem today if the ball was played into his vicinity. Whether or not he'd last the full 90 with today's referees and modern players propensity to fall over at the merest hint of contact is another matter altogether....... I’ve heard a lot about David Williams but as I’ve said, older football, the type I’ve seen at clips at eastville, is so painfully bad I doubt I could keep interest to see! I’m sure he was good in his time. Vitas wasn’t great in L1, fairly average but stood out in a very bad side. I can’t agree with much of this because lambert must be the greatest player I’ve seen in a rovers top, by a mile. I’m not much on heart in football. Fitness and determination I guess is how I would term it, but Chris lines has always been my type of player rather than Sinclair. Sinclair to me is like a fan who got supremely fit, practiced a bit and does so much running he’s in the team, when he scores, it’s like we all score. Don’t mean to be scathing but I’m very much one for refinement over running, but that’s what makes football a great discussion.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 22, 2018 19:28:45 GMT
Thinking back... A few players compared. Championship team to current L1. Skill this is, not how effective - Partington, leads or Jock? Broadbent or 20p Locks or billy Clark Vaughan jones or lee brown Sincs or Holloway (this is prob holly to be fair) Lines or Andy Reece? Devon white or Gaffney? Saunders or Harrison? Think Saunders gets this one I love that team but still reckon the modern squad are better technical players You are right of course about technical ability but that is not everything - it is about making the most of what you have got. Of your list above, would always pick Bruno over Gaffers and Reece over Lines (Lines is just not my type of player whilst I absolutely loved Reecey and thought he was the most underrated of our squad at the time. Lines is technically a better player but doesn't have Reece's heart....). Would also prefer Martyn to Smith, but not Parkin. Locks would get the nod over Billy Clark, but like Reece I thought the Judge was seriously underrated and an excellent club servant. Would also pick Boris ahead of any of the current squad on RW. If we are still measuring players on technical ability, I'd argue that of all the players I have seen, David Williams and Vitalijs Astafjevs are technically superior to any of our current squad and I'd make the case for Mickey Barrett too Despite being one of the less gifted players to pull on the quarters, Bruno is my all time favourite player and I think would still cause mayhem today if the ball was played into his vicinity. Whether or not he'd last the full 90 with today's referees and modern players propensity to fall over at the merest hint of contact is another matter altogether....... Agree. And you’ve mentioned several players that I didn’t which emphasises the point being made about players then being as good as and in some cases better. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 10:35:37 GMT
lines isnt fit to lace the boots of david williams or vitas imo
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Feb 23, 2018 11:24:23 GMT
lines isnt fit to lace the boots of david williams or vitas imo Lines turns up and gives 100% every single time. That wins over the Latvian for me. David Williams remains the best midfielder I’ve seen in quarters though.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Feb 23, 2018 12:13:41 GMT
lines isnt fit to lace the boots of david williams or vitas imo Lines turns up and gives 100% every single time. That wins over the Latvian for me. David Williams remains the best midfielder I’ve seen in quarters though. Does he though? I've seen him have games where it doesn't look like he is giving 100% perhaps more in his first spell with us than his second. I especially remember a game in the year we got relegated back to league 2 where he just waved his leg at several tackles and was just showboating rather than showing any desire at all to influence the game. Perhaps this one match coloured my opinion of him so badly that I now look out for more of the same before seeing the good things he does do. On his day he is undoubtedly a good player, but I still think the Latvian is more gifted technically. Whilst I think you are right that he too wasn't always up for it, on his day he was capable of taking teams apart on his own - something I'm yet to see Lines do....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 12:26:25 GMT
lines isnt fit to lace the boots of david williams or vitas imo Lines turns up and gives 100% every single time. That wins over the Latvian for me. David Williams remains the best midfielder I’ve seen in quarters though. lines this time around maybe, remember his first stint ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 12:29:51 GMT
Lines turns up and gives 100% every single time. That wins over the Latvian for me. David Williams remains the best midfielder I’ve seen in quarters though. Does he though? I've seen him have games where it doesn't look like he is giving 100% perhaps more in his first spell with us than his second. I especially remember a game in the year we got relegated back to league 2 where he just waved his leg at several tackles and was just showboating rather than showing any desire at all to influence the game. Perhaps this one match coloured my opinion of him so badly that I now look out for more of the same before seeing the good things he does do. On his day he is undoubtedly a good player, but I still think the Latvian is more gifted technically. Whilst I think you are right that he too wasn't always up for it, on his day he was capable of taking teams apart on his own - something I'm yet to see Lines do.... spot on, one was capain of his national team with 167 caps and went on to manage the national team the other comes from filton and is ; one of our own ;
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 23, 2018 13:02:30 GMT
Does he though? I've seen him have games where it doesn't look like he is giving 100% perhaps more in his first spell with us than his second. I especially remember a game in the year we got relegated back to league 2 where he just waved his leg at several tackles and was just showboating rather than showing any desire at all to influence the game. Perhaps this one match coloured my opinion of him so badly that I now look out for more of the same before seeing the good things he does do. On his day he is undoubtedly a good player, but I still think the Latvian is more gifted technically. Whilst I think you are right that he too wasn't always up for it, on his day he was capable of taking teams apart on his own - something I'm yet to see Lines do.... spot on, one was capain of his national team with 167 caps and went on to manage the national team the other comes from filton and is ; one of our own ; How old was the Latvian when he came to us?
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Feb 23, 2018 13:02:36 GMT
When did "One of our own" last use his left foot...for anything?
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 23, 2018 13:06:07 GMT
spot on, one was capain of his national team with 167 caps and went on to manage the national team the other comes from filton and is ; one of our own ; How old was the Latvian when he came to us? Was about 30 or 31 So compare Lines ar same age?
|
|