TOP 10 BRITISH FOOTBALLERS OF ALL TIME

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

The reason I say that players would not make the grade now is that the modern athlete is

 

FAR fitter

FAR stronger

FAR more skillful

FAR more tactically aware

 

They can read the game better too.

 

The game is a different game now. It?s much faster and far more physically demanding.

 

Players used to have a can of beer and a fag at half times back in the olden days.

 

The players back then were outstanding for their time but they simply wouldn?t belong in todays? game.

 

Technology is far advanced, more emphasis on strategy etc. People are just in better shape.

 

I take running a mile for example:

 

Roger Banister ran the mile in 4 minutes. That is just remarkable. When I?m on the treadmill I look at my speeds and distance and I?m double that (although I?m going for a long run and he sprinted)

 

But today we have shaved 17 seconds of that record and people run the mile in under 4 minutes frequently.

 

Would Roger Bannister get in a top 10 runners of today?

 

If Stanley Mathews was 25 today. Had access to modern coaching, training, physiological, psychological, dietary, etc etc methods, and had done so since he was a child, he would grace any team in the world.

[i8hibsh]

If Stanley Mathews was 25 today. Had access to modern coaching, training, physiological, psychological, dietary, etc etc methods, and had done so since he was a child, he would grace any team in the world.

 

 

It?s just a pointless argument.

 

You could say that he was amazing (which undeniably he was) as he was up against lesser opposition than we have today.

 

I thinking the 3 pages on this thread there are 5 or 6 names that appear on everyone?s list so it is only really about 4 or so players that are up for any debate.

 

Anyone with time on their hands wanna do a summary?

[Hearts Heritage]

It?s just a pointless argument.

 

You could say that he was amazing (which undeniably he was) as he was up against lesser opposition than we have today.

 

I thinking the 3 pages on this thread there are 5 or 6 names that appear on everyone?s list so it is only really about 4 or so players that are up for any debate.

 

Anyone with time on their hands wanna do a summary?

 

You really don't get it do you?

 

Is your name Mr Jones?

[i8hibsh]

You really don't get it do you?

 

Is your name Mr Jones?

 

I get it man

 

I get all the if?s but?s, maybe?s and what if?s with the old players

 

No-one on here (and I do mean no-one) witnessed these players.

 

Are we going to include them on a list based on reputation and hear say?

 

It?s ridiculous

 

Oh I?ll have Stanley Mathews as everyone says he was the best.

 

Maybe he did stand out but the standard of the game was not great.

 

I respect your knowledge (insane anorak knowledge at the best of times) ? you clearly know your stuff. But you can not base a top 10 of all time on assumptions and word of mouth.

[Charlie-Brown]

I get it man

 

I get all the if?s but?s, maybe?s and what if?s with the old players

 

No-one on here (and I do mean no-one) witnessed these players.

Are we going to include them on a list based on reputation and hear say?

 

It?s ridiculous

 

Oh I?ll have Stanley Mathews as everyone says he was the best.

 

Maybe he did stand out but the standard of the game was not great.

I respect your knowledge (insane anorak knowledge at the best of times) ? you clearly know your stuff. But you can not base a top 10 of all time on assumptions and word of mouth.

 

You have just defeated your own argument!

[i8hibsh]

You have just defeated your own argument!

 

 

No I haven't

 

No player should ever be included in this list from a time that no-one can be witnessed.

 

David Villa will always be known as a better striker than Torres. He proved it in the world cup. We all saw it.

 

Stanley Mathews was rated by all that saw him. Those people that saw him saw nothing else. they did not see the playersand the game today.

 

For me 1960 is the cut off point for being accepted on my list.

 

FFS these players played in times that didn't even have offside.

 

No-one can justify having Stanley Mathews in this list. I would bet Ryan Giggs is better.

[Charlie-Brown]

No I haven't

 

No player should ever be included in this list from a time that no-one can be witnessed.

 

David Villa will always be known as a better striker than Torres. He proved it in the world cup. We all saw it.

