Any team that plays together for say, 30 games a season is going to beat a team of relative strangers. There was a time when Scotland's entire defence played for Rangers and four out of the five forwards played for Hibernian. It was little short of telepathic! They knew each other so well that they could make a pass accurately without even looking. Forget managers - any team that knows each other that well will win.
Gets my vote. Forget Brazil winning the WC in 58, had it not been for Munich where England lost five established internationals we would have won it. Same in 66, three from WHU, to the exclusion of the presses darling Greaves. Teamwork every time.
No, but then if they could, surely it would be a **** league. Would Spain win theirs probably not. France, dont think so. Germany, close call but bayern would probably just pip them. Italy, I don't really follow the Italian league, but im guessing juventus would be hard to overcome. Don't follow these leagues at all but the national team would probably walk them. Brazil Argentina Belgium Scotland Wales Holland And imo they are **** leagues (top 2 are probably a step above the others), but they have some exceptional players coming out of them.
You're certainly right about Brazil. Their league champions, Belo Horizonte, toured England in the early 1960s. Chelsea beat them 11 - 1, Manchester City beat them 10 - 0, and - get this - second division Sunderland beat them 10 - 1. I was at Roker that night and, believe me, if Belo had played in the English second division that year, they would have been relegated to Div. 3 by Xmas. They were absolute rubbish. It always makes me laugh when people say how many goals Pele scored. Jesus, Kevin Kyle would have broken records out there man! Can you imagine a GD of -29 in three games? That's how bad the Brazilian league champions were.
Teams do win games, rather than a load of odd pots from 15 teams. Look at the dominant Spain side, probably the best international side I've watched in my life, well it's a toss up between them and France '98-2000. When we pulled apart Germany 5-1 all five goals come from Liverpool players. The fluidity just works better. Trouble is now, at most teams are fielding maybe 3 Englishmen of any sort of quality then a bunch of foreigners so to apply the same successful ethic we have to drop down a level and pick drab from Liverpool or we puzzle together a bits n pieces side. Add to that Woy is a ****ing hedgehog of a manager and there's no point even turning up.
It's a stupid ****ing question & one that's not worthy of a reasonable answer. Typical ****e from Scudamore, ****ing arsehole.
I can't remember what my memory's like, so please remind me . . . . what did Scotland win during that period
The Man City blueprint?? As for the OP - No way in hell would England win the League with their first 11. at least 3 beter keepers than Hart, Better defences than the Jagielka/Cahill ets, Better midfields than England have. I reckon of the England team, maybe 3 would get into a top 4 side!
There was precious little to win. Very few countries took the World Cup seriously - and none of them were British. It was mainly a Latin competition. Italy, Uruguay and Brazil were the only winners until Germany won it in '54 - and nine of them came down with jaundice in the next three days. Today, Germany would be drug tested to hell for what they did. England had only played in one, and took it so seriously they lost 1-0 to the U.S.A.! The only competition that meant much in Britain was the Home Championships, and Scotland had won enough of them (I can't remember how many, but they were a very good team). There was no European competition of any sort until 1956 - when Hibernian became the first British side to reach the semi-finals of the European club competition. They were unlucky as hell not to reach the finals with Real Madrid. Reims went one up early, and then Hibs ravaged them - they hit the post and the crossbar several times. Ten minutes from time a long clearance out of the Reims area reached Raymond Kopa and he ran on to score a second. That finished it, but, make no mistake, Hibs deserved that place in the final. In the first round, Hibs had beaten the German champions 4-0, and Eddie Turnbull became the first British player to score in a competitive Euro-club competition. To gauge the strength of the Scottish game then, you have to bear in mind that Hibs were already two years in decline by '56. Centre forward, Lawrie Reilly had had a full season out with pleurisy, and Bobby Johnstone had left for Manchester City in 1955. Bobby went on to become the first ever to score in consecutive FA Cup finals (1955 and '56). Eleven years later, of course, Scotland produced Britain's first ever European winners - Jock Stein's Celtic. That same year, 1967, Scotland beat the reigning World Champions on their own ground - but, naturally, I can't remember what country that was. If you're imagining that Scotland have always been a mickey mouse outfit like they are pretty much now, I suggest you rethink.
He further stated a team of English players that ended up in the bottom half of the league (no cats) and I tell you what it didn't look to shabby Suppose it's a glass half full from him then
You're not telling that they won '**** all' after all of that, are you I have never thought of Scotland being a 'Mickey Mouse' outfit, either. On the contrary, I have preferred to watch Scotland rather than England since Glenn Hoddle retired from international football (after his England career was stupidly ****ed up by Bobby Robson - since when we've played without style)
As I said right at the beginning, there was only the Home Championships to win pretty much before 1956. The first World Cup to attract any sort of interest in Britain was 1958. etc.
