|
Post by Mrs V Smegma on Feb 23, 2018 13:12:55 GMT
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. David Williams is the best passer of a ball I have ever seen in the quarters. He had a terrific shot on him as well and scored lots of important goals. I never remember him not giving 100% but he didn't always win the midfield battle, and his main deficiency was lack of pace. If he'd had that, I've no doubt he would have been one of the most celebrated midfielders of his day and he wouldn't have played 300+ games for us.... I thought Vitas blew hot and cold with us. On his day he was outstanding, but there were days when he clearly didn't fancy it. My memory might be awry here but I thought we had him over three seasons - the nearly year when he picked up a bad injury after taking Oldham apart, the relegation year when he was the only beacon of light during a depressing season, and the first Graydon year where some important goals kept us above the conference trapdoor. Fairly average seems a tad harsh to me..... My memories of him are fond ones. I like intelligence and guile in a footballer. Those I've seen in a Rovers shirt with these qualities include Williams, Astafjevs and Barrett, Penrice, Hayles, and more recently Taylor and Bodin. Liam Lawrence had it but never showed for us. Lambert had it too but I'd say heart was as big a quality in him as guile. Players I'd love to have played for us include Teddy Sheringham, Kevin Maher, Eric Cantona and Kevin De Bruyn, who I think is just the cleverest footballer I have ever seen. One more name to throw into the frame - have we ever had a more cultured centre back than Andy Tillson? For me, heart is a lot more than being fit and running around a lot. It is about getting stuck in and influencing and winning games through dogged determination, effort, sheer bloody mindedness, making the most of the ability you have been given and imposing all of this on the opponents to make things happen for your side. Players we have had with these qualities include Olly & Reece, Pritch, Bruno, Ronnie Mauge before his broken leg, Kevin Austin, Frankie Prince, Joner, Jock, Archie Stephens etc. Sincs has a lot of it too but I'm not sure he always applies it in the most effective way hence is not a match winner as often as he might be. At the other end of the scale Rob Quinn was fit and used to run around a lot but had no heart at all, and consequently is one of the worst players I have seen in a Rovers shirt! Personally I think you need both to be successful team, and I've seen players with heart win games on their own as often as the players with better technical ability. Great teams have players of both types, and the very best have the very few who are blessed with both qualities. Refinement is great from an aesthetic perspective, but no use in winning football matches unless it is applied properly. Like others in the thread above, I agree that it is impossible to compare players of different generations as there is no way to conclusively prove X is a better footballer than Y and hence is all down to differing opinions. It is an interesting discussion though, and gives us old farts an excuse to reminisce over some of the players we have enjoyed down the years so thank you for rescuing a thread which was becoming tedious!
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 23, 2018 13:25:29 GMT
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. David Williams is the best passer of a ball I have ever seen in the quarters. He had a terrific shot on him as well and scored lots of important goals. I never remember him not giving 100% but he didn't always win the midfield battle, and his main deficiency was lack of pace. If he'd had that, I've no doubt he would have been one of the most celebrated midfielders of his day and he wouldn't have played 300+ games for us.... I thought Vitas blew hot and cold with us. On his day he was outstanding, but there were days when he clearly didn't fancy it. My memory might be awry here but I thought we had him over three seasons - the nearly year when he picked up a bad injury after taking Oldham apart, the relegation year when he was the only beacon of light during a depressing season, and the first Graydon year where some important goals kept us above the conference trapdoor. Fairly average seems a tad harsh to me..... My memories of him are fond ones. I like intelligence and guile in a footballer. Those I've seen in a Rovers shirt with these qualities include Williams, Astafjevs and Barrett, Penrice, Hayles, and more recently Taylor and Bodin. Liam Lawrence had it but never showed for us. Lambert had it too but I'd say heart was as big a quality in him as guile. Players I'd love to have played for us include Teddy Sheringham, Kevin Maher, Eric Cantona and Kevin De Bruyn, who I think is just the cleverest footballer I have ever seen. One more name to throw into the frame - have we ever had a more cultured centre back than Andy Tillson? For me, heart is a lot more than being fit and running around a lot. It is about getting stuck in and influencing and winning games through dogged determination, effort, sheer bloody mindedness, making the most of the ability you have been given and imposing all of this on the opponents to make things happen for your side. Players we have had with these qualities include Olly & Reece, Pritch, Bruno, Ronnie Mauge before his broken leg, Kevin Austin, Frankie Prince, Joner, Jock, Archie Stephens etc. Sincs has a lot of it too but I'm not sure he always applies it in the most effective way hence is not a match winner as often as he might be. At the other end of the scale Rob Quinn was fit and used to run around a lot but had no heart at all, and consequently is one of the worst players I have seen in a Rovers shirt! Personally I think you need both to be successful team, and I've seen players with heart win games on their own as often as the players with better technical ability. Great teams have players of both types, and the very best have the very few who are blessed with both qualities. Refinement is great from an aesthetic perspective, but no use in winning football matches unless it is applied properly. Like others in the thread above, I agree that it is impossible to compare players of different generations as there is no way to conclusively prove X is a better footballer than Y and hence is all down to differing opinions. It is an interesting discussion though, and gives us old farts an excuse to reminisce over some of the players we have enjoyed down the years so thank you for rescuing a thread which was becoming tedious! Great post Mrs V Smegma
