Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: mrfrostsdad on February 20, 2023, 07:34:22 pm
-
.............When we won promotion back to the football league in whatever year it was?
I've thought about this quite a bit recently, and in my humble opinion it's way down on what it was then. I know it's difficult to compare sport particularly with something from 20 years ago, but I would evidence my opinion thus:
If we're being really honest, for the great majority of the season we've been awful, but we still have a chance of getting in the play offs. To me that just shows how shocking most teams are in this division. Barrow last Tuesday, Carlsile on New Years Day (I think) to name just two. The best team I've seen this season is Mansfield. Apparently Kings Lynn were good too, but I didn't come over for that one.
What's it down to? Is it the coaching methods? Play along the back line, back to the keeper, play it along the back line etc etc. It's so painful to watch.
There's not a single player in the current team I would play above anyone in that League 2 winning side, not one.
What do others think?
-
Controversial point but this team would probably beat the division 3 title winning team. I'd say only McIndoe and green from that team (maybe Chris brown) are better players than a lot of our starting eleven, certainly technically.
The game has changed. The game against Mansfield that season away which was a bit of a classic in my mind is on YouTube. Watch it back, the standard is really poor from both sides. I doubt our crowd would appreciate that style these days.
The last league 2 promotion side though with Marquis, Coppinger etc they'd hammer us now I think.
-
Green, Blundell, Warrington would get in this team as well.
-
The standard today is unrecognisably higher than it was 20 years ago.
Go watch the video of that seminal Mansfield match. Count how many times the defenders hoy the ball anywhere forward, when not under pressure.
I loved our 03/04 side, but it would get murdered in today's football. The game has moved on so far.
https://youtu.be/Ult5YaQJofQ
-
I watched that Mansfield match recently and was gobsmacked at how poor the football quality was, bearing in mind I thought it was great on the day.
I agree entirely with BST. That side of grafters back then would get their arses kicked now.
-
Bang on BB.
It's fascinating how Coppinger coped with that increase in the quality of the game, so that in a much better era, in his late 30s he was still outstanding.
-
Controversial point but this team would probably beat the division 3 title winning team. I'd say only McIndoe and green from that team (maybe Chris brown) are better players than a lot of our starting eleven, certainly technically.
The game has changed. The game against Mansfield that season away which was a bit of a classic in my mind is on YouTube. Watch it back, the standard is really poor from both sides. I doubt our crowd would appreciate that style these days.
The last league 2 promotion side though with Marquis, Coppinger etc they'd hammer us now I think.
i’m not having that one iota. Most ludicrous post I’ve seen for some time. I know it’s all opinions but Warrington, Ryan, Marples, Foster, Green, Mcindoe, Doolan, Blundell and Brown would walk into this team. Well they would if I was manager anyhow.
-
None of our current players apart from a fit Rowe and Anderson would be any where near the team that won promotion under DF from league 2. Our acceptance of level of players has gone down.
-
Mansfield is one game, you would have to judge it on more than that.
Interesting point though. I would tend to say the majority of the side would come from the older side. Always hard to compare generations though, the game has changed... how many times would that lot have got red cards in the current game!
-
The idea that players from different eras are in some way incomparable is flawed. The game doesn't change so dramatically in 20 years that players are incapable of adapting. Names already mentioned have amply demonstrated they adapt to new ideas and ways of playing the game, how else does a man like James Coppinger have a professional career of 20+ years.
Others already mentioned; McIndoe, Brown, Green as well as Copps all played two levels higher than L2, not one of our current squad would get into the team ahead of any of them.
-
Not forgetting a young Akinfenwa, he would walk into our team, even the 19 year old version back then!
-
Mansfield is one game, you would have to judge it on more than that.
Interesting point though. I would tend to say the majority of the side would come from the older side. Always hard to compare generations though, the game has changed... how many times would that lot have got red cards in the current game!
Find me a single game at any professional level this season where there were half as many blind hoofs down the pitch as there were in that video of the Mansfield game.
It's almost impossible to take in how much the game improves over a 20 year span. Sides, on average these days are WAY ahead of where sides at the same level were two decades back.
