Who would win this game.

[Sampson]

Kaamark was long gone by that Sunderland game. 

Think people are forgetting what that old team were somewhat. We never really bossed teams and were built around defensive solidarity and it certainly wouldn't be 4 or 5 nil (as let's face it, we didn't even look like losing that against Man City or Fulham this year). 

 

I'd imagine the current team would have the majority of the possession but the older side would still win 2-1 or something.

[Raj]

No contest

3-0 old skool

[Vardinhio]

I genuinely think football in England has changed so much in the last 15 years that the new crop would batter the oldies. I can't see them handling Dyer or Knockaert and Elliott and Taggs would be blowing out of their arse!

[Guest MattP]

I genuinely think football in England has changed so much in the last 15 years that the new crop would batter the oldies. I can't see them handling Dyer or Knockaert and Elliott and Taggs would be blowing out of their arse!

That old guard held off Bergkamp and Henry on more than one occasion so I don't think Knocky and Dyer would be frightening them.

[Captain...]

Kaamark was long gone by that Sunderland game. 

Think people are forgetting what that old team were somewhat. We never really bossed teams and were built around defensive solidarity and it certainly wouldn't be 4 or 5 nil (as let's face it, we didn't even look like losing that against Man City or Fulham this year). 

 

I'd imagine the current team would have the majority of the possession but the older side would still win 2-1 or something.

 

I thought he had, but the point was more illustrative, that if MON would look to nullify a threat, of which Knocky is probably our biggest, whereas NP's plan B is GTF.

 

MON's team would have murdered this lot on set pieces, we are shaky enough at the moment when average championship players whip the ball in, imagine Guppy, Izzett and Eadie (someone I rated a lot) firing them in for the likes of Elliott, Taggart, Heskey and Collymore to attack.

 

There may not be much pace at the back for MON's side, but Lennon always did such a good screening job it was difficult to get in behind, and with NP's side being so wasteful in front of goal, I can still only see a convincing win for MON's side.

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

The first team is miles ahead on experience. 3-1 to the old boys.

[fleckneymike]

Incidentally, the O'neill team is the one that beat sunderland 5-2, and the pearson team is the one that played on sunday. 

 

If you allowed them to line up in the correct formation

 

 

Then that MON side would destroy the current lot. (Though Heskey should be on the left and Collymore the right in that image)

[Sampson]

I thought he had, but the point was more illustrative, that if MON would look to nullify a threat, of which Knocky is probably our biggest, whereas NP's plan B is GTF.

 

MON's team would have murdered this lot on set pieces, we are shaky enough at the moment when average championship players whip the ball in, imagine Guppy, Izzett and Eadie (someone I rated a lot) firing them in for the likes of Elliott, Taggart, Heskey and Collymore to attack.

 

There may not be much pace at the back for MON's side, but Lennon always did such a good screening job it was difficult to get in behind, and with NP's side being so wasteful in front of goal, I can still only see a convincing win for MON's side.

 

I'm not sure I agree at all. O'Neill is well known as not being the most tactically astute and not caring about what the opposition does and concentrating on his own team. I remember an interview with Matt Elliott where he said as much and the team talks were often as simple as "knock it up to Heskey".

 

He was a great man motivator but a great tactician he was not and you could just as easily criticise MON for saying his only plan B was to stick Elliott/Walsh up front and play long balls up towards them.

 

Guppy's crossing was always erratic and he was always criticised for it. I remember at the time there was always the stat that Guppy crossed the ball more times than any other player in the Premier League but there was always debate about how accurate it was.

 

We were never actually as good at set pieces under MON as people remember, it was under Micky Adams when we were so good at set pieces and scored a ridiculous number of goals from them.

 

People have nostalgia blinkers on, it's easy to remember the great performances under MON and that side's strengths (which there were plenty) and forget the poor performances under him and that side's weaknesses (of which there were also plenty) whereas people are happy to give a more balanced view of the current side because it's right in front of them.

 

Don't get me wrong, the older side would win, but I can't imagine it was be a mauling at all.

[Bryn]

Old team by miles.

[fleckneymike]

I'm not sure I agree at all. O'Neill is well known as not being the most tactically astute and not caring about what the opposition does and concentrating on his own team. I remember an interview with Matt Elliott where he said as much and the team talks were often as simple as "knock it up to Heskey".