 

Stanley Mathews was rated by all that saw him. Those people that saw him saw nothing else. they did not see the playersand the game today.

 

For me 1960 is the cut off point for being accepted on my list.

 

FFS these players played in times that didn't even have offside.

 

No-one can justify having Stanley Mathews in this list. I would bet Ryan Giggs is better.

 

You claim - with some justification that nobody - or at least only a few still alive and probably next to no one on this forum saw these players playing - agreed?

 

You then claim that the standard of football they played at was not very good? agreed?

 

How did you form this conclusion? How do you also form the conclusion that modern football is "superior" ?

[i8hibsh]

You claim - with some justification that nobody - or at least only a few still alive and probably next to no one on this forum saw these players playing - agreed?

 

You then claim that the standard of football they played at was not very good? agreed?

 

How did you form this conclusion? How do you also form the conclusion that modern football is "superior" ?

 

 

Have you ever watched black and white football? pathe news era?

 

watch football form the 1930's etc the standard is there for all to see

 

The footage of Mathews shows him to be a good footballer indeed but you can tell its nothing near todays standard.

[Charlie-Brown]

Have you ever watched black and white football? pathe news era?

 

watch football form the 1930's etc the standard is there for all to see

 

The footage of Mathews shows him to be a good footballer indeed but you can tell its nothing near todays standard.

 

So you form your entire opinion on the basis of extremely limited and primitive film coverage? Is that what you are saying? You've never seen an entire match from that era - or watched an entire season, saw the crowds, understood the context they were playing in etc. You simply decided newer is better - is that correct?

[Nookie Bear]

So you form your entire opinion on the basis of extremely limited and primitive film coverage? Is that what you are saying? You've never seen an entire match from that era - or watched an entire season, saw the crowds, understood the context they were playing in etc. You simply decided newer is better - is that correct?

 

 

I can see what i8 is saying.

 

To be fair, you don't have to go back that far. Anyone who watched football in the 1980's will see that the modern game is much more skilful, faster and professional now.

 

However, the Stanley Matthews example is a good one. If he had been exposed to the training methods and diet of the modern footballer and been allowed to play on lush pitches in a pair of boots weighing next to nothing and using a modern football, I still think he would have stood out a mile. Matthews used to fast the day after a game FFS......can't see Giggs being allowed to do that!

 

Maybe a different way to look at it is to accept that there is a very good reason why guys like Matthews, Lofthouse, Edwards etc are talked about in such terms is because they were head and shoulders above anyone else playing at that time and that is all you can really compare them to. In those days it was as much to about word of mouth and these guys - amongst others - were the ones they all talked about.

[Charlie-Brown]

I can see what i8 is saying.

 

To be fair, you don't have to go back that far. Anyone who watched football in the 1980's will see that the modern game is much more skilful, faster and professional now.

 

However, the Stanley Matthews example is a good one. If he had been exposed to the training methods and diet of the modern footballer and been allowed to play on lush pitches in a pair of boots weighing next to nothing and using a modern football, I still think he would have stood out a mile. Matthews used to fast the day after a game FFS......can't see Giggs being allowed to do that!

 

Maybe a different way to look at it is to accept that there is a very good reason why guys like Matthews, Lofthouse, Edwards etc are talked about in such terms is because they were head and shoulders above anyone else playing at that time and that is all you can really compare them to. In those days it was as much to about word of mouth and these guys - amongst others - were the ones they all talked about.

 

The technology of football is 'superior' ie fitness, clothing, boots, ball, tactics/organisation etc however i don't know if that has made the game any BETTER? or more enjoyable as a spectacle or entertaining? Sure the older players had to overcome more obstacles such as poorer pitches, heavier ball & clothing etc, tougher tackling & more physical game and in some ways it could be argued that made them the superior players that they still managed to show great skill and entertain with much more primitive circumstances.

 

Is modern football actually 'better' though and i mean that in every sense - every advancement in physical abilities and technology & tactics has been as much about stopping or preventing other teams playing or scoring more than it has been about trying to improve ways of winning football matches.