-
The idea that players from different eras are in some way incomparable is flawed. The game doesn't change so dramatically in 20 years that players are incapable of adapting. Names already mentioned have amply demonstrated they adapt to new ideas and ways of playing the game, how else does a man like James Coppinger have a professional career of 20+ years.
Others already mentioned; McIndoe, Brown, Green as well as Copps all played two levels higher than L2, not one of our current squad would get into the team ahead of any of them.
Coppinger had a 20 year career because he adapted to the improved standard.
And I'm not necessarily saying that players improvement is the whole issue. Tactics improve. If they didn't, you'd still see teams winning titles playing W-M.
It's unarguable that defenders are far, far more comfortable on the ball than they were 20 years ago. And that opens up tactical potential that was literally unthinkable in previous times.
Like I say, go watch that Mansfield match and compare it to today's standard.
My point is, the 2003 Rovers side playing that style of football would struggle to stay up these days. Possibly, the players would be able to step up to the higher requirements of fitness, comfortableness on the ball and quality of passing. We'll never know. They never had to do it.
-
Think your doing a disservice to the players of 20 years ago although today's should be fitter.What is the difference is that you were paying a fiver 20 years ago and today it's 20 pound.Even with the recent inflation that's a big jump.
-
Can't think that any of todays defenders (Olowu maybe) are better than the defenders we used to have. Easy on the eye, better truer pitches to play on, and a less physical game, very poor when in their own half of the field especially around their own penalty area both positionally and physically.
Teams just play through them, and want them to have the ball knowing they will make a mistake, either a miss kick or a misplaced pass or catch them in possession.
How many times have we all seen it this season, before people will accept they are poor trying to play that sort of football and poor defenders.
-
Like others have said majority of our current squad will be better than those previous. Athletes just become better with time, Messi is better than Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Best, etc. You might not like due to nostalgia but it's true.
-
Like others have said majority of our current squad will be better than those previous. Athletes just become better with time, Messi is better than Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Best, etc. You might not like due to nostalgia but it's true.
absolute b*llocks. Tim ryan, great left foot and would tackle his own mother given chance. Simon Marples, like lightning up the flank overlapping and didn’t get done on the outside. Fozzy would head tackle everything and organise the lot. Greeny, box to box midfielder that would run all day and had a goal in him. Played championship and internationally. Doolan, like a rolls Royce in midfield, superb passer and was a proper mester and organiser. Mcindoe, one of the best lower league players in decades. Blundell, superb pace and movement and scored 20 goals for us in league 2. Browny back then was with Sunderland at the time and had pace, touch, size and a goal in him. Can’t believe I’m having to write this. We’d give our left knacker to have any of those with these attributes in this dreadful squad. Are we forgetting that we don’t score many and can’t really keep em out the other end also?
-
No one said we had shit players back then FYI.
-
No but incredibly you said this current squad is better. Laughable to say the least.
-
Saying the current game is not as physical as it used to be is plain wrong.
Ask Tom Anderson who has had his face rearranged several times. Or Jon Taylor who had his career ended by a bone shuddering challenge.
And I keep coming back to that Mansfield match on basic quality. Any side today whose defenders regularly humped the ball into orbit when not under pressure wouldn't stand a chance today. The game is faster than ever and players are expected to make quick, accurate passes all over the pitch. They only launch it aimlessly in the most extreme of circumstances.
20 years took you from that 1962 World Cup final (walking football with dozens of misplaced 10 yard passes) to Maradona.
Another 20 years took you to the start of the exquisitely crafted possession football from Spain.
Another 20 years took you to the lung busting brilliance of this year's World Cup final.
None of the sides from 20 years past would have been able to compete with the next generation because the physical and tactical demands advance beyond recognition over each period. That's not to say that the players were useless in each generation. They performed in the context of what football was at their time.
iThe OP asked what the standard of play is like today compared to 20 years ago. In my opinion, it's wilful blindness not to see the revolution in the general standard of play that happens over 20 years.
-
The idea that players from different eras are in some way incomparable is flawed. The game doesn't change so dramatically in 20 years that players are incapable of adapting. Names already mentioned have amply demonstrated they adapt to new ideas and ways of playing the game, how else does a man like James Coppinger have a professional career of 20+ years.
