|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 13:47:54 GMT
40 goals and a Ballon D'Or so by the criteria he cites... I believe there was a mark up for the World Cup victory. On the games played ratio, there has to be a case for Jimmy Greaves. Did he actually receive a medal in '66? Agreed, amazing record. Think he did get a medal yeah.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 3, 2015 13:52:59 GMT
Rooney and Owen both burst onto the scene at a young age but neither seemed to fully deliver the promise they showed, although their goal scoring records are really good. I don't think either are in the category of great England players and it would be difficult to separate them, probably Rooney has the edge and no he hasn't won a Ballon d'Or
|
|
|
Post by markfitdt on Apr 3, 2015 13:55:32 GMT
I believe there was a mark up for the World Cup victory. On the games played ratio, there has to be a case for Jimmy Greaves. Did he actually receive a medal in '66? Agreed, amazing record. Think he did get a medal yeah. If I remember correctly (and I might be wrong!) Greaves didnt get a medal initially and only received one within the last 5 or 6 years after a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 13:56:05 GMT
Rooney and Owen both burst onto the scene at a young age but neither seemed to fully deliver the promise they showed, although their goal scoring records are really good. I don't think either are in the category of great England players and it would be difficult to separate them, probably Rooney has the edge and no he hasn't won a Ballon d'Or I agree, I think he's a more complete player. Owen was never quite the same when his pace went.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 13:56:24 GMT
Agreed, amazing record. Think he did get a medal yeah. If I remember correctly (and I might be wrong!) Greaves didnt get a medal initially and only received one within the last 5 or 6 years after a campaign. Cheers. I just knew he'd flogged it.
|
|
|
Post by markfitdt on Apr 3, 2015 13:58:14 GMT
If I remember correctly (and I might be wrong!) Greaves didnt get a medal initially and only received one within the last 5 or 6 years after a campaign. Cheers. I just knew he'd flogged it. yeah, i think, like you say, that he has since sold it. I think that only the starting 11 got a medal back then (had subs even started then?)
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 3, 2015 14:10:14 GMT
People will realise how good rooney is/was in 20 years time Sir Wayne, Lord Croxteth. Shiver. Sir Shrek of The Shit.
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 3, 2015 14:12:00 GMT
Cheers. I just knew he'd flogged it. yeah, i think, like you say, that he has since sold it. I think that only the starting 11 got a medal back then (had subs even started then?) That is sad, if he has actually had to sell it, after people campaigned for him to receive one. England's current Captain should have bought it, for a weeks pay, and given it straight back.
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 3, 2015 14:15:06 GMT
Sir Wayne, Lord Croxteth. Shiver. Sir Shrek of The Shit. Ha. The Sir part will never happen though.
|
|
|
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Apr 3, 2015 14:27:15 GMT
Rooney and Owen both burst onto the scene at a young age but neither seemed to fully deliver the promise they showed, although their goal scoring records are really good. I don't think either are in the category of great England players and it would be difficult to separate them, probably Rooney has the edge and no he hasn't won a Ballon d'Or I agree, I think he's a more complete player. Owen was never quite the same when his pace went. Rooney has obviously won a hell of a lot more than Owen has over his career as well. A Champion's League, 2 League Cup and 5 Premier League medals make it a no contest in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Apr 3, 2015 14:30:48 GMT
No problem with Rooney at all. It's great that his wealth means he's been able to help his family financially. He's no Charlton by a long chalk but at least when he gets the record one of the monkeys of 66 is off our back.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 3, 2015 14:52:55 GMT
At the risk of sounding biased; by far the best England goal scorer in modern times is Jimmy Greaves. 