 

Put it this way - crowds were much bigger in the past, even allowing for smaller stadium capacities do you think many modern matches would attract the crowds levels of previous era's if stadium were big enough to let them in? People will say that there was fewer competition in terms of tv etc but there was always the pub & cinema as probably the main competitors to football then & now - people also had less money back then allegedly so money for football would have been just as limited.

 

I certainly doubt that individuals skill, ball control or trickery is superior now that it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago....Football talent is football talent, all the rest is just technology and game-play it doesn't make them 'better' players now just because they are better defensively organised or quicker or whatever - a lot of that is technological not down to footballing ability.

[i8hibsh]

So you form your entire opinion on the basis of extremely limited and primitive film coverage? Is that what you are saying? You've never seen an entire match from that era - or watched an entire season, saw the crowds, understood the context they were playing in etc. You simply decided newer is better - is that correct?

 

 

not just football

 

Every single sport is more advanced now.

[i8hibsh]

I can see what i8 is saying.

 

To be fair, you don't have to go back that far. Anyone who watched football in the 1980's will see that the modern game is much more skilful, faster and professional now.

 

However, the Stanley Matthews example is a good one. If he had been exposed to the training methods and diet of the modern footballer and been allowed to play on lush pitches in a pair of boots weighing next to nothing and using a modern football, I still think he would have stood out a mile. Matthews used to fast the day after a game FFS......can't see Giggs being allowed to do that!

 

Maybe a different way to look at it is to accept that there is a very good reason why guys like Matthews, Lofthouse, Edwards etc are talked about in such terms is because they were head and shoulders above anyone else playing at that time and that is all you can really compare them to. In those days it was as much to about word of mouth and these guys - amongst others - were the ones they all talked about.

 

 

For what it's worth I strongly agree that if Mathews lived today he'd possibly be world class. he played till 50 years old - thats awesome.

 

But surely we must agree that we can't put someone in a list based on an assumption.

[Charlie-Brown]

not just football

 

Every single sport is more advanced now.

 

Yes but more advanced doesn't make it more talented or better though does it - it just makes it different. I certainly don't consider the players I watch today to be better footballers or more talented than the players I watched in the nineties, eighties or seventies , yes the game has changed a lot but not all of the changes are positive, many of them are negative and whether football is better now or before is subjective - all we can agree on is that is has changed and is different with different requirements than before.

[Jamcan]

 

Surprised Danny Blanchflower has not been mentioned. Captained the most succesful Spurs team ever, a team which included Dave McKAY. In 2009 THE TIMES regarded him as the best ever Spurs player. I believe he also captained Northern Ireland.

bp

[Jamcan]

 

Surprised Danny Blanchflower has not been mentioned. Captained the most succesful Spurs team ever, a team which included Dave McKAY. In 2009 THE TIMES regarded him as the best ever Spurs player. I believe he also captained Northern Ireland.

bp

[Coco]

Fair enough. I'm suspicious of the Edwards chat though - how anybody can know for sure is beyond me. Is there any available footage of him? If TV hadn't been invented yet some folk would be saying Ian Durrant was the greatest Scottish player ever.

 

We were robbed of one of the greatest talents.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr75rgusNJU&feature=related

[Hearts Heritage]

Yes but more advanced doesn't make it more talented or better though does it - it just makes it different. I certainly don't consider the players I watch today to be better footballers or more talented than the players I watched in the nineties, eighties or seventies , yes the game has changed a lot but not all of the changes are positive, many of them are negative and whether football is better now or before is subjective - all we can agree on is that is has changed and is different with different requirements than before.

 

If there was a time machine and I could go back in time to see any Hearts team of any era

 

1 - The 1950s side 132 goals in a single league season!

2 - The side of the mid to late 1930s arguably Hearts best ever forward line

3 - The side from 1890 to 1906 winning 3 Cups and 2 league titles

 

A special mention to the 1914-15 side.