Others already mentioned; McIndoe, Brown, Green as well as Copps all played two levels higher than L2, not one of our current squad would get into the team ahead of any of them.
Coppinger had a 20 year career because he adapted to the improved standard.
And I'm not necessarily saying that players improvement is the whole issue. Tactics improve. If they didn't, you'd still see teams winning titles playing W-M.
It's unarguable that defenders are far, far more comfortable on the ball than they were 20 years ago. And that opens up tactical potential that was literally unthinkable in previous times.
Like I say, go watch that Mansfield match and compare it to today's standard.
My point is, the 2003 Rovers side playing that style of football would struggle to stay up these days. Possibly, the players would be able to step up to the higher requirements of fitness, comfortableness on the ball and quality of passing. We'll never know. They never had to do it.
Not all defenders!
Players like mills, we’re technically very good, especially in comparison to Williams today
-
But we are not talking about individual players are we? The subject is the standard of football in league 2 compared to that of 20 years ago. And that is immeasurably higher today in a whole host of aspects.
BobG
-
The standard was higher back then, the country’s mentality on how we play football has changed. We played more long balls back then as most of football was doing the same. The ability of the players we had then was far superior. The strength of character also. Proper men playing good football mixed in with a more attritional one.
-
Watching that Mansfield clip, it struck me just how much time Blundell had on the ball for the two goals as well, especially the first one. Not sure if the defender (no. 5) was knackered, couldn't be arsed or just couldn't run, but it's actually quite funny watching how little attempt there is to prevent Gregg from scoring the goal. I think it's the same defender waving a half-arsed leg at the 2nd finish too. I must've watched those goals 50 times over the years and it's something I've only just noticed.
-
The standard was higher back then, the country’s mentality on how we play football has changed. We played more long balls back then as most of football was doing the same. The ability of the players we had then was far superior. The strength of character also. Proper men playing good football mixed in with a more attritional one.
I'm not talking about playing long balls. There's nothing inherently wrong with playing a long pass.
I'm talking about hoofing the ball into the stratosphere.
Watch that video. If you don't see that, I'm not sure what to say.
-
The biggest differences were Billy, ask this question, what would those players in that team achieved with the facilities and playing surfaces training techniques of today , things this club has because of the success and those players and teams teams that followed.
We had a management team that had a way of playing and a team of players who suited that style of play, compare that with today, the manager knew the town and what the supporters expected of the players, because he had been a part of our resurrection.
We had an assistant manager who was seen as a bit of a joker, but had a personality and new how to work the media. Compare both to what we have now, faceless tinkerers who come out with the same old sound bites and clap trap and still insist some of our players can play like poor mans Premiership players.
Then look at the two respective sides, I am sure that the past side, given everything the present side has had since a very young age in academies would be able to adjust and in nearly every case be able to play the way the modern player plays.
The thing I question could our team at present, could they do what they did at the time on the same pitches against the same opposition taking into account their showing against Kings Lynn and how our teams at that time took on Arsenal, Aston Villa, and Manchester City this lot would be lucky not to concede six goals against those sides if we could bring them back.
And then the main thing, everything our present team has I know the past team could take on board and flourish, but the todays side couldn't do what they did, because that came from within, they wanted it, it hurt to fail, they were winners not wimps who lay down to Hartlepool and Sutton and Kings Lynn and most sides who show a bit of fight, they played for the team and each other, not for the next move on wherever their agent can get them, and until this side shows me a little of that the two are incomparable, one side is memorable this side in two years most will be non league, and will have to buck up and change to be good players at that level.
-
The idea that players from different eras are in some way incomparable is flawed. The game doesn't change so dramatically in 20 years that players are incapable of adapting. Names already mentioned have amply demonstrated they adapt to new ideas and ways of playing the game, how else does a man like James Coppinger have a professional career of 20+ years.
Others already mentioned; McIndoe, Brown, Green as well as Copps all played two levels higher than L2, not one of our current squad would get into the team ahead of any of them.
Coppinger had a 20 year career because he adapted to the improved standard.
And I'm not necessarily saying that players improvement is the whole issue. Tactics improve. If they didn't, you'd still see teams winning titles playing W-M.
It's unarguable that defenders are far, far more comfortable on the ball than they were 20 years ago. And that opens up tactical potential that was literally unthinkable in previous times.