44 goals in 54 games. Rooney has 47 in 103, Charlton scored 49 in 106 and Lineker 48 in 80. Absolutely right. Not only was Greaves strike rate much better than any other top scorer for England since WWII, he had more hat tricks than anyone else and (amazingly) he never took a penalty for England. He is "head and shoulders" above any other strike scorer of the modern era. Any decent striker could beat the record if they play enough games, it's strike rate that mattered. Furthermore Greaves stop playing for England at 27 (even younger than Michael Owen) because Ramsay wanted to groom younger players for the 1970 world cup and he felt Greaves didn't fit into his style of team. He was top scorer in the old 1st Division 6 times (2x Linekar, & Shearer (Prem.)), 357 goals in the top flight, top scorer in 68/69 after he stopped playing for England. His record is phenomenal. I'm not knocking Rooney, on balance he is consistently the best forward we have got, and he has been brilliant for ManU in the past, but would he get into one of the top 10 national teams? Yes he probably would get into some of them, but not many other England players would. Playing for England, world ranked 20th, is not proof these days of being a world quality player. His work rate is far superior to his fellow England players, and on a par with Beckham. He will go down as one of England's all time great players, but modern England players will always be under the shadow of the England world cup winning squad.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Apr 3, 2015 14:56:03 GMT
At the risk of sounding biased; by far the best England goal scorer in modern times is Jimmy Greaves. 44 goals in 54 games. Rooney has 47 in 103, Charlton scored 49 in 106 and Lineker 48 in 80. Absolutely right. Not only was Greaves strike rate much better than any other top scorer for England since WWII, he had more hat tricks than anyone else and (amazingly) he never took a penalty for England. He is "head and shoulders" above any other strike scorer of the modern era. Any decent striker could beat the record if they play enough games, it's strike rate that mattered. Furthermore Greaves stop playing for England at 27 (even younger than Michael Owen) because Ramsay wanted to groom younger players for the 1970 world cup and he felt Greaves didn't fit into his style of team. He was top scorer in the old 1st Division 6 times (2x Linekar, & Shearer (Prem.)), 357 goals in the top flight, top scorer in 68/69 after he stopped playing for England. His record is phenomenal. I'm not knocking Rooney, on balance he is consistently the best forward we have got, and he has been brilliant for ManU in the past, but would he get into one of the top 10 national teams? Yes he probably would get into some of them, but not many other England players would. Playing for England, world ranked 20th, is not proof these days of being a world quality player. His work rate is far superior to his fellow England players, and on a par with Beckham. He will go down as one of England's all time great players, but modern England players will always be under the shadow of the England world cup winning squad. And for all his brilliance Greaves is largely remembered for the England game he didn't play in.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 3, 2015 15:03:03 GMT
Absolutely right. Not only was Greaves strike rate much better than any other top scorer for England since WWII, he had more hat tricks than anyone else and (amazingly) he never took a penalty for England. He is "head and shoulders" above any other strike scorer of the modern era. Any decent striker could beat the record if they play enough games, it's strike rate that mattered. Furthermore Greaves stop playing for England at 27 (even younger than Michael Owen) because Ramsay wanted to groom younger players for the 1970 world cup and he felt Greaves didn't fit into his style of team. He was top scorer in the old 1st Division 6 times (2x Linekar, & Shearer (Prem.)), 357 goals in the top flight, top scorer in 68/69 after he stopped playing for England. His record is phenomenal. I'm not knocking Rooney, on balance he is consistently the best forward we have got, and he has been brilliant for ManU in the past, but would he get into one of the top 10 national teams? Yes he probably would get into some of them, but not many other England players would. Playing for England, world ranked 20th, is not proof these days of being a world quality player. His work rate is far superior to his fellow England players, and on a par with Beckham. He will go down as one of England's all time great players, but modern England players will always be under the shadow of the England world cup winning squad. And for all his brilliance Greaves is largely remembered for the England game he didn't play in. That's correct. He was injured and Ramsay didn't want to break a winning combination when he was back fit. Also, as Denis Smith wrote in his autobiography, football is about team work and selecting the best combination of players not necessarily the best individuals, which is something only a few like Ramsay, Clough (and our Denis) seem to put into practice.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Apr 3, 2015 15:05:28 GMT
And for all his brilliance Greaves is largely remembered for the England game he didn't play in. That's correct. He was injured and Ramsay didn't want to break a winning combination when he was back fit. Also, as Denis Smith wrote in his autobiography, football is about team work and selecting the best combination of players not necessarily the best individuals, which is something only a few like Ramsay, Clough (and our Denis) seem to put into practice. Alf famously told Jack Charlton he was in the England side because he didn't always pick the best players!