 

Individual games

 

The 3-1 defeat at Easter Road of the Scottish Cup holders in 1887

 

1891 Cup Final

 

12/8/1893

 

The 1896 Cup Final

 

The 1896 'league decider'

 

The 1901 Bobby Walker Cup final - If it could only be one this one

 

1914 2-0 Celtic

 

Barney's 11 goals in the 3 Cup Finals in a month

 

5-2 vs Rangers after being 2-0 down 1935

 

6-1 vs East Fife 1948

 

65,000 plus at Easter Road

 

April 1956

 

winning 3-2 at Ibrox in 1957 after being 2-0 down

 

the 4-3 defeat at Tynecastle in 1958

[Big D]

I guess I'm just a bit pigheaded regarding the standard of football in the past.

 

The tactical nous of pretty much all teams now means you really do have to be a special player to stand out in the modern game.

 

There pretty much are no easy games anymore. In the past, I'm not sure the same thing could be said.

However the skills were different. When playing with a lace up bladder, Nat Lofthouse said Finney never delivered a cross to his head where he headed the laces. Unlikely luck.

[Hearts Heritage]

See John Cairney's list of 100 great Scottish footballers

 

http://www.londonhearts.com/scotland/players/top100.html

 

the list ends with Ally McCoist

 

Who in the last 20 years would make that list? Very few players if any

 

The modern years have produced very few players to add to that list

[i8hibsh]

See John Cairney's list of 100 great Scottish footballers

 

http://www.londonhearts.com/scotland/players/top100.html

 

the list ends with Ally McCoist

 

Who in the last 20 years would make that list? Very few players if any

 

The modern years have produced very few players to add to that list

 

 

Darren Fletcher

Barry Ferguson

Duncan Ferguson

[Hearts Heritage]

Darren Fletcher

Barry Ferguson

Duncan Ferguson

 

Hardly adding to the canon is it if that is the best we can produce?

[Nookie Bear]

For what it's worth I strongly agree that if Mathews lived today he'd possibly be world class. he played till 50 years old - thats awesome.

 

But surely we must agree that we can't put someone in a list based on an assumption.

 

 

Of course, but when I hear old timers like my grandad tell me that Matthews, Lofthouse, Finney, Greaves etc were the best - and he watched Matthews every second week - then I bow to his knowledge. There is an assumption that these guys were the best but that is actually based on their talents being vividly recalled by those who saw them and that is passed down to us.

 

If I was being devious, it is said amongst many Jambos that Bauld was the best. The King. But how many of us have actually seen him play? How much is based on assumption? An older Jambo - your dad? grandad? - says "son, he was the best....." and you accept it.

 

Footie fans are a right sentimental lot and maybe it's just comforting to revere players from a bygone age. We can wallow in the reputation (and the myth?) knowing they cannot let us down.

[Nookie Bear]

Hardly adding to the canon is it if that is the best we can produce?

 

 

At least two of them should be shot OUT of a cannon.

[Hickups]

1)King Kenny

2)Bobby Charlton

3)George Best

4)John Charles

5)Ryan Giggs

6)Paul Scholes

7)Graeme Souness

8)Dennis Law

9)John Barnes

10)Kevin Keegan

[i8hibsh]

Of course, but when I hear old timers like my grandad tell me that Matthews, Lofthouse, Finney, Greaves etc were the best - and he watched Matthews every second week - then I bow to his knowledge. There is an assumption that these guys were the best but that is actually based on their talents being vividly recalled by those who saw them and that is passed down to us.

 

If I was being devious, it is said amongst many Jambos that Bauld was the best. The King. But how many of us have actually seen him play? How much is based on assumption? An older Jambo - your dad? grandad? - says "son, he was the best....." and you accept it.

 

Footie fans are a right sentimental lot and maybe it's just comforting to revere players from a bygone age. We can wallow in the reputation (and the myth?) knowing they cannot let us down.

 

 

My Grandad was the same and with the greatest of respect to your grandad my grandad and their entire generation

 

EVERYTHING was better in their day.

