Better than 85-87

[TheBigIguana]

I agree with you Its very hard to compare one periods teams or players to another because the game changes over time, so there are so many variables to consider. But I think if you bare that in mind it is still possible to answer the question.

So to answer the question properly its perhaps better to imagine if you took a player from today and put him in the squad at the time, with the diet and training available. If you took *some* of the players from todays squad and put them in the league in 1985 they would struggle. Others would do ok. I'm pretty sure Baines would still stand out as a great player - although perhaps wouldn't provide the same balance down the left and side with Sheedy that Pat Van Den Hauwe did.

Similarly If you took someone like Adrian Heath and gave him todays training he would wipe the floor with alot of the players in the current squad. His touch, technique and movement off the ball were fantastic, and he managed to do it on heavy muddy pitches, whilst getting kicked, using a football that was much heavier than the ones we have today. His attitude was also fantastic, he would never give up the cause. The same goes for Trevor Steven. Despite the football back then not being the fancy glamourous stuff we have now, you can still clearly see the ability there when you watch the games.

I agree if you brought older players up to modern training standards they'd be fine but when we're looking back that isn't how it happened. The players are skilled, but the speed which they play and which the ball moves is not close. Neither is the intensity despite how everyone seems to think trying to hurt people means it is. The modern pressing would run old players ragged.

 

[degsy]

Which players, since we last won the league have been better than the first 11's we had then?
The idea for this thread comes from reading @Eggs saying that Baines wasn't up to the standard of van den hauwe.
For example, if we replace sheedy with richarlison are we still winning the league?
Was lescott better than mountfield? Who are you taking out, and who is slotting in? You can't go for Harper or Richardson because they weren't first choice.

None

 

[Harryflashman]

No way would I ever swap Kanchelskis for Trevor Steven in any Everton side. Not that I didn't rate Andrei as anything other than world class, it was because the Steven/Sheedy/Reid/Bracewell axis was a perfectly balanced midfield and were the real engine room to the success we had in the 80s.

If you put a more individual player like Kanchelskis in that side for Steven it may well have made the other three in midfield less effective.

there is absolutely no doubt that that side was a perfect mix , greater than the sum of its parts really . The point I was making was in my opinion kanchelskis is about the only player in terms of genuine ability , while with us , that is deserving of even a Conversation

 

[ChesterBlue]

Just no.

To be fair the advancements to sports science and coaching / performance monitoring have improved both players and the game - it’s played at a significantly higher intensity now, athletically the players are much better and therefore have to be more technical due to having nowhere near as much space as they did back then.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Stylistically different can't compare them. Pitch conditions and the pass-back rule meant defensive setups where different it was easier to create space with wing play and long balls. Put Man city on a muddy pitch with the pass back rule they would struggle. The good players have always being good it just depends on the situations presented to them. Watch the 1970's brazil WC team or some footage of the holy trinity they would easily stand up to modern sides technique wise.

There has been the occasional game where a top team goes to a bad pitch in the FA Cup and it doesn't stop them from passing.

I've seen some of the old stuff, and the amount of space and the speed of the game are so different that even if the guys are as skilled they aren't being forced to do it nearly as often or as quickly. I'm not saying those guys couldn't play, just that reality is the game is better now.

 

[Bluebonic]

I didn't mean technical ability. Bad wording. I just mean the game has come so far that any team in the PL now would run wild in the 80s and before. Maybe even the 90s too. A team like City wouldn't lose.

Not having that mate, if the current City team had to play in the 80’s and had to face the likes of van den hauwe, they would all jack the game in! After their theatricals were ignored by the ref for the third time, they would take off their shirt, throw it to the floor and stamp off the pitch in a huff! Can you imagine any of them facing Roy Keane in a Manchester derby

 

[TheBigIguana]

Not having that mate, if the current City team had to play in the 80’s and had to face the likes of van den hauwe, they would all jack the game in! After their theatricals were ignored by the ref for the third time, they would take off their shirt, throw it to the floor and stamp off the pitch in a huff! Can you imagine any of them facing Roy Keane in a Manchester derby

See while the theatrics wouldn't work, they also wouldn't be necessary. Refs called fouls for people grabbing and kicking players even when they didn't dive.

Roy Keane was great but Sir Alex never really did well against Pep did he? I know they won the semi 1-0 in 2008 but they were battered in 09 and 11. Tactical innovation has been massive and even Ferguson started to fall slightly behind.

But again, it doesn't matter how physical you are if you can't get close enough to players to do anything and after about 20 minutes City would have run them so ragged that they wouldn't touch them.

 

[Viennablue]

Big brave call.



And I agree, apart from Neville at RB.

Haha, no one likes Neville on here apart from me.

I thought he was really good for us. Minimum 6/7 out of 10 every week. Right up until that Wigan fa cup game in 2013

I know he’s a manc/united boy and was proud of it, but for me he proved his loyalty 3 times

1) 2008 tackle on Ronaldo. Got the stadium going and changed the game.

2) 2009 semi final pen. Put it away confidently in front of the united fans.

3) 2010 3-1 win against united. At 1-1 Rooney had rounded Howard and it looked like he was going to put them back in front. Neville came from nowhere and edged Rooney/the ball out of play. Pure quality defending.

he’s alright by me is captain Phil. Great pointing too!

