| 1966 and all that 15:11 - Dec 10 with 699 views | Match82 |
You take our world cup winning team of 1966, in their prime, and magically transport them to today. Same manager, same tactics, same formation etc.
How far down the pyramid would they have to go to win a match?
With better physique, technique, stamina etc and tactics (there's a reason we don't play 4-2-4 anymore) there's no question they'd get destroyed by say today's current England team. Is there anyone in the Premier League they'd beat? Would they beat todays QPR team? |  | | |  |
| 1966 and all that on 18:49 - Dec 10 with 562 views | Toast_R |
No, theyd be pretty shite to be fair. Watch some clips of the 66 final and there is some pretty awful ball control and technique on show, as well as dreadful passing. But then, if you gave the modern professional the torn up pitches, heavy tackles/leniant officiating and water soaked balls that the players of yesteryear had to contend with, it may level up the contest a bit.
The reason the modern footballers are better is down to natural human progression. We now know that smoking and drinking is a terrible thing to do in Sports. We know how to put drainage into pitches and create highbrid turf. The ball is better, the rules are tighter and the game is awash with money because of advancements in broadcasting technology. Investments into grass rooots is paramount etc.
I would go as far as saying the decent Rangers teams of the late 80s and early 90s would struggle. |  | | |
| 1966 and all that on 21:05 - Dec 10 with 415 views | izlingtonhoop |
One day it will happen. If it hasn't already. Some AI programme will stage whatever match you like.
WG Grace v Pele in a Wimbledon semi final. It's on
[Post edited 10 Dec 21:10]
|  | | |
| 1966 and all that on 21:12 - Dec 10 with 384 views | izlingtonhoop |
| 1966 and all that on 18:49 - Dec 10 by Toast_R |
No, theyd be pretty shite to be fair. Watch some clips of the 66 final and there is some pretty awful ball control and technique on show, as well as dreadful passing. But then, if you gave the modern professional the torn up pitches, heavy tackles/leniant officiating and water soaked balls that the players of yesteryear had to contend with, it may level up the contest a bit.
The reason the modern footballers are better is down to natural human progression. We now know that smoking and drinking is a terrible thing to do in Sports. We know how to put drainage into pitches and create highbrid turf. The ball is better, the rules are tighter and the game is awash with money because of advancements in broadcasting technology. Investments into grass rooots is paramount etc.
I would go as far as saying the decent Rangers teams of the late 80s and early 90s would struggle. |
As you say, it's progression. Jimmy Greaves (you do mean him?) had an equal innate talent to most of today's top players, but it's much better understood how to nurture and utilise it. Standing on the shoulders of giants, to see further... [Post edited 10 Dec 21:14]
| | | |
| 1966 and all that on 22:40 - Dec 10 with 265 views | Lblock |
| 1966 and all that on 18:49 - Dec 10 by Toast_R |
No, theyd be pretty shite to be fair. Watch some clips of the 66 final and there is some pretty awful ball control and technique on show, as well as dreadful passing. But then, if you gave the modern professional the torn up pitches, heavy tackles/leniant officiating and water soaked balls that the players of yesteryear had to contend with, it may level up the contest a bit.
The reason the modern footballers are better is down to natural human progression. We now know that smoking and drinking is a terrible thing to do in Sports. We know how to put drainage into pitches and create highbrid turf. The ball is better, the rules are tighter and the game is awash with money because of advancements in broadcasting technology. Investments into grass rooots is paramount etc.
I would go as far as saying the decent Rangers teams of the late 80s and early 90s would struggle. |
I've always said this.
People always refer to the past coming forward.
The other way around and lads like Bellingham, Foden and Saka wouldn't last 15 minutes if they had to contend with the pitches, the heavy ball and most of all the intimidation of some proper animals playing with the views on tackles from behind, sliding tackles, flailing arms etc being best described as "lienient".
Flair players like Pele, Best, Bowles and Adel are a bit more timeless for me as that level of skill can cope with a lot. |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| 1966 and all that on 23:19 - Dec 10 with 223 views | numptydumpty |
| 1966 and all that on 18:49 - Dec 10 by Toast_R |
No, theyd be pretty shite to be fair. Watch some clips of the 66 final and there is some pretty awful ball control and technique on show, as well as dreadful passing. But then, if you gave the modern professional the torn up pitches, heavy tackles/leniant officiating and water soaked balls that the players of yesteryear had to contend with, it may level up the contest a bit.
The reason the modern footballers are better is down to natural human progression. We now know that smoking and drinking is a terrible thing to do in Sports. We know how to put drainage into pitches and create highbrid turf. The ball is better, the rules are tighter and the game is awash with money because of advancements in broadcasting technology. Investments into grass rooots is paramount etc.
I would go as far as saying the decent Rangers teams of the late 80s and early 90s would struggle. |
Did we not know back then, that smoking and drinking would affect performances.
I know it was done, but I think everyone knew it could have influenced quality. It was just more accepted as part of all types of working lives.
All workplaces went down the pub on a Friday. We did sod all work when we came back after "lunch".
Sackable offence in many work environments now. |  |
| |
| 1966 and all that on 23:32 - Dec 10 with 199 views | Match82 |
| 1966 and all that on 22:40 - Dec 10 by Lblock |
I've always said this.
People always refer to the past coming forward.
The other way around and lads like Bellingham, Foden and Saka wouldn't last 15 minutes if they had to contend with the pitches, the heavy ball and most of all the intimidation of some proper animals playing with the views on tackles from behind, sliding tackles, flailing arms etc being best described as "lienient".
Flair players like Pele, Best, Bowles and Adel are a bit more timeless for me as that level of skill can cope with a lot. |
Interesting idea about going backwards. A lot of the tippy tappy Pep stuff only works if everyone can do it. I'd imagine that "mavericks" and the "workers" would have skillsets that transcend tactics and translate well, but those technical players without much else to their game would struggle. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