 

He was a great man motivator but a great tactician he was not and you could just as easily criticise MON for saying his only plan B was to stick Elliott/Walsh up front and play long balls up towards them.

 

Guppy's crossing was always erratic and he was always criticised for it. I remember at the time there was always the stat that Guppy crossed the ball more times than any other player in the Premier League but there was always debate about how accurate it was.

 

People have nostalgia blinkers on, it's easy to remember the great performances under MON and that side's strengths (which there were plenty) and forget the poor performances under him and that side's weaknesses (of which there were also plenty) whereas people are happy to give a more balanced view of the current side because it's right in front of them.

 

But MON had Walford and Whisky Jon Robertson doing the tactics too.

[fleckneymike]

I think the players of today, even 10 years on, are technically better, faster, fitter etc so I can see the new team winning... I think any player from the 60's or around that time would struggle nowadays because football has improved so so much recently

 

Don't believe the Sky hype. Fitness they may be marginally better but 'technically' Izzett, Lennon, Heskey, Collymore, Guppy and Elliott are still streets ahead of the current lot.

[Sampson]

Don't believe the Sky hype. Fitness they may be marginally better but 'technically' Izzett, Lennon, Heskey, Collymore, Guppy and Elliott are still streets ahead of the current lot.

 

Izzet, Lennon and Collymore - absolutely. Heskey, Guppy and Elliott - nah.

 

Still think people are remembering Guppy for more than he was, which was a player with average pace and little ability to beat his man, but with great work rate who fitted into a system and crossed a hell of a lot (sometimes not the most accurately). Much like Vardy he learnt his trade in the non-league and much like Vardy it showed in his limited but hard working style of play. I'd take Dyer and Knockaert of this season over him any time.

 

Elliott was just your typical limited centre back with poor distribution, similar to Morgan. Don't get me wrong, he was a great defender and was better than Morgan, but definitely not in terms of his technical ability.

 

Heskey was effective but has never been the most technically gifted player at all.

[AdamN]

As good as our current side our, the old side should be comfortably beating them. Don't forget that was the accumulation and continued improvement of a side that was finishing in the top 10 of the Premier League year in year out. Our current side, while excellent in the Championship, are nowhere near that standard.

[cc_star]

Can't see Elliot & Taggart keeping up with Nugent & Vardy, but they wouldn't get much supply with Lennon covering, likewise Collymore & a young Heskey would run rings around Moore & Morgan

Mix the formation up into the proper one with wingbacks, pushing Savage into midfield more and the old side would win out convincing winners with Lennon covering defence & laying off simple balls for Izzet to create, with Savage scrapping & covering every blade of grass on the pitch too the current side wouldn't get a look-in

Of course the Collymore/Heskey frontline is the stuff of folklore given that Sunderland game with Heskey's subsequent sale, we never got chance to see it in action properly & importantly if any weaknesses would be exposed over a longer period.

3-0 to the old skool though, would be more if MoN went for it, but that wasn't really in his character once a game was won

[jonthefox]

If you allowed them to line up in the correct formation

 

 

Then that MON side would destroy the current lot. (Though Heskey should be on the left and Collymore the right in that image)

 

 

Walsh never played in that game.

[fleckneymike]

Izzet, Lennon and Collymore - absolutely. Heskey, Guppy and Elliott - nah.

 

Still think people are remembering Guppy for more than he was, which was a player with average pace and little ability to beat his man, but with great work rate who fitted into a system and crossed a hell of a lot (sometimes not the most accurately). Much like Vardy he learnt his trade in the non-league and much like Vardy it showed in his limited but hard working style of play. I'd take Dyer and Knockaert of this season over him any time.

 

Elliott was just your typical limited centre back with poor distribution, similar to Morgan. Don't get me wrong, he was a great defender and was better than Morgan, but definitely not in terms of his technical ability.

 

Heskey was effective but has never been the most technically gifted player at all.

 

Not the most accurately. For two seasons running he had the highest cross completion rate in the Prem, edging out some no mark called D Beckham.

 

Elliott nah? Chelsea, FA Cup, 2000, Cruyff turn on Desailly, goal.

Walsh never played in that game.

 

Sorry, typo, Taggs. Even so, would destroy this side.

[Sampson]

Do these people saying 4 or 5 nil really think that Leicester side was anywhere near as good as the Man City side we faced the other week?

