Croydon. I go back a long way.To 1953 to be exact. But take the double year when men were men and check the number of games players missed.Not many! 50 years later and players can't even finish 90 minutes!!!!
Hi Smithy, like you I go back a long way, but you must know that football today is a totally different game to the one we watched in 1961. The pace of the game now is awesome. The 61 team would lose about 4-1 to the current team if by some magic you you could recreate them playing them the way they were to the way we play today. Obviously you can't and in their era the 61 team was better than the current team is today. Footballers today may not be 'real men' like those of yore, but they are stronger, faster, fitter and just simply better in absolute terms compared to 50 years ago. That applies to sprinters, marathon runners, tennis players and indeed any sports that involve a lot of running about. It probably also applies to slower games like cricket and golf, and indeed all sports. You could easily argue that watching football in the 60s was better than it is now, and I would agree, but there many reasons for that, including the far superior crowd experience you had then. (As long as you were fairly fit, and didn't mind the 'health and safety nightmare' that those conditions would now be seen as
I think it would depend on which set of rules the game was played under. Today's - or the laws as they were then. If the game were played under the old laws, I think most of the current lot would have been limping off after the first tackle from Dave Mackay or Bobby Smith. Most of today's players wouldn't come back for more after experiencing a Mackay special
Fair comment NSS, but to be honest the old players were so slow they'd have difficulty getting anywhere near enough to Lennon, Bale and Walker to foul them. If you look at the old pictures it seems like walking pace half the time in the early 60s, 50s.
Best would be a billionaire by now, but on the other hand he'd have drunk it all away and been chucked out clubs who wouldn't tolerate his antics. Fergie and Besty mmmmm
Still would have been one of the greatest ever,used to love watching him.Even if he did play for ManU.
They all tried that back in those days - literally in some cases. Unless you saw him play, you wouldn't appreciate how good he was. As with Messi, nowadays, they all try to mark him out of the game - they all fail. As they would with Best. GH10 mate, I don't have to imagine it, I was there. Mackay would only have to catch up with them once - that would be enough!
I agree about George Best.Hate to say it,but the man was magic.I'm sure they tried out the two man marking system on him long ago....and it didn't work.He could turn on a sixpence.A few shrugs of his shoulders...and he was gone...with two defenders on their backsides waiting for the ref to call time. I don't agree about the slow players of the 60's. What about Cliff Jones and Terry Medwin of Spurs to mention just two? I don't see that todays footballers are any faster than Liverpool's "Charge of the Light Brigade" brand of football of the past....which won them several trophies The "Double Spurs" never had to rush about.It was all brainwork with them led by Danny of course!
NSS mate I don't have to imagine it either, I was there too. Today's players would run rings round the old timers. It would be no contest.
Today's fast players are wayyy faster than the fast players of yore, just as today's sprinters are wayyy faster than the sprinters of yore. The Double team didn't rush around like they do now because it couldn't, none of the teams then could play 90 mins at the pace that Spurs play now.
As far as I recall half the players played pissed up still, with severe hangovers at the very least...fair play to em en all... had a few Saturday games like that myself!
Exactly, it was amazing some of them could run at all with the diets and 'fitness regimes' they were on. I loved football in the 60s, it was probably better overall as an experience than it is now. But it was slower and nowhere near as athletic in general as the power and pace game of today's Prem.
I have to agree with Smithy on this one. Players like Cliff Jones were every bit as quick as most of today's players. The main difference, of course, would be the fitness & stamina levels. Of course, today's team should win quite comfortably - in the end. But they would sure as hell know that they'd been in a match. As I said originally, a lot would depend on which set of laws the game was played under.
Fair comments NSS, Jones in his day was lightning. The fastest sprinter in the 1960 Olympics would have been quicker than a lot of today's sprinters. However, he wouldn't even make the final, let alone win a medal these days. As you say a lot would depend on ref interpretations if the two teams could ever meet, which of course the can't. The early 60s team was our greatest ever team and it's unlikely they'll be surpassed in any of our lifetimes. But we have to go back to what started this chat, Big Smithy going on about how players didn't get injured so much in those days. They didn't, but to repeat they didn't play with the pace and power of today's game, so it's a different game, in so many ways. Incidentally, IIRC Big Smithy was 5ft 9, in today's teams littered with 6ft plus players, he would do well to be labelled 'Big Smithy' these days. Another example of how the game has changed, they're not only fitter and faster, they're taller as well.
I was playing center forward in the 60's and was 6' 1 but was only 175lbs,then! (220 now!) . Not terribly fast but could run all day if need be. There were a lot of skinny boys about then.....and a lot of heavyweights too!......and unless you got badly injured, you finished the game....and ready to go again the following day! In the old days, you could play 3games in 4 or 5 days.