Like I say, go watch that Mansfield match and compare it to today's standard.
My point is, the 2003 Rovers side playing that style of football would struggle to stay up these days. Possibly, the players would be able to step up to the higher requirements of fitness, comfortableness on the ball and quality of passing. We'll never know. They never had to do it.
My point was what has changed is the style of football and methods of training not the inherent ability of the players. Are you actually saying that because those players 20 years ago were lumping balls upfield they weren't capable of learning to play differently? They were playing at that level because they were the best available. The game has evolved not the people playing it.
-
In my opinion if the DRFC team of 2003 were to play today's side the current team would just about shade it and win by the odd goal. Mind you most of the 2003 side must be in their late forties / early 50's now.
-
The idea that players from different eras are in some way incomparable is flawed. The game doesn't change so dramatically in 20 years that players are incapable of adapting. Names already mentioned have amply demonstrated they adapt to new ideas and ways of playing the game, how else does a man like James Coppinger have a professional career of 20+ years.
Others already mentioned; McIndoe, Brown, Green as well as Copps all played two levels higher than L2, not one of our current squad would get into the team ahead of any of them.
Coppinger had a 20 year career because he adapted to the improved standard.
And I'm not necessarily saying that players improvement is the whole issue. Tactics improve. If they didn't, you'd still see teams winning titles playing W-M.
It's unarguable that defenders are far, far more comfortable on the ball than they were 20 years ago. And that opens up tactical potential that was literally unthinkable in previous times.
Like I say, go watch that Mansfield match and compare it to today's standard.
My point is, the 2003 Rovers side playing that style of football would struggle to stay up these days. Possibly, the players would be able to step up to the higher requirements of fitness, comfortableness on the ball and quality of passing. We'll never know. They never had to do it.
My point was what has changed is the style of football and methods of training not the inherent ability of the players. Are you actually saying that because those players 20 years ago were lumping balls upfield they weren't capable of learning to play differently? They were playing at that level because they were the best available. The game has evolved not the people playing it.
The mentality of players has changed too. We know there was a pretty heavy drinking culture around many teams 20+ years ago. Maybe that contributed to the sense of togetherness, I don't know, but it's certain that a side couldn't cope with the demands of modern football if players were regularly on the pop. Could the specific players from previous generations forego that and commit to the physical discipline required in today's game? I don't know. No-one does.
But that's all irrelevant anyway. As with so many interactions in here, the original point had been obscured. The OP asked the question of whether the standard of football (not footballers) was better 20 years ago. I'm genuinely gobsmacked that anyone could consider the information available and decide the answer to that is "yes". To me, the standard has improved so far, it's almost like a different game. If the title winning side from 03/04 played our side from last Saturday 20 times, with both putting in typical performances from their eras, I'd be amazed if the 03/04 side got more than a dozen points. Most games, they'd not be able to get hold of the ball.
-
Ok BST, that's fair enough on the point of the question asked. For anyone to answer that unequivocally however is subjective as neither answer can be tested to prove it.
However, the evolution of the game has been driven by those at the top of the pyramid who understand it the best and seeking to give their team an edge.
It would be reasonable to suppose that the direction the game has taken has improved the chances of success on the pitch (but in the case of playing out from the back hasn't improved the spectacle for the fans).
-
You can say without a shadow of a doubt that the sides who contested last years WC final would absolutely obliterate the finalists from 1962. That's not even a matter for debate. It would be 20-0, minimum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8zASj4IE3E
With that as a baseline, halve the timespan and watch the video of the 1990 Argentina vs W Germany final. The standard had improved beyond recognition, but the pace and general quality of passing, control and shooting, and the space afforded to players in midfield are very much not up to the modern game. Again, I cannot envisage any scenario where either of those sides would have remotely troubled the WC finalists from last year. Messi and Mbappe would have murdered a side giving them that much room in and around the box.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ZiZYZZ34Q
Our memory plays tricks on us. We remember being exhilarated years ago, but we didn't appreciate at the time that standards and expectations would rise so high over subsequent years. So, because we had moments where we saw sides play brilliantly by the standards of the time, we remember that as absolute brilliance, not the relative brilliance it actually is.