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 13:50:46 GMT
How old was the Latvian when he came to us? Was about 30 or 31 So compare Lines ar same age? not fit to lace his boots
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Feb 23, 2018 14:06:50 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? Vitas was 28 when he arrived on 22 Dec 1999 87 league appearances plus 21 sub apps and 16 goals before going to play in Austria in Aug 2003. Quality player but agree David Williams was better
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 23, 2018 17:29:02 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 18:53:31 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go? andy spring doesnt
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 23, 2018 19:03:33 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go? Not too sure if you’re joking Gregory or being serious.😀 But the reason is for most of the 50s and a year in the 60s we played in the second tier of English football so players were better compared to now against the rest of English football. Then from the mid 60s until 1981 we were either fighting for promotion in the third tier or actually in the second tier. Consequently our players were in the the top half of English football then so they had to be better. Since 2001 we’ve been usually in the fourth tier or even lower apart apart from 4 years 07-11 and the last two years. And even in the third tier we haven’t seriously threatened promotion. So overall we’ve been competing (or not!) at a lower level hence the players aren’t overall as good. Of course during this time we have had notable players who have been very good. UTG!
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 24, 2018 2:55:02 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 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. Overall I think it's a bit of a dead-end debate really because it entirely depends on what perspective you are coming at it from. On the one hand it seems completely reasonable to claim that the fundamentals of the technique and physical qualities that players need to be successful probably haven't changed all that much. I think I'm also prepared to buy the argument that most team tactics have been tried over the years. However, I do think that the evolution of physically fitter players, a higher number of substitutions and the ball being kept in play for much longer due to the backpass rule have made it more of a neccessity that it becomes a squad game. I think most managers now plan to make many in-game switches in tactics and rely on their benches far more to provide them with the key edge in the last 20 minutes. That is quite a big shift from an era when substitutions were seen as only for injuries - it's been like that for a while I'll grant you, but I think the combination of a number of these factors has lead to a significant shift in the way the game is played. I suppose the question is whether things are tactical fashions (5-3-2 became massively popular for a bit and then largely vanished and now seems to be undergoing a bit of revival for example) or permanent shifts. I'd argue the long run decline in playing 2 proper strikers and old fashioned wingers are the result of modern fitness levels making those positions largely redundent. Alf Ramsey's famous wingless wonders not withstanding attacking wingers continued to survive and be celebrated well into the 80s - I think now they just have less space to work in because higher defensive lines and fitness levels have shifted expectations that all wide players must be competent defenders as well so the out and out winger has become an endangered specieis. But I might well be overstating that. I think from the point of view of individual assessments of players skills and basic coaching and tactics there really is a bit of emperor's new clothes about some of the claims of innovation. But I think overall team strategy, the fitness levels of players, the expectations on certain positions and the capacity of the manager to manager to make in game changes have changed considerably. I guess it comes down to how much importance you put on these things but the basic point about comparing between eras clearly stands. Would Messi have been about to live with the battering George Best took on a weekly basis? Unlikely. Would Best have been able to get anywhere in the modern football world with his lifestyle and attitude? Equally unlikely. The whole discussion is entirely subjective - I'm not sure it's even possible to even agree on the basics of what change looks like.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 24, 2018 3:23:40 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go? Not too sure if you’re joking Gregory or being serious.😀 But the reason is for most of the 50s and a year in the 60s we played in the second tier of English football so players were better compared to now against the rest of English football. Then from the mid 60s until 1981 we were either fighting for promotion in the third tier or actually in the second tier. Consequently our players were in the the top half of English football then so they had to be better. Since 2001 we’ve been usually in the fourth tier or even lower apart apart from 4 years 07-11 and the last two years. And even in the third tier we haven’t seriously threatened promotion. So overall we’ve been competing (or not!) at a lower level hence the players aren’t overall as good. Of course during this time we have had notable players who have been very good. UTG! I think this is right. It's an absolute vs relative debate. No doubt that modern players are quicker, stronger, bigger, fitter etc than those in previous ones (although I'm not convinced they're necessarily technically better). You just have to watch the different pace of games from different eras and the amount of ground covered. But at the same time I don't think it really matters because competition is surely relative to your opponents. So it seems completely right to me to say that Rovers best teams were in the 50s and 60s. I mean I'm pretty sure if you could transport the '66 team in a time machine and played with current rules and equipment then the current England team would beat them very easily. But who cares, it's not a reasonable comparison because you can't just discount those differences - we all know the '66 team will rightly be known as the best England team ever and the current lot, miracle excepted, will largely be forgotten in 2 years times when the next tournament rolls around because they showed they could beat the best in the World and the 2018 vintage definitely won't. It's why any decent sports stats comparing either individual or team performance across time control for the era effects.