| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which 11:13 - May 29 with 818 views | Keno |
The the 2000 promotion team in its prime payed the 2024 promotion team in its prime which would win?
with a follow up question
If you combined the 2 teams who would you pick?
|  |
| |  |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 11:23 - May 29 with 749 views | _clive_baker_ |
Tough one. Probably 2000 on balance if you ignore how the game has moved on physically in 24 years.
Wright
Wilnis McGreal Mowbray Davis
Holland Magilton
Hutchinson Chaplin
Hirst Stewart
Bench:
Venus
Clapham
Morsy
Wright
Johnson
Reuser
Broadhead
Hladky
Shoehorned into an unfamiliar system and feels incredibly harsh on most of that bench and the likes of Burns, Woolfy & Luongo who don't even make it, but there's no way I wouldn't have Holland & Jim in the middle & McGreal is one of my first names on the team sheet. |  | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 11:24 - May 29 with 746 views | davblue |
Wright
Tuanzebe Burgess Venus Clapham
Magilton
Holland Morsy
Burns Broadhead
Johnson
The reason for no Stewart, is he wasn’t great for us in that half season albeit he came to the party in the play offs.
2000 team would beat the 24 team imo. [Post edited 29 May 11:25]
|  | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 11:31 - May 29 with 688 views | Jon_456 |
Depends if they play in 2000 environment or 2024. Each era’s pitch, ball quality, ref standards with what’s considered a foul etc all make a difference.
Having said that I would lean to say 2024 team would still likely beat 2000 in that era with the fitness and intensity of today’s game. |  | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 12:33 - May 29 with 567 views | Herbivore |
Hard to compare eras, the fitness and athleticism of the 2024 team would give them the edge if you beamed the 2000 team into the current day, but if we're talking player for player and as a sum of their parts in the context of their own time, I'd lean towards the 2000 team. For me in 2000 we had the best team in the division and only our propensity to drop silly points at key times stopped us easily going up automatically. In 2024, I don't think we had a top 3 team on paper and we overachieved.
Again, judging them in context I'd go with the following:
Wright
Wilnis
Woolf
Venus
Davis
Holland
Morsy
Scowcroft
Chaplin
Hutchinson
Johnson
Stewart misses out as his best footy for us came the following season in the Prem. Most players who miss out are very unfortunate to do so, only a few in there that I'd have nailed on (Wright, Davis, Holland, Hutchinson, and Jonno), the rest are close to 50/50 calls and I've gone with personal preference. |  |
| |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 12:55 - May 29 with 507 views | textbackup |
The 2000 team went on to finish 5 in the PL.
I’m picking all of those |  |
| |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:11 - May 29 with 457 views | JeanManuelThetis |
I think if you gave the 2000 team the 'modern' athleticism, fitness and modern tactical awareness then clearly that team was a cut above. They went on (largely unchanged) to finish 5th in the PL and perhaps should've finished higher.
In fairness to the 2024 team, it really was an exceptional previously League 1 team that hugely overachieved thanks to an incredible modern manager and exceptional team spirit. But it was lacking the quality of e.g. Stewart, Holland, Magilton, Reuser built up over several Div 1 seasons. |  | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:30 - May 29 with 425 views | Blue_In_Boston |
For me, all things being equal I would have to go for the 2000 team every time. Agree with some of the comments about Marcus Stewart, but he single handedly won us the semifinal with his two goals at Bolton when we looked down and out.
Player wise I'm not sure any of the current side would have got into that team, remember they went on to finish 5th the following season they were that good a side. | | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:37 - May 29 with 391 views | _clive_baker_ |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:30 - May 29 by Blue_In_Boston |
For me, all things being equal I would have to go for the 2000 team every time. Agree with some of the comments about Marcus Stewart, but he single handedly won us the semifinal with his two goals at Bolton when we looked down and out.
Player wise I'm not sure any of the current side would have got into that team, remember they went on to finish 5th the following season they were that good a side. |
Goal and an assist in the final from Stewart wasn't too shabby either. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:58 - May 29 with 338 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I reckon the 2000 team wins comfortably. How the nucleus of that team attacked the Premier League shows how good they were and they had many seasons of top level Championship behind them.
As for who gets in, both played as a team and that has been our failing this season. The better question is who would fit into both teams? Clapham and Davis are very similar and would I am sure. Stewart would play in any team but we would have had to change the way we play to accomodate him. I think Scowcroft would have played ahead of Moore/Hirst but equally they could play his role. I also think Burns would have got in ahead of Reuser (although his role was mainly off the bench anyway). Then again, would Burns be the same player without linking up with Chaplin?
EDIT: Oh, and it's hypothetical. Rhetorical doesn't require an answer. It's intent is to make a point rather than get a reply. [Post edited 29 May 14:03]
|  |
| |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 16:20 - May 29 with 240 views | Vaughan8 |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 12:55 - May 29 by textbackup |
The 2000 team went on to finish 5 in the PL.
I’m picking all of those |
This! People do forget how good that team was. | | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 16:36 - May 29 with 219 views | _clive_baker_ |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:58 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I reckon the 2000 team wins comfortably. How the nucleus of that team attacked the Premier League shows how good they were and they had many seasons of top level Championship behind them.
As for who gets in, both played as a team and that has been our failing this season. The better question is who would fit into both teams? Clapham and Davis are very similar and would I am sure. Stewart would play in any team but we would have had to change the way we play to accomodate him. I think Scowcroft would have played ahead of Moore/Hirst but equally they could play his role. I also think Burns would have got in ahead of Reuser (although his role was mainly off the bench anyway). Then again, would Burns be the same player without linking up with Chaplin?
EDIT: Oh, and it's hypothetical. Rhetorical doesn't require an answer. It's intent is to make a point rather than get a reply. [Post edited 29 May 14:03]
|
Maybe he meant rhetorical and we all look like dicks for replying? [Post edited 29 May 16:44]
| | | |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 16:40 - May 29 with 213 views | vapour_trail |
| hypothetical/rhetorical Question - I never know which is which on 13:30 - May 29 by Blue_In_Boston |
For me, all things being equal I would have to go for the 2000 team every time. Agree with some of the comments about Marcus Stewart, but he single handedly won us the semifinal with his two goals at Bolton when we looked down and out.
Player wise I'm not sure any of the current side would have got into that team, remember they went on to finish 5th the following season they were that good a side. |
The first goal was of course, as previously established, the better one. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
