MoN team or this team?

[ThaiFox]

neither team comes close to the bloomfield era imo

 

Agree with this. Just a shame Bloomfield's team didn't win anything. It was so talented and so entertaining. 

 

It is impossible to compare different era's though. The pace is faster now, the players are fitter, the sports science is now so important. Would today's players be able to cope with the dirty Leeds type sides, the hard laced leather ball, the crap wages (often they had other jobs, even in the '70's), goalkeepers not wearing gloves, 70+ games a season, FA cup and League cup replays, one sub and 14/15 player squads, etc?

[fleckneymike]

Which bit? MON's team would finish bottom if they played in this era, the fitness and speed and technical skill of players these days would be too much for any team of that era. Defenders like Walsh don't exist any more because they are too limited for today's game. If you took the players that we had back then and gave them access to the sports science and training and dietary know how we now have then they would do ok, but if you just jumped in a time machine and took MON's team from 1999 and put them in the Prem they would be run ragged every week.

Football was a lot more physical 15 years ago, not to the level of the 70's but the Arsenal team that won the league ushered in the new era of football but it still had Adams, Bould, Dixon, Winterburn, Ray Parlour, Viera they could match teams physically whilst still playing attacking football. Look at the teams like Ipswich, Coventry, West Ham, Wimbledon they were all teams built on being strong physical teams there were a lot of cloggers around and plenty of players who would just wipe you out on the half way line to stop a quick break. Boro got relegated in 97 with Juninho, Ravenelli, Emerson.

Maybe if they jumped in a time machine this side would do really well with superior speed and fitness. Our weakness though is our full backs, getting attacked down the flanks, defending crosses and set pieces and our keeper doesn't dominate the area which would be exploited by many teams from the late 90's, looking back at that era the game was much slower and the pitches were a lot worse it would affect our game.

I will change my statement that if this team played in late 90's they would either win the league or finish bottom.

 

So essentially your argument is that if players from MONs era were denied access to any information about the current day and foced to play every week by a different set of rules to their opposition then they'd do badly.

 

That side wasn't a bunch of neanderthal cloggers. Elliott for all his self depricating was a very cultured CB (just see his turn on Desailly), Walsh was undoubtedly robust but he could pick a pass (see the play off final v Palace) and Robert Huth is hardly Matthias Sammer. That side could play football, you don't get to three cup finals and finish top 10 for four seasons if you aren't technically gifted.

[Izzy]

That side wasn't a bunch of neanderthal cloggers. Elliott for all his self depricating was a very cultured CB (just see his turn on Desailly), Walsh was undoubtedly robust but he could pick a pass (see the play off final v Palace) and Robert Huth is hardly Matthias Sammer. That side could play football, you don't get to three cup finals and finish top 10 for four seasons if you aren't technically gifted.

This.

[Izzy]

MON's wasn't a particularly good brand of football.

I don't remember being overly concerned about our 'brand' of football back then. Too busy watching us lift trophies and playing in Europe.

[Captain...]

So essentially your argument is that if players from MONs era were denied access to any information about the current day and foced to play every week by a different set of rules to their opposition then they'd do badly.

That side wasn't a bunch of neanderthal cloggers. Elliott for all his self depricating was a very cultured CB (just see his turn on Desailly), Walsh was undoubtedly robust but he could pick a pass (see the play off final v Palace) and Robert Huth is hardly Matthias Sammer. That side could play football, you don't get to three cup finals and finish top 10 for four seasons if you aren't technically gifted.

Exactly, the difference in eras means it is impossible to judge, we don't know how good players like Izzett and Lennon could have been had they been trained in the modern era.

For that time Eliott was quite a cultured centre half, Walsh wasn't, more than their technical ability they are slow and unfit and would be run ragged by today's players, every centre back in the premier league today is better on the ball faster, stronger and fitter than Eliot and Walsh ever were. The whole style of play has changed, not many sides play with a big man up front to launch balls at, which was bread and butter for Walsh and Eliott exactly why they were so effective, it is usually one striker with 3 players getting forwards to support them running at or past the centre backs.

Walsh was a very effective but a very limited defender, he is rightly a legend, but he would not have been effective in this era.

[murphy]

Exactly, the difference in eras means it is impossible to judge, we don't know how good players like Izzett and Lennon could have been had they been trained in the modern era.

For that time Eliott was quite a cultured centre half, Walsh wasn't, more than their technical ability they are slow and unfit and would be run ragged by today's players, every centre back in the premier league today is better on the ball faster, stronger and fitter than Eliot and Walsh ever were. The whole style of play has changed, not many sides play with a big man up front to launch balls at, which was bread and butter for Walsh and Eliott exactly why they were so effective, it is usually one striker with 3 players getting forwards to support them running at or past the centre backs.