-
Watching that Mansfield clip, it struck me just how much time Blundell had on the ball for the two goals as well, especially the first one. Not sure if the defender (no. 5) was knackered, couldn't be arsed or just couldn't run, but it's actually quite funny watching how little attempt there is to prevent Gregg from scoring the goal. I think it's the same defender waving a half-arsed leg at the 2nd finish too. I must've watched those goals 50 times over the years and it's something I've only just noticed.
Miller had longer in the 90th minute than that v Mansfield then fell over instead of shooting
-
I think you're all forgetting that there is definitive proof to resolve this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc2To-pKMSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc2To-pKMSg)
-
I think you're all forgetting that there is definitive proof to resolve this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc2To-pKMSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc2To-pKMSg)
Not seen that before Reg.
Really funny.
-
Well, sorry to stir the hornets nest, but after watching us again today (and that was one of the better matches I've seen this season) I still wouldn't have any of that lot in the team that won the League 20 years ago.
Yes, the game has changed, and probably players are fitter now, but surely they would adapt to current 'trends?'
It's not just that I think our promotion winning team was better, this is just so ******* boring. What in Gods name do the coaches actually learn these days to get their badges?
-
Well, sorry to stir the hornets nest, but after watching us again today (and that was one of the better matches I've seen this season) I still wouldn't have any of that lot in the team that won the League 20 years ago.
Yes, the game has changed, and probably players are fitter now, but surely they would adapt to current 'trends?'
It's not just that I think our promotion winning team was better, this is just so ******* boring. What in Gods name do the coaches actually learn these days to get their badges?
The point isn't that they won't be able to adapt to the level or fitness eventually, it's that on both of their days, this current team despite being very average at this level would beat our team from 20 years ago which was a top team at that point in time.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
-
Absolutely bang-on, Cramby.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
Last seasons team was worse. That was by far and away the worst team since 97/98
That team would have struggled to finish out of the bottom 3 in league 2 never mind league 1
The only reason we almost stayed up was that quite remarkably there were 6 teams last season that were garbage. 6 teams who only got 42 points or less.
9 out of 10 seasons we would have finished bottom last season.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
Last seasons team was worse. That was by far and away the worst team since 97/98
That team would have struggled to finish out of the bottom 3 in league 2 never mind league 1
The only reason we almost stayed up was that quite remarkably there were 6 teams last season that were garbage. 6 teams who only got 42 points or less.
9 out of 10 seasons we would have finished bottom last season.
sorry you’re right. I kinda lumped em all together as there’s many of the same faces.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
It's a debate because you're not understanding what's being said. The relative standard of football as a whole is higher than it was back then, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. A random Premier League team, like Fulham nowadays would probably do well against the Man Utds from those days or the Arsenal invincible team, because they'll be faster stronger, etc.
Your debate is just how this team has been doing against current teams at our level, we all know we're a bit crap right now.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
We have the worst side relative to the standard of the day. Well, apart from last year anyway, I don't question that.
The point is that the standards of today are unrecognisable from the standards of 20 years ago. As I keep saying, go watch that Mansfield video.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
Totally agree, that team would wipe the floor with the current one in my opinion.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
Totally agree, that team would wipe the floor with the current one in my opinion.
Yep, totally agree with you both. This lot are shocking, but we still have an outside chance of getting in the play offs ( as I said at the start of the thread) To me that is enough evidence to show that League 2 football is garbage compared to 20 years ago.
I note the comment about the Premier League, this is not a comparison of the Premier League 20 years ago, it's a comparison of League 2 football.
This is the worse football I've ever seen at this level (all the teams with a couple of exceptions) it's total dross
-
The current team are shocking and the results are there for all to see. No contest. Give me Fergie's squad any day.
-
The current team are shocking and the results are there for all to see. No contest. Give me Fergie's squad any day.
I can’t see us being able to put together a squad as good as that one any time soon.
-
You’re wrong. So very very wrong. You can be as fit as you damn well like, which is doubtful in my eyes anyway, but when you can’t score in a brothel and can’t keep a clean sheet very often and half your team are weaklings then there’s only one outcome. And there’s one glaring omission yet to be mentioned. The Penny side had balls the size of watermelons, this current shower are gutless wonders.