 

[rochdaleblue]

No way would I ever swap Kanchelskis for Trevor Steven in any Everton side. Not that I didn't rate Andrei as anything other than world class, it was because the Steven/Sheedy/Reid/Bracewell axis was a perfectly balanced midfield and were the real engine room to the success we had in the 80s.

If you put a more individual player like Kanchelskis in that side for Steven it may well have made the other three in midfield less effective.

I agree mate. The only reason I moved Steven centrally in my side to accommodate Kanchelsis was because when he was asked to play that role for periods in 87 he was outstanding. He was like de Bruyne in that sense, he could play anywhere across the midfield and still excel he was that good.

 

[chrismpw]

To be fair the advancements to sports science and coaching / performance monitoring have improved both players and the game - it’s played at a significantly higher intensity now, athletically the players are much better and therefore have to be more technical due to having nowhere near as much space as they did back then.

No doubt -but it doesn't make them any better. Football is played also in the head. You can have enhanced athleticism, but if you havent got time to engage the brain due to the manic way the game is SOMETIMES played today, you just get ugly scrappy rush football.

Everton in the 80s played high intensity fast football too* - but the collective team also had footie brains.

*often using a high press - well press all over the pitch to be fair- even though we know this is impopossible because it was before the rs invented it a couple of years ago

 

[MickA]

Haha, yeah I’m bored.

It would get a kick though wouldn’t it? It would win comfortably and I think most people would realise that.

it would be too quick too strong and technically advanced.

that’s the reason I said it’s unfair to compare eras. The team above never really did anything and the 83-87 team were the best in the land at the time. I just wish they’d have been given a chance in the European cup. So unfair.

“at that time” is the key though. Times have moved on. Training methods, sports science and medicine have advanced. Refereeing standards have gotten stricter. The talent pool of players in the premier league is much bigger.

For better or worse so many aspects of life are so much more advanced than they were 35 years ago. A lot of it is for the worse.

From everything I’ve listened to and watched about the 80s era eveton/football it did seem so much more fun (apart from the hooliganism and racism obvs). Back then if you went to the right pub you could have a pint with some of your heroes, nowadays they’re completely off limits and so far removed from real life.

quality wise they’re much better though.

Mate you have a central midfield of Gomes and Fellaini. We'll just leave it at that.

 

[TheBigIguana]

No doubt -but it doesn't make them any better. Football is played also in the head. You can have enhanced athleticism, but if you havent got time to engage the brain due to the manic way the game is SOMETIMES played today, you just get ugly scrappy rush football.

Everton in the 80s played high intensity fast football too* - but the collective team also had footie brains.

*often using a high press - well press all over the pitch to be fair- even though we know this is impopossible because it was before the rs invented it a couple of years ago

You don't actually think that the game today doesn't require a high degree of knowledge do you? That teams just press wildly without any coordination or planning?

The tactics are miles better now, but the players don't know as much? Not sure how that is possible really.

 

[Kever10]

You can pick any game you want. The amount of space, the amount of touches attackers can take, the intensity. It all doesn't stand up to what the average PL game produces now.

I don't want to come off like I'm completely bashing the old days, but I just hate that people act like the game hasn't progressed over 30+ years.

It's a different sport but the same argument:

Steve Kerr trolled every former NBA player who thinks they could have beaten the Warriors

Burn.

ftw.usatoday.com

People improving over time, shocker.

The only way to compare is against the equivalent of the day. For every player you say has advanced now, and the reasons behind it, different methods, equipment etc, the same would apply going forward or backwards in time. For instance, the modern players would be playing on dire pitches with much heavier balls and practically a different rule set.

I still think there'd be some 90s players I'd have in this team over current players, and the general consensus was none of them would've been good enough to get in the more recent (at the time) all conquering 80s team.

It is a fact that the general levels of fitness and speed have improved, and there may be a more favourable approach towards certain types of players improving in 1 area while regressing in others.

There are certainly more long range goals, and that is in part down to the balls used and the perfect conditions.

 

[MickA]

I agree mate. The only reason I moved Steven centrally in my side to accommodate Kanchelsis was because when he was asked to play that role for periods in 87 he was outstanding. He was like de Bruyne in that sense, he could play anywhere across the midfield and still excel he was that good.

Not just him. Sheedy and Heath played CM, Psycho played CB etc. Some on this thread are blinded totally with the way things are now, at any time in football to play at the elite level you'd have to be a very, very good player and that 80s side was choc full of them.

 

[Viennablue]

Imagine Pickford playing against Sharp and Andy Gray, he’s a bag go of nerves now, picture him playing against those two, I’ll give your team a three goal start with Pickford in goal, the eighties team would win comfortably

Modern day refs would essentially penalize Gray out of the game these days. Plus according to Wikipedia (for all the wonders that are spoken about him) he managed 14 league goals for us in 49 league games. A 1 in 3 strike rate in his hay day wouldn't worry the 11 I’d picked. Lescott and Jagielka would be too quick and strong anyway.

plus the ball would permanently be in the other half/being picked out of Southall’s net with a front 4 of Lukaku richarlison kanchelkis and Cahill running riot.

interesting youchoose Pickford as the problem though. His pinpoint accurate kicks would be setting up a lot of my team’s attacking play.

However, I’ve seen footage of Southall in his prime and I’d say he would be the 1 I’d choose for my modern day 11. Goalkeeper is the 1 position I think has gotten easier to play since the 80s. More protection from refs and fitness isn’t an issue.