I don't think he was very good.
One of the key players under our transformation with Keegan. Loved him.
I don't think he was very good.
One of the key players under our transformation with Keegan. Loved him.
Not a fan of Schar but Albert was seriously over rated by our fansgive me pav in front of pope, Albert ahead of schar and Lee ahead of Murphy and Beardsley in front of Bruno and we’re laughing
Not a fan of Schar but Albert was seriously over rated by our fans
He was no Big Dan Burn.Albert was way too attacking for a CB, typical Keegan player.
Absolute bolloxThey had a sprinkle of quality but most the players were pretty **** by today's standards
They had a sprinkle of quality but most the players were pretty **** by today's standards
Absolute bollox
Not a fan of Schar but Albert was seriously over rated by our fans

True.They had a sprinkle of quality but most the players were pretty **** by today's standards
Except they're meant to be footballers, not athletes.The standards athletically are far higher.
I know all the old farts don't want to understand that and if you think hottiger and kitson would get any where near this squad you're mistaken.
Except they're meant to be footballers, not athletes.
I agree with Cats Whiskers is right about comparing different generations of footballers but to suggest that most of, say the Entertainers were s***e is simply absolute nonsense.
Funny you should mention Beresford. In the recent trip down sarf in a bar between Covent Garden and Leicester Square a certain John Beresford was in chatting to the fans including some posters on here. A really nice bloke who still loves the Toon.Everything's different then - they didn't have dieticians, whole stats teams, big teams of health staff, strong rules about not going out, better recovery systems, tactics have evolved far more, blah blah.
Beresford would have obviously benefited from the above and and been a better player at the time if those things were available, which they weren't. But that still isn't to say he'd get into the today's team cos the Prem is the best in the world right now, whereas back then it was Italy, Spain and France.
"Best ever" isn't a comparison to today, it's about how good players were relative to what things were at the time.
True.
Except for Cole, Beardsley, Ginola, Ferdinand, Shearer, to name but a few.
Except they're meant to be footballers, not athletes.
I agree with Cats Whiskers is right about comparing different generations of footballers but to suggest that most of, say the Entertainers were s***e is simply absolute nonsense.
As with anything, it's a balance. Fitness and athleticism is just one part but, importantly, it's not the key part.There's a reason why being athletic is key. You can't just dissmiss it's significance.
Sports move on.
As with anything, it's a balance. Fitness and athleticism is just one part but, importantly, it's not the key part.
Sport may move on but the key part to being a footballer, especially at the top level, is footballing talent.
The more you have of other parts such as athleticism it helps but you would (should) not get anywhere without footballing talent and skills. Thus making it the most important individual part required.
George Best, for example, wouldstill be a great today. For those of us lucky enough to see him it's laughable to think of players like Grealish, Rice, and even Foden being lauded to the extent they are when you consider the footballing skills and brain of George Best.
It's a balance but ultimately footballing skills are so much more important than athleticism.
Ever heard the expression’let the ball do the work’?It's a huge part .. The standard today would send most of the old names to their knees real quick.
You must log in or register to see images