Game to be played using the rules as they were in 1966 together with the same refereeing standards that allowed a more 'robust' approach to physical contact. All current Charlton squad players can be considered.
Obviously the 1966 England team would be more skillful but the current Charlton team should be a lot fitter and should have a bit more tactical awareness (although I sometimes wonder).
Who would win?
0
Comments
And most of our players couldn't cope physically with old school tackling, how long would JFC, CBT, DJ, Fraser, Chuks etc last?
Anyway, two words: Nobby and Stiles. We have no players who could have got past him.
(A situation that sort of replicates the new Spiderman film situated in a parallel universe)
It would strongly depend on who the ref is. It would also depend on the size of the pitch.
Our Charlton 11 would be on the recieving end of an overwhelming panic attack that featured awe, intimidation and shock.
I don't think it would be a game of two halves.
We would get bullied in the 1st half and probably easily be 3-0 down.
I don't think we would score in the game.
But I tend to agree, football has come on a hell of a lot with coaching and fitness etc.
Will the teams be wearing boots from their own era or will they all wear the same?
Will they be playing on a 1966 pitch or a 2022 pitch?
What ball will be used (might be linked to the boots that they wear)?
No subs or 5 subs?
Depends if Jimmy Greaves was or wasn’t playing.
There has been so many developments in fitness over the decades that it wouldn't even be close.
When did this revolution occur? I must have missed it.
Yes, physicality has improved over the 50+ years ... but don't get too carried away. The four-minute mile barrier was broken in 1954 ... not 2004. Derek Clayton hit 2hr 9mins for the Marathon at Fukuoka in 1967.
Yes, things have progressed ... but not so much that we would have any chance against Ramsey's wingless wonders.
The current Liverpool or Man City team would be a better bet.
The modern era probably forces a more balanced healthy diet, in comparison.
+ Minimal drinking and no smoking.
George best in his prime, would run rings around us.
Safe to say the healthy diet is more of an extra push.
It does not create the character and does not form the historic natural talent.
https://blogofthenet.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/analysis-1966-world-cup-final-xg/
The big things I took away from it are the fact that everyone stayed in position more - modern footballers with their fitness levels and the coaching they have may well be able to overload the 66 team in several areas.
The second was the pot shots being taken - 31 shots each! I know MacGillivray hasn't excelled this season but I'd not expect a modern defence and keeper to be too troubled by a side shooting from distance again and again.
And that's ignoring that Charlton would be faster, fitter and stronger.
There's been 17 seconds knocked off the record since then, if that doesn't prove that fitness, diet, technology, training etc doesn't improve sporting performances, I don't know what does.
A top end club runner could probably do a 4 minute mile now, same as a League 1 club could beat World Cup winners.
My point is that, while fitness levels etc have undoubtedly improved, the World was not full of wheezing hacks back in the day. In fact, Jim Ryun ran 3.51 in 1967 so the improvement is a mere eight seconds in 55 years (and, hence, nine seconds in the previous 13 years).
I enjoyed the xG analysis. Has it been done for any of the other tournament games from 1966? My guess is that the England v Portugal game might look a bit different.
But maybe you're right. Eusebio ... Pele ... Best ... League 1 players in today's game.
If they played on today’s pitches with today’s balls and today’s boots then modern day Charlton would walk it. So much fitter and more professional.
But using old boots and an old ball. I think the ‘66 team would win.
The fitness point, yes because nowadays they average running 12kms a game. Have a feeling back then they were not covering as much ground in 90 minutes.