Walsh was a very effective but a very limited defender, he is rightly a legend, but he would not have been effective in this era.

 

This 'difference in eras' is totally exaggerated.  MoNs defence was well used to speedy and tricky players running at them, Owen in his prime, Kanchelskis, Overmars, Zola etc etc etc.  You, and some others, make it sound like we were playing against the Dog and Duck every week.

 

THey were a quality team and their achievements mean they have to be considered our best ever.  Thatnsiad, I hope this team can go on and surpass them but they are not there yet.

[Captain...]

This 'difference in eras' is totally exaggerated.  MoNs defence was well used to speedy and tricky players running at them, Owen in his prime, Kanchelskis, Overmars, Zola etc etc etc.  You, and some others, make it sound like we were playing against the Dog and Duck every week.

 

THey were a quality team and their achievements mean they have to be considered our best ever.  Thatnsiad, I hope this team can go on and surpass them but they are not there yet.

 

And how did we do against Zola, Overmars, Kanchelskis? Oh yeah we finished below those sides and only picked up a handful of points, in 1999/00 things were changing but the majority of teams played direct football with a target man getting out wide and whipping balls in, that is why Zola, Overmars, Di Canio and others were so successful.

 

We beat Coventry with Noel Whelan leading the line, supported by Paul Telfer, Middlesbrough with Brian Deane and Robbie Mustoe, Watford with Tommy Mooney ffs

 

Let's not forget Niall Quinn at Sunderland, Dion Dublin at Villa, Iversen and Armstrong at Spurs, Chelsea had Tore Andre Flo, Marcus Gayle and John Hartson for Wimbledon, Duncan Ferguson at Newcastle, as well as a load of shite up front for Southampton, Bradford, Derby, Wednesday..

 

We couldn't compete with teams that played open attacking football, with players of quality of Zola, Overmars, Kanchelskis but the rest of the league that hit it long to the big man and whipped in crosses we were better than them, because that is how we had been set up to defend.

 

The most popular formation now is 4231 with 2 holding midfielders and 3 fast/skilful attacking players playing between the lines and picking out the passes to release the forward, Walsh Eliott and Taggart, playing how they did back then would not be able to cope with it, neither would most other defences of that time, that is why Arsenal became one of the best sides because no defence could cope with that style of play, Overmars, Pires, Ljungberg, and the modern game developed from that.

 

This is in no way a criticism of MON's team they were great at what they did and a product of their time and did what they had to do brilliantly, but this day and age defenders need to be so much more than strong and dominate in the air.

[fleckneymike]

Exactly, the difference in eras means it is impossible to judge, we don't know how good players like Izzett and Lennon could have been had they been trained in the modern era.

For that time Eliott was quite a cultured centre half, Walsh wasn't, more than their technical ability they are slow and unfit and would be run ragged by today's players, every centre back in the premier league today is better on the ball faster, stronger and fitter than Eliot and Walsh ever were. The whole style of play has changed, not many sides play with a big man up front to launch balls at, which was bread and butter for Walsh and Eliott exactly why they were so effective, it is usually one striker with 3 players getting forwards to support them running at or past the centre backs.

Walsh was a very effective but a very limited defender, he is rightly a legend, but he would not have been effective in this era.

 

Slow and unfit!!! I wouldn't mind being as unfit as Elliott and Walsh were back in the 1990s.

 

Not many sides hoofed it back then either. Owen and Fowler were hardly giants. Cole and Solskjaer weren't either. Giggs and Overmars no slouches.

 

Look at the work Pulis does with CBs, he's not exactly worked with Maldini and Baressi yet has built sides which seem capable of defending against all the midget Usain Bolt's which every side apparently boast.

[The Doctor]

In 2000 when we won the cup Leeds and Ipswich finished 4th and 5th I do disagree when he says it was stronger

But them years were brilliant so I would never say an bad word either way!!

 

Harsh, that was a brilliant Leeds side but not sustainable due to Risdales complete lack of financial sense. Purely for the consistency it's still the MON team although it seems highly likely it's a question of when, not if, this side becomes the best in our history.

[fleckneymike]

Nice long ball over the back four there from Spurs to the 6"2 Harry Kane.

 

Modern football eh

[Captain...]

Slow and unfit!!! I wouldn't mind being as unfit as Elliott and Walsh were back in the 1990s.

 

Not many sides hoofed it back then either. Owen and Fowler were hardly giants. Cole and Solskjaer weren't either. Giggs and Overmars no slouches.