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Apr 3, 2015 15:24:42 GMT
40 goals and a Ballon D'Or so by the criteria he cites... I believe there was a mark up for the World Cup victory. On the games played ratio, there has to be a case for Jimmy Greaves. Did he actually receive a medal in '66? He got it a few years ago I believe along with the other squad players, he's a very bitter man I find.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 3, 2015 15:41:22 GMT
Unlike the crouches and defies of the world Rooney has had an England career handed to him on a plate
Never dropped when his form demanded it and never really done it at championships
He's been lucky scoring for fun in easy qualifiers and friendlies
I think England selection is done more on club and sponsorships rather than football
|
|
|
Post by superscfc on Apr 3, 2015 15:44:32 GMT
Giving the reasoning of Bobby won the world cup so therefore is a better player isn't justified, admittedly Charlton is probably a bigger legend but Rooney will be regarded as a legend in years to come.
He's not done it at tournament level is people's excuse but he burst on the England scene 11 years ago at Euro 2004 and was brilliant every minute he played, since then the whole country has pinned their hopes on him, he's been slightly unlucky at tournaments and didn't help himself ala South Africa but the amount of pressure from the fans and press and everything that gets dragged up about his personal life must have a pretty big mental effect on a player, pressure is underestimated by people I think, no way would Charlton have the volume of pressure that Rooney's had since he was a teenage sensation.
It's similar to the Messi/Maradonna debate, Maradonna was a fantastic player (not my era but seen/read enough) and people debate that Messi will not be in the same caliber of player as Maradonna, Pele, Beckenbeur, Zidane, Iniesta etc until he wins a world cup, for me you don't need the world cup when you're that good there's too many factors involved in winning the world cup than just 1 players ability, went a bit off topic but I'm working a bank holiday, it's dead.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 3, 2015 15:48:18 GMT
Bobby Charlton was a better player than Rooney, irrespective of the World Cup win.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 3, 2015 15:49:34 GMT
I would think Greaves didn't play in too many friendlies either,so all his goals were in games that meant something.
|
|
|
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Apr 3, 2015 15:50:18 GMT
At the risk of sounding biased; by far the best England goal scorer in modern times is Jimmy Greaves. 44 goals in 54 games. Rooney has 47 in 103, Charlton scored 49 in 106 and Lineker 48 in 80. Absolutely right. Not only was Greaves strike rate much better than any other top scorer for England since WWII, he had more hat tricks than anyone else and (amazingly) he never took a penalty for England. He is "head and shoulders" above any other strike scorer of the modern era. Any decent striker could beat the record if they play enough games, it's strike rate that mattered. Furthermore Greaves stop playing for England at 27 (even younger than Michael Owen) because Ramsay wanted to groom younger players for the 1970 world cup and he felt Greaves didn't fit into his style of team. He was top scorer in the old 1st Division 6 times (2x Linekar, & Shearer (Prem.)), 357 goals in the top flight, top scorer in 68/69 after he stopped playing for England. His record is phenomenal. I'm not knocking Rooney, on balance he is consistently the best forward we have got, and he has been brilliant for ManU in the past, but would he get into one of the top 10 national teams? Yes he probably would get into some of them, but not many other England players would. Playing for England, world ranked 20th, is not proof these days of being a world quality player. His work rate is far superior to his fellow England players, and on a par with Beckham. He will go down as one of England's all time great players, but modern England players will always be under the shadow of the England world cup winning squad. Since I'm completely bored, here's a list of the current top 10 FIFA rankings; 1 - Germany - Play with 1 up front. I wouldn't have him ahead of Muller but he'd make the bench you'd think. 2 - Argentina - Messi and Aguero, goes without saying. Could probably make the bench as I'd say he's better than Tevez and Higuian. 3 - Colombia - It'd be a complete mismatch of styles, but he'd start up front for them. 4 - Belgium - He'd start. Their strikers (and team) are the most over-rated shit since Charlie Adam's set piece delivery. 