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 24, 2018 6:20:32 GMT
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. Overall I think it's a bit of a dead-end debate really because it entirely depends on what perspective you are coming at it from. On the one hand it seems completely reasonable to claim that the fundamentals of the technique and physical qualities that players need to be successful probably haven't changed all that much. I think I'm also prepared to buy the argument that most team tactics have been tried over the years. However, I do think that the evolution of physically fitter players, a higher number of substitutions and the ball being kept in play for much longer due to the backpass rule have made it more of a neccessity that it becomes a squad game. I think most managers now plan to make many in-game switches in tactics and rely on their benches far more to provide them with the key edge in the last 20 minutes. That is quite a big shift from an era when substitutions were seen as only for injuries - it's been like that for a while I'll grant you, but I think the combination of a number of these factors has lead to a significant shift in the way the game is played. I suppose the question is whether things are tactical fashions (5-3-2 became massively popular for a bit and then largely vanished and now seems to be undergoing a bit of revival for example) or permanent shifts. I'd argue the long run decline in playing 2 proper strikers and old fashioned wingers are the result of modern fitness levels making those positions largely redundent. Alf Ramsey's famous wingless wonders not withstanding attacking wingers continued to survive and be celebrated well into the 80s - I think now they just have less space to work in because higher defensive lines and fitness levels have shifted expectations that all wide players must be competent defenders as well so the out and out winger has become an endangered specieis. But I might well be overstating that. I think from the point of view of individual assessments of players skills and basic coaching and tactics there really is a bit of emperor's new clothes about some of the claims of innovation. But I think overall team strategy, the fitness levels of players, the expectations on certain positions and the capacity of the manager to manager to make in game changes have changed considerably. I guess it comes down to how much importance you put on these things but the basic point about comparing between eras clearly stands. Would Messi have been about to live with the battering George Best took on a weekly basis? Unlikely. Would Best have been able to get anywhere in the modern football world with his lifestyle and attitude? Equally unlikely. The whole discussion is entirely subjective - I'm not sure it's even possible to even agree on the basics of what change looks like. It is easier to run around overweight, slow, unskilled defenders trying to whack you, than run around fit, competent defenders who can’t
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 24, 2018 8:58:33 GMT
Are there less flair players today who are allowed to play of the cuff? Organisation and tactics are the order of the day, players who defend from the front. Billy Bob seems to be a rarity these days, a player who does not rely on pace but can put a player on is ass. Go back in time there seemed to be more players who could do that.
Not saying players then we're better, more that they were allowed to play like that.
Today would Mourinio allow Best to play as he liked?
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by warehamgas on Feb 24, 2018 9:03:51 GMT
Of course it is easier to run around fat defenders but that’s over simplifying the situation then. Very few defenders were as you said they were Gregory. It’s a meaningless generalisation. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 9:30:57 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go? My great Granddad says that Bill Gould ( 38 appearances between 1906 ~ 07 ) made Andy Spring look like Pele. He also thinks that Nichols is possessed by the spirit of Darryl Duffey.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 10:19:37 GMT
It's the great Denis Law's birthday today. No doubt he was s**t too, Gregory?
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Feb 24, 2018 10:51:22 GMT
Why do players get better the further back we go? My great Granddad says that Bill Gould ( 38 appearances between 1906 ~ 07 ) made Andy Spring look like Pele. He also thinks that Nichols is possessed by the spirit of Darryl Duffey. That would make your great grandad at least 118 so I think this is a joke
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 11:03:58 GMT
My great Granddad says that Bill Gould ( 38 appearances between 1906 ~ 07 ) made Andy Spring look like Pele. He also thinks that Nichols is possessed by the spirit of Darryl Duffey. That would make your great grandad at least 118 so I think this is a joke We talk daily.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 11:16:04 GMT
My great Granddad says that Bill Gould ( 38 appearances between 1906 ~ 07 ) made Andy Spring look like Pele. He also thinks that Nichols is possessed by the spirit of Darryl Duffey. That would make your great grandad at least 118 so I think this is a joke bamber may be a few things but a tom pepper he aint
|
|