 

Look at the work Pulis does with CBs, he's not exactly worked with Maldini and Baressi yet has built sides which seem capable of defending against all the midget Usain Bolt's which every side apparently boast.

 

Slow and unfit compared to defenders these days, and that goes for most players from 15 years ago, same comment regarding those players above, we were not competing with United, Arsenal, Liverpool, we are competing with Villa, Wimbledon, Sunderland, Spurs, Newcastle read as Dion Dublin, Marcus Gayle, Niall Quinn, Stefan Iversen, Duncan Ferguson, most teams played with a big target man as the focal point of their attack and we defended to cope with that.

[Captain...]

Nice long ball over the back four there from Spurs to the 6"2 Harry Kane.

 

Modern football eh

 

Yeah he put it right on his head didn't he, Walsh would have beaten him in the air there easy... 

[murphy]

And how did we do against Zola, Overmars, Kanchelskis? Oh yeah we finished below those sides and only picked up a handful of points, in 1999/00 things were changing but the majority of teams played direct football with a target man getting out wide and whipping balls in, that is why Zola, Overmars, Di Canio and others were so successful.

 

We beat Coventry with Noel Whelan leading the line, supported by Paul Telfer, Middlesbrough with Brian Deane and Robbie Mustoe, Watford with Tommy Mooney ffs

 

Let's not forget Niall Quinn at Sunderland, Dion Dublin at Villa, Iversen and Armstrong at Spurs, Chelsea had Tore Andre Flo, Marcus Gayle and John Hartson for Wimbledon, Duncan Ferguson at Newcastle, as well as a load of shite up front for Southampton, Bradford, Derby, Wednesday..

 

We couldn't compete with teams that played open attacking football, with players of quality of Zola, Overmars, Kanchelskis but the rest of the league that hit it long to the big man and whipped in crosses we were better than them, because that is how we had been set up to defend.

 

The most popular formation now is 4231 with 2 holding midfielders and 3 fast/skilful attacking players playing between the lines and picking out the passes to release the forward, Walsh Eliott and Taggart, playing how they did back then would not be able to cope with it, neither would most other defences of that time, that is why Arsenal became one of the best sides because no defence could cope with that style of play, Overmars, Pires, Ljungberg, and the modern game developed from that.

 

This is in no way a criticism of MON's team they were great at what they did and a product of their time and did what they had to do brilliantly, but this day and age defenders need to be so much more than strong and dominate in the air.

 

Of course they finished below the great Arsenal and Man U teams of the day, you're missing the point.  I am saying that they had to contend with quick skillful players of their era and where not just one dimensional big lumps and are worthy of a lot more respect than you are giving them.   They were no less mobile than Huth or Wes and had a good deal more quality.

[Captain...]

Of course they finished below the great Arsenal and Man U teams of the day, you're missing the point.  I am saying that they had to contend with quick skillful players of their era and where not just one dimensional big lumps and are worthy of a lot more respect than you are giving them.   They were no less mobile than Huth or Wes and had a good deal more quality.

 

And I'm saying the couldn't contend with them, hence why we regularly lost to Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea etc.

 

A lot of teams lumped balls into the box for their target man, and we normally beat those teams.

 

I think you are doing a disservice to Huth and Morgan, they aren't the most mobile defenders in the league at the moment, but they are still more comfortable carrying the ball out from the back, passing it around than Walsh, Elliott and Taggart, our best defender of that time in terms of composure on the ball was probably Spencer Prior, but Eliott Walsh and Taggart were more effective defenders.

[murphy]

And I'm saying the couldn't contend with them, hence why we regularly lost to Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea etc.

 

A lot of teams lumped balls into the box for their target man, and we normally beat those teams.

 

I think you are doing a disservice to Huth and Morgan, they aren't the most mobile defenders in the league at the moment, but they are still more comfortable carrying the ball out from the back, passing it around than Walsh, Elliott and Taggart, our best defender of that time in terms of composure on the ball was probably Spencer Prior, but Eliott Walsh and Taggart were more effective defenders.

 

OK - we will agree to differ then.  I think that they could contend with the best players of their day very well and that the late nineties premier league was a bit better than park football hoof ball.  We did regularly lose to the top teams of course and still do, although I remember going to Old Trafford to see them win with a clean sheet to boot.  

 

We certainly ship more goals these days.

[Captain...]

OK - we will agree to differ then.  I think that they could contend with the best players of their day very well and that the late nineties premier league was a bit better than park football hoof ball.  We did regularly lose to the top teams of course and still do, although I remember going to Old Trafford to see them win with a clean sheet to boot.  

 

We certainly ship more goals these days.