[Nookie Bear]

The technology of football is 'superior' ie fitness, clothing, boots, ball, tactics/organisation etc however i don't know if that has made the game any BETTER? or more enjoyable as a spectacle or entertaining? Sure the older players had to overcome more obstacles such as poorer pitches, heavier ball & clothing etc, tougher tackling & more physical game and in some ways it could be argued that made them the superior players that they still managed to show great skill and entertain with much more primitive circumstances.

 

Is modern football actually 'better' though and i mean that in every sense - every advancement in physical abilities and technology & tactics has been as much about stopping or preventing other teams playing or scoring more than it has been about trying to improve ways of winning football matches.

 

Put it this way - crowds were much bigger in the past, even allowing for smaller stadium capacities do you think many modern matches would attract the crowds levels of previous era's if stadium were big enough to let them in? People will say that there was fewer competition in terms of tv etc but there was always the pub & cinema as probably the main competitors to football then & now - people also had less money back then allegedly so money for football would have been just as limited.

 

I certainly doubt that individuals skill, ball control or trickery is superior now that it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago....Football talent is football talent, all the rest is just technology and game-play it doesn't make them 'better' players now just because they are better defensively organised or quicker or whatever - a lot of that is technological not down to footballing ability.

 

Funnily enough, the technology that has made modern football more exciting to watch has not been on the pitch but has been the tv coverage. High Definition, cameras in the goal and all that jazz. That kind of thing can make a difference to how a game looks as we can see when we watch Scottish highlights which manage to make any game look dreadful.

 

I agree that tactics have evolved largely to stop other teams playing but I do not agree thatphysical abilities and technology has developed for the same reason.

 

As for crowds, I definitely believe that the reason crowds were so much bigger at times has been for social reasons rather than pure football reasons. But that is a completely separate topic.

[Coco]

James McFadden is the only player from the last few years who would deserve to go into a Scotland legends list.

 

Craig Gordon might in time, if he can become the most capped Scot.

[steve123]

I agree with Fletcher , show me any current Scottish footballer who would command a place in Man United team and that aint my opinion is Alex Fergusons says a lot for the boy !!!!

[Nookie Bear]

My Grandad was the same and with the greatest of respect to your grandad my grandad and their entire generation

 

EVERYTHING was better in their day.

 

Don't I know it.

 

Worrying thing is, I am not even 40 and yet I already say things like "back in my day, the players played for the jersey" or "Robertson.....he was a REAL striker "

[Hearts Heritage]

If I was being devious, it is said amongst many Jambos that Bauld was the best. The King. But how many of us have actually seen him play? How much is based on assumption? An older Jambo - your dad? grandad? - says "son, he was the best....." and you accept it.

 

..

 

Blind Acceptance Not at all. Willie Bauld is Hearts record competitive goal scorer. Scorer of most hat tricks. I've read virtually every match report of all the games that He played. I've spoken to those that played with him and those that saw him play.

 

PS post 132!

[Saint Jambo]

As I said on a thread about Iniesta, this is an impossible task.

 

But interesting to see how many of those that like to criticise lists that are based heavily on the last 20-30 years, completely exclude any players in that era. Often it is clear they have their own era they favour (60s-70s being the most common). Is there any reason players would have become less technically gifted in the last 20-30 years??? The reason for this is probably a mix of sentimentality, overstating their argument, and that British players today are competing against a far larger pool of talent so are less likely to stand out.

[Chester™]

Who in the last 20 years would make that list? Very few players if any

 

The modern years have produced very few players to add to that list

 

To play Devil's Advocate, is not because we dont produce because our coaching methods are vastly inferior to Europe, such as Spain and The Netherlands, whereas this was not the case in yesteryear?

 

As for adding to the list, Collins and Goram certainly.

 

And what was slightly cheeky was neglecting to say the book came out in 1998. Not everybody would have known that.

[Hearts Heritage]

As I said on a thread about Iniesta, this is an impossible task.

 

 

Disagree, we can produce a list of here are 10,20,30... players who are 'great' go find out more...

 

It is 'impossible' to say who is No1 or 2 etc other than by measuring goals, appearances, cleansheets BUT I think you can say that for a particular era that 'Lionel Messi' is at a higher rank than say 'Steven Gerrard'.