I’m still flabbergasted that this is even a debate. We have the worst league side since relegation to the conference on our hands.
It's a debate because you're not understanding what's being said. The relative standard of football as a whole is higher than it was back then, this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. A random Premier League team, like Fulham nowadays would probably do well against the Man Utds from those days or the Arsenal invincible team, because they'll be faster stronger, etc.
Your debate is just how this team has been doing against current teams at our level, we all know we're a bit crap right now.
I understand fully what you are saying and I still disagree wholeheartedly. It’s not a fact at all. It’s your opinion. Everything looks neater because they’re playing on better pitches but that’s about it. You could argue that Pennys lot were better because they could perform on such heavy pitches that are draining on the body. And you cannot tell me with a straight face that our lot at the moment are faster and stronger than the Penny players. We have amongst the slowest and weakest (physically) squad we’ve had for an age.
Put the players up against each other man for man in their relative positions and you wouldn’t touch hardly any of our current crop. Putting a ball into a net doesn’t change over time and I’d have Greg, Browny or Mcindoe to slot it home over any of our forward thinking players. Heading and tackling or passing doesn’t change either but you get my drift. The only thing that has changed is that the tactics have slowly disappeared up their own arse and over complicated a game which is in essence very simple.
-
Have any of you watched that Mansfield video?
If the standard of football hasn't improved, why does no team encourage defenders to launch the ball 100 foot up in the air over their shoulder these days?
-
That is only the tactics/playing strategy you're talking about, there is far more to the standard of football than just that. One factor not so far mentioned is that the relative wealth of the clubs at the top of the pyramid has increased massively and allows them now to hold far larger squads of players. The top clubs could probably all field a reserve team that could compete in the Championship and similarly Championship clubs have a reserve team that could compete at Lg1/2.
The quality players are sucked up into the higher tiers, leaving the dregs to the lower tiers.
Rovers' current team would get steamrollered by Penney's team if they tried to play with Schofields tactics.
-
Have any of you watched that Mansfield video?
So I guess that's a "no" then?
In the first 3 minutes of the video (which includes 30 seconds of no action after a goal, there are FIVE instances of defenders housing the ball aimlessly down the park, one of the worst up and under crosses you'll ever see, Leo going to head a long punt and running under it by ten yards in a way reminiscent of something Cukur did last season and got rightly crucified for, and absolute Keystone Kops defending for our goal.
Those two sides were battling it out at the top of the league. If they gave the ball away like that today, they'd not see it again for 15 minutes.
Regarding the concentration of talent at the higher levels, I see it 180 degrees differently.
The top clubs now dominate world markets for players in a way they never did in previous generations. The consequence is not that they dominate home grown talent. Quite the opposite. There is a much smaller market at the top for the best British players, so they get pushed further down the levels.
-
That aimed at me? Ye I’ve seen it. Was there on the day also. Not pretty I agree. It’s one game in isolation. How many times have this lot been shite this season? Too many to mention. Ironically it’s the teams that lump it are precisely the ones we struggle against. I’m sure we’ve conceded from a long punt down the middle on a number of occasions this season. Not that penny’s lot played like that often.
But there’s simply nothing you can possibly say that will convince me that todays rovers frauds would turn over Penny’s red arrows. Nothing at all. We can’t even turn over Kings Lynn.
We agree to differ.
-
The top clubs were dominating world markets for players 20 years ago too.
-
Cramby.
"Lumping it" these days means playing long but generally well directed balls. You simply never, ever these days see defenders hoofing the ball over their shoulders when not under the most extreme pressure. There's three examples of that in 3 mins on that video, plus another two examples of players facing forwards and hoofing the ball into orbit when not under particular pressure.
Those defences would not have a clue what to do against a modern high pressing game. They'd be absolutely overwhelmed.
-
Again. We agree to differ. We’ll never know.
-
We do know actually. Because if a style that involved randomly hoofing the ball aimlessly out of defence every 40 seconds was remotely competitive against modem tactics, some manager would utilise it. The fact that none does is your answer.
-
Go have a lie down lad.
-
Has everyone changed their mind tonight?
Or is there still someone out there deluded enough to think a single one of this shower of absolute shit would get in our promotion winning side?