 

I never called any of them park football, but there were a fair few hoofers back then, Wimbledon, Watford, Bradford, Coventry were not pretty teams to watch.

 

Even without the hoofers, football was a lot more direct, MON's side was quite direct, not long ball hoofers, but attacked down the flanks and got plenty of balls in the box.

 

We will never know how players from different eras would have coped, especially if they were given access to the same training methods and scientific advancements.

 

Happy to agree to disagree.

 

Edit: Although I will just add with the levels of play acting and simulation that goes on these days, Walsh would be sent off every game he played, again this goes for many many defenders of that era.

[fleckneymike]

I never called any of them park football, but there were a fair few hoofers back then, Wimbledon, Watford, Bradford, Coventry were not pretty teams to watch.

 

Even without the hoofers, football was a lot more direct, MON's side was quite direct, not long ball hoofers, but attacked down the flanks and got plenty of balls in the box.

 

We will never know how players from different eras would have coped, especially if they were given access to the same training methods and scientific advancements.

 

Happy to agree to disagree.

 

Edit: Although I will just add with the levels of play acting and simulation that goes on these days, Walsh would be sent off every game he played, again this goes for many many defenders of that era.

 

Watford? I think you're confusing the 1980s with the 1990s

 

They spent 1 season in the Prem in 1999/00 having been relegated late 80s.

 

Bradford spent a whopping two seasons in the Prem also in 1999/00-01

 

As for attacking down the flanks and getting balls into the box? You mean like we are doing now.

[Captain...]

Watford? I think you're confusing the 1980s with the 1990s

 

They spent 1 season in the Prem in 1999/00 having been relegated late 80s.

 

Bradford spent a whopping two seasons in the Prem also in 1999/00-01

 

As for attacking down the flanks and getting balls into the box? You mean like we are doing now.

 

I was thinking specifically of 1999-00 MON's last season in charge, probably when we were at our best, there were plenty of shit teams that played with a big target man as the focus of the attack, hence Watford and Bradford.

 

Are you honestly saying that we play in the same way now as we did when we had Marshall and Heskey and Guppy in the team?

 

We have wingers that cut inside and create openings by taking people on, and not just bomb it to the line and swing in a cross, unless Ulloa is playing we play in swinging crosses to the far post, like Mahrez's 2 goals at West Brom, rather than whipped in out swingers for the centre forwards to attack. We are playing the most attacking dynamic football I have ever seen us play, attacking at speed and in numbers with pace and creativity.

 

There was a lot more to MON's team than big men at the back, and whipping in crosses to the big man up front, but it was a tactic we used a lot and it brought us a lot of success, but football has changed a lot since then, and that MON team would not have that success today.

 

I'll leave it at that.

[Jobyfox]

Hmmm .... a team that achieved 3 top ten finishes and 2 league cup wins or a team that scraped premier league survival and is 3rd after 12 games?

I'd go with MON's team, but this one has great potential.

Comparing them now is far too early. It's a bit like somebody asking the question about Peter Taylor's team when we were top at Christmas. Look how that turned out.

[fleckneymike]

Which side is better, the England squad circa 96-99 or the current England squad? That might help determine how 'good' the Premier league currently is.

[My Nads]

Our current team is at a higher level with the exception of the defence. This team is really fluid and fast, but with a shaky defence. MON's teams were a bit dare I say it...long ball. They were a bit too physical as well. Huth pushes him luck a bit, but Walsh and Elliot make him look like a nun. Saying that, I would start Elliot over Morgan, Flowers over Kasper, Lennon for Drinky and Cottee to play alongside Vardy. I would start Kamark as well, but that's more because Simpson is below average.

Savage was a dirty cheat when he played and now he is just an annoying tit! 

[Guest Electric Yetis]

Our current team is at a higher level with the exception of the defence. This team is really fluid and fast, but with a shaky defence. MON's teams were a bit dare I say it...long ball. They were a bit too physical as well. Huth pushes him luck a bit, but Walsh and Elliot make him look like a nun. Saying that, I would start Elliot over Morgan, Flowers over Kasper, Lennon for Drinky and Cottee to play alongside Vardy. I would start Kamark as well, but that's more because Simpson is below average.

Savage was a dirty cheat when he played and now he is just an annoying tit!

You wouldn't play Izzet??

[My Nads]

You wouldn't play Izzet??

It's not easy choosing and of course I though about it, but we have better technical players now I think.

[fleckneymike]

You wouldn't play Izzet??

 

He wouldn't play Heskey!!!

 

 

 

 

[Guest Electric Yetis]

It's not easy choosing and of course I though about it, but we have better technical players now I think.

[emoji3]