| Would the current U's beat England 1966? 09:03 - Jan 5 with 793 views | noah4x4 |
Just watched a (Sky TV) re-run of the 1966 WCF for the first time in 50 years.
I was staggered by the incredible amount of 'space' afforded to players when in possession; poor marking; the very slow pace of the game; modest skill; formations utterly predictable; weak goalkeeping (notably his dealing with crosses by Tilkowski). Leather balls, clunky boots. Less crowded penalty area at corners. Four attackers; four defenders; two midfield. No shirt pulling or like skulduggery. Looked little like the modern (far more defensive?) game.
Whilst not suggesting that our heroes of '66 could not individually improve to meet modern criteria, my perception at a team level is that the current U's might run rings around them despite England '66 being World champions. The modern army of coaches; sports scientists, nutritionists, mentalists and similar now create footballers that are vastly superior. Similarly, I played County Rugby in 1974 and whilst I suppose that I could have developed with modern (professional) techniques I wasn't remotely close to modern playing standards (notably fitness).
But in 1966 the game was a better spectacle. Every fan with scarf, rattle and rosette. Much more goalmouth action. More direct play. Also highlights the tactical value of modern manager in the current paradigm (n.b no disrespect to Alf Ramsey who was the first of the new breed). Thought we might reminisce, debate and generally evaluate these (deliberately) provocative thoughts....?
[Post edited 5 Jan 2016 12:32]
|  | | |  |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 19:53 - Jan 5 with 720 views | bwildered |
Did see the program mentioned, and remember watching a re-run of whole game on the BBC couple of years back thinking much the same . Sir Alf was vilified by some of the press for introducing wingless wonders to football, well it was progress ! Bet the Argentina tackles were just has hard then, has those today !
The game has totally changed beyond recognition, can only say on it's day it was the winning formula.
Intresting to hear stories regards Peter Wright , Percy Ames and the Fentons from those likely enough to see the play . |  |
| |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:03 - Jan 5 with 719 views | wessex_exile |
I take the point, but context is everything - whilst a half-decent fully fit modern professional footballing side may well give the Boys of '66 a decent run for their money, and to be fair I suspect every PL and most Championship modern day sides would probably take them apart - back then they surely were the creme de la creme, certainly compared to most football league sides of the day, replete with lots of unfit, beer-swilling, poorly-trained, bad-diet, fag-smoking cloggers?
I must admit, even with the modern game, it constantly surprises me how much space and time is allowed on the ball the higher up the pyramid the game is being played. Is this simply a reflection on zonal marking etc., or by comparison is it just that lower down the leagues you get more of the 'primary school' knot of 20 outfield players chasing around after the ball? |  |
| |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:19 - Jan 5 with 715 views | bwildered |
The programme after was a profile on Graham Gooch and showed a clip of his 150 against Windies at Headingly that England won, first win in 26 years on home soil against them, and considered his best test knock. Pretty sure that no England player today would repeat the same today, just has I was thinking sport is better today than yesteryear . | |
| |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:27 - Jan 5 with 713 views | noah4x4 |
"Primary school knot". What a wonderful description Wessex! You should suggest this term to the TV pundits.
Whenever a long goal kick is taken today why do we usually see this phenomena in the modern game with everybody crabbing into 20 square yards on just one side of the pitch? Similary, why 16 players in or around the penalty box at corners? Why not leave three pacy men up front and give the attacking side a few more worries about a counter attack? This is exactly what I meant about comparisons with 1966 formations. 4-2-4 or even 2-3-5 were common and arguably made the game more exciting to watch.
I concur that the higher one goes up the league ladder the more 'space' seems to be available. Is that due to better vision; better coaching, better movement off the ball; or is Premier League soccer more akin to the more lethargic play of the 1960's? I much prefer the cut & thrust of the lower divisions which always seems faster (but provably isn't).
