Assumed you guys would factor in a level playing field. Obviously players today are fitter and are aided by lighter boots and ball. But way more class and will to win in the 66 team.
Let's look at the key match-ups - Rooney / Sturridge v Moore/ Charlton, no contest Bobby Moore would have them in his pocket and when Rooney dropped deep Nobby would sort him out. Sturridge wouldn't go near big Jack.
Cahill/Jageilka v Hurst / Hunt - Looks like another hat-trick for Hurst. Roger would run them ragged.
Gerrard v Bobby Charlton -Watch out for those attacking runs and 35- yard thunderbolts Stevie. Bobby had too much class.
Lampard v Peters - Martin was ten years ahead of his time and would be ten yards ahead of Frank.
Banks v Hart - Banks, the greatest English GK of all time. Watch and learn Joe.
Baines v Ball - Bally would run the legs off him.
Cohen / Wilson v Sterling/ Chamberlain - would be interesting on how the 66 boys would cope with their pace. However positioning & reading of the game is half the battle.
Wilshere v Stiles - Watch those fragile legs Jack. Nobby would have him off the pitch within 15 minutes.
Ramsey v Hodgson - Alf was a master. He told us "England would win the World Cup" twelve months before the tournament and then put together a team to do it. How about that for confidence.
But would the level playing field also remove the comfort factor of the modern player - or the devaluing of the national team due to the over emphasis on club over country?
Sorry......I'm over analysing but really don't think it is possible to compare properly.
I would be much happier to think that the 66 boys would smash the life out of the current bunch of cosseted, no bottle under achievers however.
Just watched the '66 final. They wouldn't have a chance in hell against any modern international side. The pace and fitness alone would leave them demolished.
How would the modern players react to a proper tackle? They role around if a strong gust touches them. Doubt many would last 90 minutes against the 66 team.
But would the level playing field also remove the comfort factor of the modern player - or the devaluing of the national team due to the over emphasis on club over country?
Sorry......I'm over analysing but really don't think it is possible to compare properly.
I would be much happier to think that the 66 boys would smash the life out of the current bunch of cosseted, no bottle under achievers however.
How would the modern players react to a proper tackle? They role around if a strong gust touches them. Doubt many would last 90 minutes against the 66 team.
But then the likes of Nobby and Jack wouldn't last 15 minutes on the pitch before being sent off if they tackled like they used to!
Just watched the '66 final. They wouldn't have a chance in hell against any modern international side. The pace and fitness alone would leave them demolished.
In theory this should be true, but the 66 england side had more of a brain.
How would the modern players react to a proper tackle? They role around if a strong gust touches them. Doubt many would last 90 minutes against the 66 team.
But then the likes of Nobby and Jack wouldn't last 15 minutes on the pitch before being sent off if they tackled like they used to!
66 refeering in place, got to level the playingfield of fish and chips and a pint vs pasta and a mineral water.
How would the modern players react to a proper tackle? They role around if a strong gust touches them. Doubt many would last 90 minutes against the 66 team.
But then the likes of Nobby and Jack wouldn't last 15 minutes on the pitch before being sent off if they tackled like they used to!
66 refeering in place, got to level the playingfield of fish and chips and a pint vs pasta and a mineral water.
Then I would expect the modern team to storm off in a hissy fit a la Ratin and his Argentina side.
66 refeering in place, all modern day players stretchered off.
Can't say who'd win but 1966 team had at least three world class players....Banks, Bobby Charlton and Moore....whereas, in my humble opinion, current team have none.
But would the level playing field also remove the comfort factor of the modern player - or the devaluing of the national team due to the over emphasis on club over country?
Sorry......I'm over analysing but really don't think it is possible to compare properly.
I would be much happier to think that the 66 boys would smash the life out of the current bunch of cosseted, no bottle under achievers however.
Can't say who'd win but 1966 team had at least three world class players....Banks, Bobby Charlton and Moore....whereas, in my humble opinion, current team have none.
That's a great point actually. All three names mentioned would have walked into the worlds best 11 at the time which is probably fairly consistent with all tournament winners with the exception of Greece.
Can't say who'd win but 1966 team had at least three world class players....Banks, Bobby Charlton and Moore....whereas, in my humble opinion, current team have none.
Very good point - and at a stretch I'd add Ball and Peters to that list.
Can't say who'd win but 1966 team had at least three world class players....Banks, Bobby Charlton and Moore....whereas, in my humble opinion, current team have none.
Very good point - and at a stretch I'd add Ball and Peters to that list.
Yeah and Jimmy Greaves, despite recovering from injury, couldn't even get a game in the final.
England 2014 would absolutely murder England 1966. This is because football has moved on. But England 1966 were the best in the world at that time - which is all you can ask for and England 2014 are not! So whilst the first statement is correct - England 1966 are deserved national heroes and always will be. England 2014 have yet to earn this title and probably won't ever.
Can't say who'd win but 1966 team had at least three world class players....Banks, Bobby Charlton and Moore....whereas, in my humble opinion, current team have none.
Very good point - and at a stretch I'd add Ball and Peters to that list.
Yeah and Jimmy Greaves, despite recovering from injury, couldn't even get a game in the final.
I didn't include Greaves as he wasn't in the final line-up - but I agree with you that he was most definitely world class.
It's impossible to directiy compare sides across such a time frame because the game has changed so much, technically, tactically and physically. However, it is possible to assess teams relative to their peers at the time.