5 - Holland - Since Van Persie is practically an OAP and rubbish now, he'd start for them. 6 - Brazil - Don't really have an out and out striker who's any good (Neymar plays on the wing). Would start for them I reckon. 7 - Portugal (I don't know how they're 7th..) - Same as Brazil really, would start. 8 - France - Play with 1 striker and I really like Benzema. Wouldn't start. 9 - Uruguay - Tend to play with 2 strikers. Wouldn't get in ahead of Bitey McRacist but is better than Cavani. 10 - Italy (I REALLY don't know how they're 10th..) - He'd definately start for them. Looking at the FIFA rankings though, that list is an absolute joke. I know we're not brilliant but some of the teams above us are pretty shit and I'd say we're better than.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 16:01:02 GMT
I would think Greaves didn't play in too many friendlies either,so all his goals were in games that meant something. 29 of his 44 were in friendlies according to Wiki.
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Apr 3, 2015 16:09:16 GMT
Maybe unfair but my opinion of an overhyped and overpaid waynetta that's all. Don't think the team of 66 just had 'the rub of the green'(!), we also did really well in 1970 and came close to getting into the final if memory serves me right. 'Could be doing better' is a massive understatement in my view, we have highly paid professional players that should be doing way better on the International stage a la Germany. A shake up is in order and start by removing Woy. Germany have pretty much always been better than us for the last 40 years or so. We've rarely competed at the business end of tournaments. I think we did have the rub of the green to an extent in '66. We were very good and it's an amazing achievement of which we're rightly proud, but we got some generous decisions as the host nation, like many host nations do. In 70 we didn't so much nearly reach the final as lose in the quarter finals. We had probably our best ever team and still lost to the only two decent sides we played. Ok I saw many of the 66 games on the old black and white tv and as you say we were very good; we played really well and fully deserved to win. Generous decisions didn't come into it, every team has to have a little luck on the way to a trophy as we all know. What mattered most was we fought for that trophy and above all we were a TEAM. In this golden age of individual starlets making more in a week than most of us earn in 5 years, that word is banded around with very little meaning as the top teams bank roll their way to the top. So why do you think the Germans have consistently outperformed us on the big stage? Why don't we just study how they go about things and unashamedly copy it? Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery? We/I want their level of success for our National side; it's not rocket science, it's only football for God's sake. But then again come to think of it they were very good at rocket science too I agree about Jimmy Greaves thfc, top player, loved watching him dismantle defences.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 16:12:15 GMT
2 points here: 1. Charlton was a midfield player whereas Rooney is a Striker 2. Charltons goals came against low level teams such as Germany, France, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, Argentina, Scotland etc. whereas Rooneys goals were against stiff opposition such as Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Moldova, Malta, San Marino. Enough said really, oh and Charlton has won the World Cup whereas Rooney never will not especially while Hodgson is manager Rooney in comparison isn't good enough to lace Bobby Charltons Boots if only that second point was actually true! Do a bit of research mate and you'll find that over 60% of charlton's goals for england were against the home nations
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 16:13:17 GMT
2 points here: 1. Charlton was a midfield player whereas Rooney is a Striker 2. Charltons goals came against low level teams such as Germany, France, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Russia, Argentina, Scotland etc. whereas Rooneys goals were against stiff opposition such as Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Moldova, Malta, San Marino. Enough said really, oh and Charlton has won the World Cup whereas Rooney never will not especially while Hodgson is manager Rooney in comparison isn't good enough to lace Bobby Charltons Boots if only that second point was actually true! Do a bit of research mate and you'll find that over 60% of charlton's goals for england were against the home nations 75% in friendlies overall.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 16:20:22 GMT
