I have been watching the 1966 World Cup final on ESPN Classic and cant beilive how fit both sides are. After watching England lumber through Euro 2012 with 3 subs, the 1966 guys ( all 11 ) would have run rings around them. All sport has moved on over the years and usually in fitness but their isn't a team at the Eoros that are fitter than the boys of 66.
In 1966 I played football on a Saturday afternoon, trained on a Wednesday evening and played football on a Sunday morning for my local pub team. This was in addition to working a five and a half day week and having a quarter of an acre of garden to keep together and a young family. No slobby fat Mr and Mrs Lards when I was young.
And they passed the ball around better than the current England team because they didn't play in that god awful 4-4-2 formation and played in a 4-3-3 instead.
Don't agree with this really. I've watched the '66 cup final in its entirety, and there's no way that those players were any fitter than the athletes we call footballers today. They were all falling over with cramp during extra time, and the game was generally played at a slower pace than it is now. Players used to smoke and drink all the team and eat whatever they wanted, and they had nothing like the fitness training players have nowadays. I'm sure Godders has a point that there would have been far less fatties back in those days, but I really don't think the same can be said for sportsmen. They've never been fitter than they are now.
This is quite true. However, then England manager and Ex-Saint Alf Ramsey, was one of the first to employ new methods incorporating the importance of correct diet. There was also the odd player who had always personally considered diet to be important. The chief among these was Stanley Matthews, whose methods were extraordinary for his time. If anyone has 10 spare minutes for Wiki, or some such biography, his professional life story is a real eye-opener.
Don't agree with that at all. I also have watched it in its entirety, yes players were struggling with cramp in extra time but that was due to the pace and ground they had covered in the 90 minutes. To say the pace of the game was slower is garbage, i suggest you watch it again. Not only did they play the game at a fast pace but it was also far more physical, and for anyone who has played football or for that fact any sport, at a high standard will know how much that can add to sapping energy. The fact that not only the full backs got forward but centre backs like Bobby More did and in open play not just corners, showed the fitness of all eleven players. Smoking was very much around but don't get confused with the drinking part of football with these guys and what became more evident in football in the 70s Fantastic game played by extremely fit men. And i will stick by my opinion that that team would NOT have looked out of place in this Euro 2012 tournament.
Mustn't forget players were good for their day. They would still be good today with modern training and fitness coaching.
If you can try watching the 1970 mexico clash between England v Brazil an absolute quality game played in intense heat both sides packed with to use a modern phrase 'technical ability'in my day you just called it skill
I remember it was a brilliant game and Pele said to More after the game, I will see you in the final. Most people said the 1970 World Cup team was better than the 66 team and probably the best English side to leave our shores.
It was. We should have reached the final. The one big mistake Ramsey made as an international manager was to take Charlton off. Beckenbauer was freed up defensively and went on to run the game. The trouble was, you couldn't blame Sir Alf really. We seemed to have the match sewn up and Bobby always looked older and more knackered than he was.