 

 

 

But interesting to see how many of those that like to criticise lists that are based heavily on the last 20-30 years, completely exclude any players in that era. Often it is clear they have their own era they favour (60s-70s being the most common).

 

 

I criticise because of what is missing. I would never exclude players of the last 40 years but rather expand the list to include those from the past. Personally I think Cryuff is the best I've seen (on TV that is of course) though anyone advocating Pele, Maradona etc I wouldn't dispute their choice.

 

Is there any reason players would have become less technically gifted in the last 20-30 years???

 

The reason for this is probably a mix of sentimentality, overstating their argument, and that British players today are competing against a far larger pool of talent so are less likely to stand out.

 

Viewed from a 'British' perspective most teams have far less 'British' players in them. The 'skilled' players are the Larsons, Laudrups, Fysass etc.

 

Strength, Speed and win at all costs (or rather avoid defeat or relegation) have been seen as key coaching fundamentals in the UK rather than 'skill'.

 

-----

 

I was 18 when Willie Bauld died. When I heard it I thought, "so what?" , "Just some old gadgey that those old muppets go on about."

 

Now being an old muppet I try and shine some light on the past.

[Hearts Heritage]

To play Devil's Advocate, is not because we dont produce because our coaching methods are vastly inferior to Europe, such as Spain and The Netherlands, whereas this was not the case in yesteryear?

 

 

Yes, See my earlier reply.

 

And what was slightly cheeky was neglecting to say the book came out in 1998. Not everybody would have known that.

 

There is a link on the web page but by it's nature players who started after 1991 would not have played long enough to be included in his list that is why I put a 20 year window on those to be included.

[Charlie-Brown]

Andy Goram, John Collins and Paul Lambert are probably the most notable Scottish players since Ally McCoist - maybe Dicky Gough as well. Of those still playing Darren Fletcher and McFadden probably have achieved notable things either at club or in the latters case some sterling international feats ......Kris Boyd for his sheer number of goals whilst still be a lazy fat useless to$$er.

[Chester™]

Yes, See my earlier reply.

 

 

 

There is a link on the web page but by it's nature players who started after 1991 would not have played long enough to be included in his list that is why I put a 20 year window on those to be included.

 

Of course, not everyone would click on the link now.

 

But I think its a pretty decent assumption to make that speed, strength and avoidance of defeat is what is costing Scotland of the players we used to make. Coaching and to a point the league set up, needs to change to change that.

[Nookie Bear]

Blind Acceptance Not at all. Willie Bauld is Hearts record competitive goal scorer. Scorer of most hat tricks. I've read virtually every match report of all the games that He played. I've spoken to those that played with him and those that saw him play.

 

PS post 132!

 

 

Don't worry, I was not disputing the fact he is the best, I was just saying that most Jambos name him as the best without ever having seen him play, or having read a match report or spoken to team mates.

 

Bauld backs up my argument that sometimes you have to accept what the old timers tell us about former players ......

[Saint Jambo]

Disagree, we can produce a list of here are 10,20,30... players who are 'great' go find out more...

 

It is 'impossible' to say who is No1 or 2 etc other than by measuring goals, appearances, cleansheets BUT I think you can say that for a particular era that 'Lionel Messi' is at a higher rank than say 'Steven Gerrard'.

I don't disagree that it is an interesting conversation and often enlightening. But the task isn't to come up with 10,20,30 great players you can learn more about, it is to produce a list of 'THE BEST 10 OF ALL TIME'. That to me is impossible as you are not comparing like with like either in terms of context or degree of scrutiny you are able to put players under. I'd agree that comparing players of the same era is possible.

 

I criticise because of what is missing. I would never exclude players of the last 40 years but rather expand the list to include those from the past. Personally I think Cryuff is the best I've seen (on TV that is of course) though anyone advocating Pele, Maradona etc I wouldn't dispute their choice.

What you do then is back up my argument by adding names that show how hard it is to narrow it down to a definitive top 10. What others do is state a top 10 with a real focus on a single era whilst criticising others for focusing on the current era.

