#lipsmackinthirstquenchinacetastincooldrinkinlivineverdrinkincoolfizzinpepsi I'm a Pepsi drinker myself.
You, equally, cannot claim they're not. Toe poking an inflatable in the current game is not evidence that they couldn't take a freekick like they did 50 years ago. Just silly? How so? It's not just about fitness and speed, defending was ****ing shoddy back then. Most old highlight reels just have defenders backing off indefinitely, failing to mark obvious runs or diving in and missing tackles. No doubt there were some good players and perhaps they are comparable to modern players, but it's entirely relative to what you're playing against. Case in point; play in pub team and it's easy to stand out if you've got half a brain and a bit of fitness. Move up a level and the playing field is more even, it's harder to stand out unless you've got that natural edge because the players you're against are more drilled, more intelligent and more talented. By the time to you get to modern professional standards, it's ****ing tough to stand out unless you're that one in a million player. Just noting that there seems to be an awful lot of those one in a million players...when you play against players who go down the pub after training and matches, it's not hard to have an edge over them. I think nostalgia plays a huge part in these lists. Sorry to piss on the parade of you older chaps (mid to late twenties here) but I believe it's easy to look back and remember things being better than they were. Even Alonso people consider a Liverpool legend but he had one good season (maybe two) and the rest were average or ****. Gerrard's immense performance in Istanbul wasn't actually that good. He played well for 30mins when we finally got a goal back. We always remember the past more fondly than we should. Are the likes of Charlton or Matthews really immense players comparable to modern players or were they just great in their generation against bit part players who smoked, drank and barely trained?
That's just complete an utter arrogant bollocks! Defenders couldn't defend. The majority of defenders from the 60s and 70s would scare the **** out of todays players who couldn't take a proper tackle - and I'm not talking about Norman Hunter style assasinations either! So you would say that Kenny was not that great then - just a little ahead of the curve? Boy you certainly haven't got a clue!
You lads are a prime example of why Greaves''s list is flawed, its correct to say footy from his days as a player had some stand out players but it was more about contact as well as skill back then whereas today contact is avoided more and skill is the be all and end all. Impossible to compare different generations in the game and list a jumble of both.
^ this these type of lists you have to remember are personnel opinions, but no way should Barnes be where he is ffs or Rushie. Where is Liddell as well? also cant argue with Shilton and Jennings quality keepers, but Seamen is on there and Clemence isnt ?
should see old crazy horse on that list as well considering he as captain lifted the European cup twice ie defended it, which is why i don't understand why Seamen is on the list and Clemence isnt, surely their achievements are better than a lot of on there.
good list to get debate going i suppose. Clemence,Liddell,Emlyn,Turd,Bruce,Pallister,Irwin,Walker (Des) i would have all of them ahead of Pearce and Seamen, but like i said personnel opinion how drunk was he when he made this list lol, also where is his partner in crime Saint?
How many old highlights are there showing a side defending well? Highlights show the exciting bits; goals and good attacking team play. Of course the defending is going to seem poor. As for standing out at lower levels; fair point but they wasn't at a lower level, they were playing alongside the best players of the time!
So i looked at this list and i laughed at it. whoever compiled it shows a true lack of brains or knowledge or class. 1. John "photo bomb" terry should not be on it, i think we can all at least agree on that. 2. I agree seeing michael owen on that list is amazing, 1998 one goal ok... and the 2001 fa cup final yes but is that really enough? 3. John charles is a very famous name guys, he played for juventus and is a legend in italy. 4. seeing bobby charlton below the drunken george best who threw his career in the bin virtually is a joke. if anything charlotn should be no 1. 5. how on earth frank lampard is even on the list is another joke. 6. sorry to utd fans also but come on... duncan edwards, tragedy and all that. I respect the sentiment but hang on potential is not a reason to go on that list. 7. utterly amazed that beardsley is on the list. 8. finally the fact that paul i did nothing gascoigne is put in the top 10 says it all about english football.
Surprised how few people have heard of John Charles. I'm only 26 (helps that I'm Welsh and a Cardiff fan, mind!) and know a decent amount about the guy. Had a look on wiki to give you guys some more info and found this great section on Ability: That last paragraph is bloody impressive
that is impressive, how come i have never heard of him before then if he was regarded that high? is he not a fashionable name like Gazza or Beckham or something.
Because the media need to make 'heros' of those who are playing today simply because they make more money for them. As has been said above you cannot make direct comparisons but your not going to make any impression on the closed minds who believe that what they are watching today is the pinnacle of footballing skill. You also have to consider that he played for Cardiff City and not for the media darlings in London. After that he was playing in Italy at a time when our focus was fixed firmly on the English game. So others were given the laurels as heros for lesser achievements.
You might but others are justified in saying that potential is not sufficient. Be honest, if he hadn't played for United would you still be arguing his case?