[fleckneymike]

Can't see Elliot & Taggart keeping up with Nugent & Vardy, but they wouldn't get much supply with Lennon covering, likewise Collymore & a young Heskey would run rings around Moore & Morgan

Mix the formation up into the proper one with wingbacks, pushing Savage into midfield more and the old side would win out convincing winners with Lennon covering defence & laying off simple balls for Izzet to create, with Savage scrapping & covering every blade of grass on the pitch too the current side wouldn't get a look-in

Of course the Collymore/Heskey frontline is the stuff of folklore given that Sunderland game with Heskey's subsequent sale, we never got chance to see it in action properly & importantly if any weaknesses would be exposed over a longer period.

3-0 to the old skool though, would be more if MoN went for it, but that wasn't really in his character once a game was won

 

They kept up with Owen (well Elliott smashed him).

Do these people saying 4 or 5 nil really think that Leicester side was anywhere near as good as the Man City side we faced the other week?

 

Do you think that Man City side got out of 2nd gear?

[Beliall]

2-0 to the old school

[Bayfox]

Izzet, Lennon and Collymore - absolutely. Heskey, Guppy and Elliott - nah.

Still think people are remembering Guppy for more than he was, which was a player with average pace and little ability to beat his man, but with great work rate who fitted into a system and crossed a hell of a lot (sometimes not the most accurately). Much like Vardy he learnt his trade in the non-league and much like Vardy it showed in his limited but hard working style of play. I'd take Dyer and Knockaert of this season over him any time.

Elliott was just your typical limited centre back with poor distribution, similar to Morgan. Don't get me wrong, he was a great defender and was better than Morgan, but definitely not in terms of his technical ability.

Heskey was effective but has never been the most technically gifted player at all.

did you watch heskey play for us?

Mon, keegan, bruce, sven, among a few others that know a bit about the game fancied him for club and country.

but maybe he is just shit and 1 cap nugent, wood or vardy are better.

[Sampson]

 

Not the most accurately. For two seasons running he had the highest cross completion rate in the Prem, edging out some no mark called D Beckham.

 

I know, I already mentioned that.

 

 

Elliott nah? Chelsea, FA Cup, 2000, Cruyff turn on Desailly, goal.

 

This is exactly my point about people only remember the strengths and the good times of the older team and not its weaknesses and bad times. Using one or two positive examples out of years of games. You could say the same about Morgan's goal for Forest against Notts County the other season, which was technically superb, but people aren't silly enough to claim Morgan, who despite being very composed on the ball, is the most technically gifted of players. Elliott was a great defender, but he was certainly tactically limited.

[Sampson]

did you watch heskey play for us?

Mon, keegan, bruce, sven, among a few others that know a bit about the game fancied him for club and country.

but maybe he is just shit and 1 cap nugent, wood or vardy are better.

 

Of course I saw him play and you seem to be confusing technical ability with being good. There's no doubt he was a very effective player and better than any of our other strikers, but he certainly wasn't technically much better.

[Sampson]

They kept up with Owen (well Elliott smashed him).

 

Do you think that Man City side got out of 2nd gear?

 

Yet again using odd positive examples to gloss over the weaknesses of the side.

 

And so, you're allowed to judge that Leicester side as always playing to their best but that Man City side you aren't? That Leicester side rarely beat any team, including lower league teams in the cup by more than a couple of goals either. So how come they'd suddenly beat the best team in the lower league by 4 or 5 goals? It was a side which was expert at grinding out 1-0s and 2-1s and that's what they'd have done against the current Leicester side, no way would it have been 4 or 5 nil.

[fleckneymike]

 

 

 

I know, I already mentioned that.

 

 

 

This is exactly my point about people only remember the strengths and the good times of the older team and not its weaknesses and bad times. Using one or two positive examples out of years of games. You could say the same about Morgan's goal for Forest against Notts County the other season, which was technically superb, but people aren't silly enough to claim Morgan, who despite being very composed on the ball, is the most technically gifted of players. Elliott was a great defender, but he was certainly tactically limited.

 

 

So having the highest cross completion makes him technically poor?

 

There is also a slight difference between scoring past Notts County and mugging off Desailly. Like you, I had the privilege of watching Elliott in his pomp and 'technically' that man could play, all he lacked was pace. He was streets ahead of Morgan in terms of technique.

[cc_star]

while a game's outcome can't be attributed to cold, hard stats - OPTA had Savage/Izzet/Lennon/Guppy second only to Beckham/Scholes/Keane/Giggs at the time