 

Viewed from a 'British' perspective most teams have far less 'British' players in them. The 'skilled' players are the Larsons, Laudrups, Fysass etc.

 

Strength, Speed and win at all costs (or rather avoid defeat or relegation) have been seen as key coaching fundamentals in the UK rather than 'skill'.

Whilst there are less British players, I would still expect the best to be at the same level as in the past. There have been in the last 20-30 years skillful British defenders, high scoring strikers, etc.

 

Now being an old muppet I try and shine some light on the past.

For which we (or at least I) am often grateful.

[Charlie-Brown]

Funnily enough, the technology that has made modern football more exciting to watch has not been on the pitch but has been the tv coverage. High Definition, cameras in the goal and all that jazz. That kind of thing can make a difference to how a game looks as we can see when we watch Scottish highlights which manage to make any game look dreadful.

 

I agree that tactics have evolved largely to stop other teams playing but I do not agree thatphysical abilities and technology has developed for the same reason.

 

As for crowds, I definitely believe that the reason crowds were so much bigger at times has been for social reasons rather than pure football reasons. But that is a completely separate topic.

 

I was thinking today how would Jim Cruickshank compare to recent Hearts goalies like Niemi, Craig Gordon or Marian Kello if he had played in their era with the padded goalie gloves that make their hands double their size, goalie shirts & shorts with extra padding to help when diving & falling etc. plus also far greater protection from referees these days?

 

Or conversely how well would Niemi Gordon or Kello do if all they had was their bare hands try to stop or catch the ball regardless of the weather or how muddy & slippery wet the ball was, perhaps maybe a wee towel in the goal nets, just a woolen or cotton jersey or perhaps polyester/rayon scratchy shrinkable 1970's type football top to wear on the pitch and normal shorts & socks with zero padding to cushion falls, big lumbering centre forwards that could & would rattle you about at cross balls just to see what you were made of, a cloth cap to keep the sun out your eyes but that's about all the special kit a goalie would have in the 60's or 70's ....................

 

One things soon becomes clear - goalkeeping has definitely become a very different art over that 30-40 year period with different skills and mentality required to cope in either era .... given that how can you say who is better regards older or newer?

[Hearts Heritage]

......compare to recent Hearts goalies ... .... given that how can you say who is better regards older or newer?

 

Ian Grant who has seen every Hearts goalie since 1938 rates Jimmy Brown as the best.

 

I used to think JC was the best but I would now put AN and CG on the same level not better but in that group of 'the Best'..

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Don't worry, I was not disputing the fact he is the best, I was just saying that most Jambos name him as the best without ever having seen him play, or having read a match report or spoken to team mates.

 

Bauld backs up my argument that sometimes you have to accept what the old timers tell us about former players ......

 

How would Bauld do in todays game? I love listening to stories about old players. After the last derby I was up at the Haymarket absolutely blotto talking to this older guy for about an hour about our history. Was brilliant, his enthusiasm was inspirational.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I was thinking today how would Jim Cruickshank compare to recent Hearts goalies like Niemi, Craig Gordon or Marian Kello if he had played in their era with the padded goalie gloves that make their hands double their size, goalie shirts & shorts with extra padding to help when diving & falling etc. plus also far greater protection from referees these days?

 

Or conversely how well would Niemi Gordon or Kello do if all they had was their bare hands try to stop or catch the ball regardless of the weather or how muddy & slippery wet the ball was, perhaps maybe a wee towel in the goal nets, just a woolen or cotton jersey or perhaps polyester/rayon scratchy shrinkable 1970's type football top to wear on the pitch and normal shorts & socks with zero padding to cushion falls, big lumbering centre forwards that could & would rattle you about at cross balls just to see what you were made of, a cloth cap to keep the sun out your eyes but that's about all the special kit a goalie would have in the 60's or 70's ....................

 

One things soon becomes clear - goalkeeping has definitely become a very different art over that 30-40 year period with different skills and mentality required to cope in either era .... given that how can you say who is better regards older or newer?

