| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? 11:30 - Jul 4 with 1536 views | GeoffSentence |
Some of you will definitely know, for those who want to guess, it is someone very smart indeed.
"I’m fairly sure that England’s World Cup winning football team from 1966 would struggle against the current first team of my beloved Ipswich Town, at the time of writing languishing in the third tier of the English leagues."
Got to say, smart as the writer is, I thik he is wrong, oh so wrong. I can't see Chambers matching up to Moore, Holy is not a patch on Banks, even given the improvements in training methods since the. Give them the 1966 ball and the current Town team wouldn't get within a country mile of them. |  |
| |  |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:36 - Jul 4 with 1496 views | Oldsmoker |
If we're playing 1966 rules of hacking/fouling with no cards, pass-backs to goalie and no subs then the 1966 team would win.
If it's 2020 rules of "don't touch me" then it's a close call. |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:39 - Jul 4 with 1490 views | WeWereZombies |
Ed Sheeran?
He's the only celebrity fan we have left, isn't he? |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:40 - Jul 4 with 1482 views | GeoffSentence |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:39 - Jul 4 by WeWereZombies |
Ed Sheeran?
He's the only celebrity fan we have left, isn't he? |
Turns out, we have another. | |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:41 - Jul 4 with 1475 views | Oldsmoker |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:36 - Jul 4 by Oldsmoker |
If we're playing 1966 rules of hacking/fouling with no cards, pass-backs to goalie and no subs then the 1966 team would win.
If it's 2020 rules of "don't touch me" then it's a close call. |
The Brazil team of 1966 playing under 2020 rules would beat us 10-0.
The only reason they lost was Pele was hacked continuously until he could hardly walk. | |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:51 - Jul 4 with 1437 views | DanTheMan |
Given you say he's a writer, is it Adam Rutherfood? |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:55 - Jul 4 with 1418 views | GeoffSentence |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:51 - Jul 4 by DanTheMan |
Given you say he's a writer, is it Adam Rutherfood? |
Bingo. He's da man. | |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:57 - Jul 4 with 1420 views | factual_blue |
Although he was comparing two teams of similar skill levels, Alan Hansen always used to say that the Liverpool team of his era would match the team of Stevie Gerrard's era for seventy minutes. Then the difference in fitness would kick in and Hansen's team would lost 4-0.
As 1966 fitness levels compared to today were even lower, you can see where he's coming from. |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 12:56 - Jul 4 with 1348 views | BlueBadger |
Well, a lot of them are dead and the rest are in their 70's and 80's but I'm sure that Lamebo could play for a draw against them. [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 18:07]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:18 - Jul 4 with 1306 views | PhilTWTD |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:57 - Jul 4 by factual_blue |
Although he was comparing two teams of similar skill levels, Alan Hansen always used to say that the Liverpool team of his era would match the team of Stevie Gerrard's era for seventy minutes. Then the difference in fitness would kick in and Hansen's team would lost 4-0.
As 1966 fitness levels compared to today were even lower, you can see where he's coming from. |
I'd be sceptical that they could compete for 70 minutes given the greater athleticism of players and increased pace of the game these days. I think, as good as they were during their era and regardless of technical ability, the game would go on around them and they'd be chasing shadows. |  | | |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:35 - Jul 4 with 1275 views | GeoffSentence |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:18 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
I'd be sceptical that they could compete for 70 minutes given the greater athleticism of players and increased pace of the game these days. I think, as good as they were during their era and regardless of technical ability, the game would go on around them and they'd be chasing shadows. |
I dunno Phil, the only experimental evidence we have suggests that the modern team would have the early advantage but the vintage team would soon adaptt and overcome the fitness issue
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wenv | |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:38 - Jul 4 with 1262 views | PhilTWTD |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:35 - Jul 4 by GeoffSentence |
I dunno Phil, the only experimental evidence we have suggests that the modern team would have the early advantage but the vintage team would soon adaptt and overcome the fitness issue
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wenv |
I think that case study is a few years old now. | | | |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:50 - Jul 4 with 1235 views | sparks |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:18 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
I'd be sceptical that they could compete for 70 minutes given the greater athleticism of players and increased pace of the game these days. I think, as good as they were during their era and regardless of technical ability, the game would go on around them and they'd be chasing shadows. |
Indeed. You need only look at the shape of most players now. They are lithe athletes rather than normal blokes who are fit. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 14:44 - Jul 4 with 1174 views | Darth_Koont |
Probably right.