Germany have pretty much always been better than us for the last 40 years or so. We've rarely competed at the business end of tournaments. I think we did have the rub of the green to an extent in '66. We were very good and it's an amazing achievement of which we're rightly proud, but we got some generous decisions as the host nation, like many host nations do. In 70 we didn't so much nearly reach the final as lose in the quarter finals. We had probably our best ever team and still lost to the only two decent sides we played. Ok I saw many of the 66 games on the old black and white tv and as you say we were very good; we played really well and fully deserved to win. Generous decisions didn't come into it, every team has to have a little luck on the way to a trophy as we all know. What mattered most was we fought for that trophy and above all we were a TEAM. In this golden age of individual starlets making more in a week than most of us earn in 5 years, that word is banded around with very little meaning as the top teams bank roll their way to the top. So why do you think the Germans have consistently outperformed us on the big stage? Why don't we just study how they go about things and unashamedly copy it? Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery? We/I want their level of success for our National side; it's not rocket science, it's only football for God's sake. But then again come to think of it they were very good at rocket science too I agree about Jimmy Greaves thfc, top player, loved watching him dismantle defences. Home advantage counts for a lot and against Argentina and in the final we got at least a couple of pivotal decisions at crucial times in our favour. That's not to say we didn't deserve to win but I don't believe it's true to say they made no difference. As far as Germany goes, having a population of 80m is a good start. In terms of copying them absolutely, them, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, all have development systems worth ripping stuff off from. In terms of manager, I don't hate Roy but I agree we need someone less 'safe' to move forward. Robson and Sven are the best England managers in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 3, 2015 16:20:50 GMT
The home nations in those days were a bit stronger than today. The Scotland side for instance that beat England 3-2 at Wembley in 1967 had the following players.
Law Man. U. Bremner Leeds Wallace Celtic Baxter Sunderland Gemell Celtic Lennox Celtic Grieg Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Apr 3, 2015 16:23:57 GMT
The home nations in those days were a bit stronger than today. The Scotland side for instance that beat England 3-2 at Wembley in 1967 had the following players. Law Man. U. Bremner Leeds Wallace Celtic Baxter Sunderland Gemell Celtic Lennox Celtic Grieg Rangers. Absolutely Geoff. A lot of sides that are reasonably useful today were truly dreadful then though, like the USA and Mexico.
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 3, 2015 16:27:15 GMT
Ok I saw many of the 66 games on the old black and white tv and as you say we were very good; we played really well and fully deserved to win. Generous decisions didn't come into it, every team has to have a little luck on the way to a trophy as we all know. What mattered most was we fought for that trophy and above all we were a TEAM. In this golden age of individual starlets making more in a week than most of us earn in 5 years, that word is banded around with very little meaning as the top teams bank roll their way to the top. So why do you think the Germans have consistently outperformed us on the big stage? Why don't we just study how they go about things and unashamedly copy it? Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery? We/I want their level of success for our National side; it's not rocket science, it's only football for God's sake. But then again come to think of it they were very good at rocket science too I agree about Jimmy Greaves thfc, top player, loved watching him dismantle defences. Home advantage counts for a lot and against Argentina and in the final we got at least a couple of pivotal decisions at crucial times in our favour. That's not to say we didn't deserve to win but I don't believe it's true to say they made no difference. As far as Germany goes, having a population of 80m is a good start. In terms of copying them absolutely, them, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, all have development systems worth ripping stuff off from. In terms of manager, I don't hate Roy but I agree we need someone less 'safe' to move forward. Robson and Sven are the best England managers in my lifetime. Well if Labour get in again you won't be able to rely on the population excuse.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 3, 2015 16:27:43 GMT
Swings and roundabouts then rob.
|
|