Football was RUBBISH in the 1960's

[Emerson Thome]

7 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

Given the way that the modern game has improved fitness, skills, pitches, diet and the like, players like Bobby Charlton, Bobby Moore, George Best, Gordon Banks would all benefit from the advantages the modern game has to offer.

 

 

I'll say it again. People knew in the 1960s that booze, fags and eating too much was bad for your fitness. It didn't stop Moore and Best getting hammered three times a week. That's why Charlton, who wasn't much of a natural athlete but did look after himself, had a much longer career than both of them. So automatically assuming if they were born 50 years later they would be model professionals with amazing fitness and diet is a bit of a leap.

 

You could just as easily assume if Best was emerging today he'd be one of those talented players at 16 who drops out of the game by 20 because he can't handle the lifestyle. No one can tell.

[roaminowl]

18 hours ago, torryowl said:

again i'll say it ..not if they played in 1960 kit ,boots ,ball, pitches and probably most importantly 1960 refs and rules ........

 

There's the proof, right there.

 

1960's kit - rubbish

1960's boots - rubbish

1960's ball - rubbish

1960's pitches - rubbish

1960's refs - rubbish

1960's rules - rubbish

 

ergo...1960's football - complete rubbish. 

[cowl]

I think there's even non-league teams of today that would hammer even the very best of the teams of the 60s. To me that much seems quite obvious.

 

I suspect the entertainment value was as high then if not higher than it is now though. Fewer 0-0 bore draws, and just generally more goals scored (both ends of the pitch). And that it could all be had for a fraction of the cost of watching today's football! I'd happily see footballing standards return to that of the 60s if watching it was similarly commensurate to today's wages as it was to then.

[torryowl]

3 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

I'll say it again. People knew in the 1960s that booze, fags and eating too much was bad for your fitness. It didn't stop Moore and Best getting hammered three times a week. That's why Charlton, who wasn't much of a natural athlete but did look after himself, had a much longer career than both of them. So automatically assuming if they were born 50 years later they would be model professionals with amazing fitness and diet is a bit of a leap.

 

You could just as easily assume if Best was emerging today he'd be one of those talented players at 16 who drops out of the game by 20 because he can't handle the lifestyle. No one can tell.

moore had a longer career than Charlton 

[Utah Owl]

3 hours ago, cowl said:

I think there's even non-league teams of today that would hammer even the very best of the teams of the 60s. To me that much seems quite obvious.

 

I suspect the entertainment value was as high then if not higher than it is now though. Fewer 0-0 bore draws, and just generally more goals scored (both ends of the pitch). And that it could all be had for a fraction of the cost of watching today's football! I'd happily see footballing standards return to that of the 60s if watching it was similarly commensurate to today's wages as it was to then.

The cost of a small bar of Cadbury's and a bag of chips for a kid in those days. The true cost for kids has risen 5 fold today and the same probably holds true for adults.

[Utah Owl]

22 minutes ago, torryowl said:

moore had a longer career than Charlton 

But not Finney or Matthews!

[Jennz]

On 10/11/2017 at 08:13, ka58 said:

but those teams would get beat by a cricket score against modern day teams.

 

Yeah maybe, if you could instantly transport a team from then to now but, I wouldn't underestimate the skills of players back then if they'd been brought up in the game today with all the already mentioned benefits.

 

People have mentioned Best, Law & Charlton, three genuine world class players in my opinion, had they been around in today's game instead of back then they would still be world class...Bobby Charlton is arguably the best English player of all time & definitely is in my view....George Best would be like Lionel Messi today, a fantastically gifted player if flawed personally....Denis Law was easily the quickest player off a standing start & probably would still be in today's game.

 

One thing players from that era weren't known for, Franny Lee apart, was diving, much less gamesmanship, the game, again in my view, was much better then, more honest, real men plying their trade for not that much more money than the working man, real heroes in my book.

 

One more mention of Bobby Charlton, a natural athlete, fit as a fiddle & wonderfully gifted in both feet....if you COULD transport him instantly from then to now he would still be a superstar to thousands of fans...not in his own head though, a very humble man is Sir Bobby.

[Jennz]

4 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

I'll say it again. People knew in the 1960s that booze, fags and eating too much was bad for your fitness. It didn't stop Moore and Best getting hammered three times a week. That's why Charlton, who wasn't much of a natural athlete but did look after himself, had a much longer career than both of them. So automatically assuming if they were born 50 years later they would be model professionals with amazing fitness and diet is a bit of a leap.

 

You could just as easily assume if Best was emerging today he'd be one of those talented players at 16 who drops out of the game by 20 because he can't handle the lifestyle. No one can tell.

 

Disagree about Charlton not being a natural athlete...he rarely got injured & used to glide across the pitch a bit like Ryan Giggs....if you read his book he tells of how easily the game came to him against lads much older than him.

[Emerson Thome]

12 hours ago, torryowl said:

moore had a longer career than Charlton 

Bobby Moore played his last First Division game at the age of 32. Bobby Charlton played his last season in the First Division at the age of 36 (still a regular).

[Emerson Thome]

11 hours ago, qantas said:

 

Disagree about Charlton not being a natural athlete...he rarely got injured & used to glide across the pitch a bit like Ryan Giggs....if you read his book he tells of how easily the game came to him against lads much older than him.

Or alternatively, he rarely got injured as he kept himself in shape and didn't drink or smoke. Giggs is another example of a player who prolonged his career by looking after himself off the pitch.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Emerson Thome

[Utah Owl]

I think the "greats" from long ago would still be "greats" in this day and age. They had the natural talent, ability and dedication to stand out from the rest. That would hold true in any time period. To be a great is as much about mental attitude as natural ability. 

[sternlad]

“Evening all” thought I’d read somewhere that Sir Bobby was a smoker during his playing days. Makes his accomplishments even more remarkable if true. Don’t think the top 1960s players would match present day players for pace ,but their skill levels were really high and defenders took no prisoners back then. Charlton was a great, great footballer...two footed (including a powerful shot with either foot) , great vision, accurate passer of the ball and as you see in the clips when he ran with the ball it seemed effortless. If Best, Law and Charlton had been brought into the modern game from scratch they would be every bit as good as today’s players. In fact not many could match George Best for ball control and beating a player on either side. Lovely programme about Sir Bobby on the other night to celebrate his 80th, always a very humble and emotional man, a great role model for youngsters, this one included when I was 10-14 years old.