The sport, just like all other major sports, has advanced massively in terms of fitness and all-round skill. |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 15:17 - Jul 4 with 1150 views | PJH |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 14:44 - Jul 4 by Darth_Koont |
Probably right.
The sport, just like all other major sports, has advanced massively in terms of fitness and all-round skill. |
I will never agree that football has advanced in skill since the '60's,70's and 80's.
It is much faster and it is played by athletes but players that could play back then with tackles flying in from all directions would more than hold their own skill wise with what exists now-in my opinion.
They would not compete with fitness but with the ball at their feet I think the players that were very good back then would be very good now, if not better than very good.
There are more players from back then that I would call great than there are players from more recent times that I would call great. |  | | |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 15:48 - Jul 4 with 1115 views | Darth_Koont |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 15:17 - Jul 4 by PJH |
I will never agree that football has advanced in skill since the '60's,70's and 80's.
It is much faster and it is played by athletes but players that could play back then with tackles flying in from all directions would more than hold their own skill wise with what exists now-in my opinion.
They would not compete with fitness but with the ball at their feet I think the players that were very good back then would be very good now, if not better than very good.
There are more players from back then that I would call great than there are players from more recent times that I would call great. |
Sure. And I definitely mean all-round skill. Players are generally much more rounded on both the defensive and attacking side of the game nowadays.
Which probably detracts from the individual skills that used to be much more prevalent.
Someone like Darren Currie is a case in point. Some of the best ball-playing skills and technique we've seen in recent years but a debatable inclusion in a second-tier side because of his weaknesses. But I bet he'd have been playing in the First Division back in the 60s or 70s. | |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 16:22 - Jul 4 with 1076 views | PJH |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 15:48 - Jul 4 by Darth_Koont |
Sure. And I definitely mean all-round skill. Players are generally much more rounded on both the defensive and attacking side of the game nowadays.
Which probably detracts from the individual skills that used to be much more prevalent.
Someone like Darren Currie is a case in point. Some of the best ball-playing skills and technique we've seen in recent years but a debatable inclusion in a second-tier side because of his weaknesses. But I bet he'd have been playing in the First Division back in the 60s or 70s. |
I think in Darren Currie's case his main weakness was lack of pace and you are right that he probably would have done very well back then because of his ability on the ball.
Which possibly or probably backs up my point as well as yours.
I am not disputing that players are much fitter and much faster now but I think that skill with the ball back then, with the likelihood of being taken out at the knee at any moment, was better.
I certainly enjoyed watching football back then far more than I do now. Not just ITFC football but all football. | | | |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 22:50 - Jul 4 with 929 views | NthQldITFC |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 13:38 - Jul 4 by PhilTWTD |
I think that case study is a few years old now. |
Well, it has to be before The Era of Social Distancing going by the goal celebration at 3:27. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 23:02 - Jul 4 with 912 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 11:36 - Jul 4 by Oldsmoker |
If we're playing 1966 rules of hacking/fouling with no cards, pass-backs to goalie and no subs then the 1966 team would win.
If it's 2020 rules of "don't touch me" then it's a close call. |
I think the fact they are either dead or well over 70 should give our team some advantage. I wouldn't back against a 0-0 draw though. May even be possible for us to contrive to lose it on recent form. |  |
| |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 23:12 - Jul 4 with 907 views | Oldsmoker |
| Controversial footy opinion: who said it? on 23:02 - Jul 4 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I think the fact they are either dead or well over 70 should give our team some advantage. I wouldn't back against a 0-0 draw though. May even be possible for us to contrive to lose it on recent form. |
I see your point but the 1966 team would have no opposition if the game was played in 1966 as none of the current lot would have been born. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