 

On the other hand, look at the movement of the ball now. Balls can literally swerve from one side of the goal to the other in the space of 30 yards.

[Charlie-Brown]

Ian Grant who has seen every Hearts goalie since 1938 rates Jimmy Brown as the best.

 

I used to think JC was the best but I would now put AN and CG on the same level not better but in that group of 'the Best'..

 

One thing that stands amount amongst all the old film footage of the bygone era's is that you can virtually guarantee that at least once in almost every single one of these brief match highlights do you see a high swinging cross and the goalkeeper and opposing centre-forward coming together to battle for arial supremacy in the penalty box - it's seems to be the single most dominant feature of how the game was played previously. This was the era that Jimmy Brown & Cruicky played in and they relied on their wits & handling to get themselves out of trouble.

 

Conversely you rarely see modern goalies like Niemi or Gordon try to command their penalty box in anything like the same way - and although they look more polished keepers it would seem that modern goalkeeper theory is to try to reflex-save any resulting goal efforts than go up for any high ball unless odds are strongly in favour of winning the ball without being clattered.

[Charlie-Brown]

On the other hand, look at the movement of the ball now. Balls can literally swerve from one side of the goal to the other in the space of 30 yards.

 

As I said AP it takes a quite different skill set for goalies to deal with the modern football than those who faced the older heavier football's & closer goalmouth action and hulking centre forwards etc. Each goalie though had to have their wits about them and good reflexes and ultimately the same aim of keeping the ball out of the goal. Personally I think modern goalies have it easier and older goalies definitely had to be braver!

[Gigolo-Aunt]

Robin Friday.

[bighusref]

A couple of things....

 

I'd like people on this thread to tell me of their personal experiences watching Duncan Edwards play.

 

I notice that Shaun is still listing team achievements to "prove" how good individuals are.

 

I love that Shaun has a list and an order for everything.

[Nookie Bear]

A couple of things....

 

I'd like people on this thread to tell me of their personal experiences watching Duncan Edwards play.

 

I notice that Shaun is still listing team achievements to "prove" how good individuals are.

 

I love that Shaun has a list and an order for everything.

 

You would probably need to go onto a Man Utd forum where you'd find plenty of people able to say they saw him. I expect he was awesome but whether he could have maintained that for another ten years we will never know...............and I can't really blame guys like Charlton saying he was the best as he is talking about a young man - and a friend - killed in his prime. Who are we to disagree?

 

As for Shaun: those lists appear FAR too quickly and organised for my comfort. I suspect laminate cards and a filing system are involved

[bighusref]

You would probably need to go onto a Man Utd forum where you'd find plenty of people able to say they saw him. I expect he was awesome but whether he could have maintained that for another ten years we will never know...............and I can't really blame guys like Charlton saying he was the best as he is talking about a young man - and a friend - killed in his prime. Who are we to disagree?

 

As for Shaun: those lists appear FAR too quickly and organised for my comfort. I suspect laminate cards and a filing system are involved

 

To be honest, Nookie, I don't doubt he was a player. I just find these sort of threads are impossible. I'd wager that most of those listing Duncan Edwards in their lists were not even born when he died. Quite how they can list him as one of the top ten is beyond me.

 

Whilst on Edwards, Do we think that Gary Shaw would have been in that list had he died young?

[Nookie Bear]

To be honest, Nookie, I don't doubt he was a player. I just find these sort of threads are impossible. I'd wager that most of those listing Duncan Edwards in their lists were not even born when he died. Quite how they can list him as one of the top ten is beyond me.

 

Whilst on Edwards, Do we think that Gary Shaw would have been in that list had he died young?

 

As i've said on this thread already, many of the legends from the past are remembered for a reason: because people who did see them passed the knowledge down. Maybe we just have to accept their judgement.

 

I reckon a better Top 10 could be "Ten Players Who Would Be Legends Had They Died Young"*

 

*seriously meaning no disrespect to Edwards or anyone else connected with Munich.

 

And Edwards would be in my "Ten Players I would Love To Have Seen Either Live or On Match Of The Day"