The best team doesn't always win the World Cup, indeed, the odds when the competition begins are that it won't, but there is no doubt that in 1966 England were one of the best sides in the World and then again in 1970 - the 1970 team was probably stronger in my view. By contrast, today's side are also-rans, pedestrian in comparison with tournament favourites Brazil, Spain and Germany.
The boys of '66 win by a landslide in my view. England could win the World Cup in Brazil, but if so it will be the equivalent of Greece's win at the Euros.
A piece of trivia. As I skimmed last night's programme - even that was less tedious than watching the game - I realised that three of the players in the England squad for Brazil played for Southampton at the Valley in March '11 in the third tier. Extraordinary that really.
It's impossible to directiy compare sides across such a time frame because the game has changed so much, technically, tactically and physically. However, it is possible to assess teams relative to their peers at the time.
The best team doesn't always win the World Cup, indeed, the odds when the competition begins are that it won't, but there is no doubt that in 1966 England were one of the best sides in the World and then again in 1970 - the 1970 team was probably stronger in my view. By contrast, today's side are also-rans, pedestrian in comparison with tournament favourites Brazil, Spain and Germany.
The boys of '66 win by a landslide in my view. England could win the World Cup in Brazil, but if so it will be the equivalent of Greece's win at the Euros.
A piece of trivia. As I skimmed last night's programme - even that was less tedious than watching the game - I realised that three of the players in the England squad for Brazil played for Southampton at the Valley in March '11 in the third tier. Extraordinary that really.
Not that extraordinary - and evidence that despite the evil that is the Premier League - that lower division football is important for the development of the game. If the England midfield in 4 or 5 years consists of Charlton produced players - Cousins, Shelvey and Poyet - would you be that surprised?
It's impossible to directiy compare sides across such a time frame because the game has changed so much, technically, tactically and physically. However, it is possible to assess teams relative to their peers at the time.
The best team doesn't always win the World Cup, indeed, the odds when the competition begins are that it won't, but there is no doubt that in 1966 England were one of the best sides in the World and then again in 1970 - the 1970 team was probably stronger in my view. By contrast, today's side are also-rans, pedestrian in comparison with tournament favourites Brazil, Spain and Germany.
The boys of '66 win by a landslide in my view. England could win the World Cup in Brazil, but if so it will be the equivalent of Greece's win at the Euros.
A piece of trivia. As I skimmed last night's programme - even that was less tedious than watching the game - I realised that three of the players in the England squad for Brazil played for Southampton at the Valley in March '11 in the third tier. Extraordinary that really.
Not that extraordinary - and evidence that despite the evil that is the Premier League - that lower division football is important for the development of the game. If the England midfield in 4 or 5 years consists of Charlton produced players - Cousins, Shelvey and Poyet - would you be that surprised?
Yes I would!! In any event, we've only had two of those three playing in the same side and that was in the Championship.
Southampton had three together in Division 3. Moreover, of the three only Oxlade-Chamberlain could be considered to be a kid at the time. I'm not going to research it, but I'd be surprised if England have ever had a World Cup squad which included three players who'd played in Division 3, let alone three that had played in the same side at the same time!!
Comments
Victory for the boys of 66 is a nice romantic thought - but in reality I think they would get hammered.
Obviously players today are fitter and are aided by lighter boots and ball.
But way more class and will to win in the 66 team.
Cahill/Jageilka v Hurst / Hunt - Looks like another hat-trick for Hurst. Roger would run them ragged.
Gerrard v Bobby Charlton -Watch out for those attacking runs and 35- yard thunderbolts Stevie. Bobby had too much class.
Lampard v Peters - Martin was ten years ahead of his time and would be ten yards ahead of Frank.
Banks v Hart - Banks, the greatest English GK of all time. Watch and learn Joe.
Baines v Ball - Bally would run the legs off him.
Cohen / Wilson v Sterling/ Chamberlain - would be interesting on how the 66 boys would cope with their pace. However positioning & reading of the game is half the battle.
Wilshere v Stiles - Watch those fragile legs Jack. Nobby would have him off the pitch within 15 minutes.
Ramsey v Hodgson - Alf was a master. He told us "England would win the World Cup" twelve months before the tournament and then put together a team to do it. How about that for confidence.
men against boys, 5-0 anyone?
Sorry......I'm over analysing but really don't think it is possible to compare properly.
I would be much happier to think that the 66 boys would smash the life out of the current bunch of cosseted, no bottle under achievers however.
They role around if a strong gust touches them.
Doubt many would last 90 minutes against the 66 team.
Controversial but id take any PL team to batter brazil 70 ... they would be run off the park.
66 refeering in place, all modern day players stretchered off.
The best team doesn't always win the World Cup, indeed, the odds when the competition begins are that it won't, but there is no doubt that in 1966 England were one of the best sides in the World and then again in 1970 - the 1970 team was probably stronger in my view. By contrast, today's side are also-rans, pedestrian in comparison with tournament favourites Brazil, Spain and Germany.
The boys of '66 win by a landslide in my view. England could win the World Cup in Brazil, but if so it will be the equivalent of Greece's win at the Euros.
A piece of trivia. As I skimmed last night's programme - even that was less tedious than watching the game - I realised that three of the players in the England squad for Brazil played for Southampton at the Valley in March '11 in the third tier. Extraordinary that really.
Southampton had three together in Division 3. Moreover, of the three only Oxlade-Chamberlain could be considered to be a kid at the time. I'm not going to research it, but I'd be surprised if England have ever had a World Cup squad which included three players who'd played in Division 3, let alone three that had played in the same side at the same time!!