Bit surprised nobody has challenged my supposition that the U's 2016 would beat England 1966 given we have endured no wins in three months! | | | |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:32 - Jan 5 with 712 views | noah4x4 |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:19 - Jan 5 by bwildered |
The programme after was a profile on Graham Gooch and showed a clip of his 150 against Windies at Headingly that England won, first win in 26 years on home soil against them, and considered his best test knock. Pretty sure that no England player today would repeat the same today, just has I was thinking sport is better today than yesteryear . |
Think Ben Stokes might have eclipsed Goochy this week. Absolutely riveting stuff. Indeed, at any other time we would be singing the praises of Bairstow whose wonderful knock was totally overshadowed. Then boring Amla spoilt a jolly good contest. | | | |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:33 - Jan 5 with 710 views | wessex_exile |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:19 - Jan 5 by bwildered |
The programme after was a profile on Graham Gooch and showed a clip of his 150 against Windies at Headingly that England won, first win in 26 years on home soil against them, and considered his best test knock. Pretty sure that no England player today would repeat the same today, just has I was thinking sport is better today than yesteryear . |
I confess I googled this, but Bob Beamon's 8.90m long jump at Mexico City in 1968, although now no longer a world record, is still an Olympic record by a very long measure. Mike Powell holds the world record with 8.95m, but that too was back in 1991 (25 years ago, and a full 23 years after Beamon's jump!). | |
| |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:41 - Jan 5 with 707 views | noah4x4 |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:33 - Jan 5 by wessex_exile |
I confess I googled this, but Bob Beamon's 8.90m long jump at Mexico City in 1968, although now no longer a world record, is still an Olympic record by a very long measure. Mike Powell holds the world record with 8.95m, but that too was back in 1991 (25 years ago, and a full 23 years after Beamon's jump!). |
Bob Beaman's long jump record is the equivalent of jumping half a metre further than the length of a routemaster ' bus. Eddie Kidd needed a motorbike to mimic the feat. [Post edited 5 Jan 2016 20:44]
| | | |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:54 - Jan 5 with 699 views | durham_exile |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:27 - Jan 5 by noah4x4 |
"Primary school knot". What a wonderful description Wessex! You should suggest this term to the TV pundits.
Whenever a long goal kick is taken today why do we usually see this phenomena in the modern game with everybody crabbing into 20 square yards on just one side of the pitch? Similary, why 16 players in or around the penalty box at corners? Why not leave three pacy men up front and give the attacking side a few more worries about a counter attack? This is exactly what I meant about comparisons with 1966 formations. 4-2-4 or even 2-3-5 were common and arguably made the game more exciting to watch.
I concur that the higher one goes up the league ladder the more 'space' seems to be available. Is that due to better vision; better coaching, better movement off the ball; or is Premier League soccer more akin to the more lethargic play of the 1960's? I much prefer the cut & thrust of the lower divisions which always seems faster (but provably isn't).
Bit surprised nobody has challenged my supposition that the U's 2016 would beat England 1966 given we have endured no wins in three months! |
Some years ago we played Portsmouth at Layer Road. When we won a corner, they kept three players up to put pressure on the U's. We won 1-0 that day.
We also played Watford at home several years ago and when they won a free kick 25 yards from goal, their players all lined up behind the ball with their backs to goal, as the kick was taken they all fanned out in a melon shape in an attempt to disrupt the wall and defenders. Elaborate but it didn't work.
Still full marks for innovation.
Up the U's |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 21:35 - Jan 5 with 695 views | bwildered |
The real difference is the quickness in play, especially in areas where it really matters . Expect the lower leagues to develop further in the coming years has the new PL tv deal next season means that those clubs can afford better players, hence even players now who were not available , will become readily available being forced out .
Think the U's would still struggle to score against Banks and Moore even today, ( though Banks might struggle with the present day footballs ).
Intresting to note that Bobby Charlton, who was and saw many a footballer in his career, says that Duncan Edwards stands head and shoulders above them all .
Remember Joe Dunne saying that we would keep two up from opposition corners, that only lasted when we were winning , which was not often . | |
| |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 11:19 - Jan 8 with 627 views | AFCMorant |
| Would the current U's beat England 1966? on 20:32 - Jan 5 by noah4x4 |
Think Ben Stokes might have eclipsed Goochy this week. Absolutely riveting stuff. Indeed, at any other time we would be singing the praises of Bairstow whose wonderful knock was totally overshadowed. Then boring Amla spoilt a jolly good contest. |
I saw that Headingley innings on the TV. Stokes wouldn't have lasted 10 balls on that pitch. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
