What would the score be if...

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Was having a discussion in the pub the other day and thought it would be good to see what people on here think...

What would the score be if the 1991 cup winning team played the current team?

From memory, the 1991 team is

Burridge

Miller
Mitchell
Hunter
McIntyre

Weir
Hamilton
McGinley
McLeod

Wright
McGraw or Evans

What do you all think?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Was having a discussion in the pub the other day and thought it would be good to see what people on here think...

What would the score be if the 1991 cup winning team played the current team?

From memory, the 1991 team is

Burridge

Miller
Mitchell
Hunter
McIntyre

Weir
Hamilton
McGinley
McLeod

Wright
McGraw or Evans

What do you all think?

2-0 Auld team, Keith Keith double

[Skanko79]

3 or 4- 0 to the old team.

workrate
togetherness
passion

3 things old team had in abundance and 3 things the new team lack.

dont get me wrong, i know we are alot better than last season but no where near the standard that side had.

three or four nill without a doubt.

[Barman Stanton]

The 91 team would win. But I think the 2007 team would beat the 91 team.

[Andy74]

Was having a discussion in the pub the other day and thought it would be good to see what people on here think...

What would the score be if the 1991 cup winning team played the current team?

From memory, the 1991 team is

Burridge

Miller
Mitchell
Hunter
McIntyre

Weir
Hamilton
McGinley
McLeod

Wright
McGraw or Evans

What do you all think?

That team was nothing special so it would be fairly close. It's certainly not better than the current Celtic team who haven't beaten us yet. Though it is probably better than other teams who have murdered us as well.

[HibeeMG]

That team was nothing special so it would be fairly close. It's certainly not better than the current Celtic team who haven't beaten us yet. Though it is probably better than other teams who have murdered us as well.

A roundabout way of saying you don't know as football's a funny old game. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

The '91 team are all in their late 40s and early 50s now so there would be something wrong if the current team didn't win...

:wink:

[calumhibee1]

Today's team would win.

[Phil D. Rolls]

So, Miller actually knew how to build a team. Who'd have thunk it?

[stoneyburn hibs]

So, Miller actually knew how to build a team. Who'd have thunk it?

Over-slated on here i think.

[LaMotta]

Depends who the ref is.

[Skanko79]

Over-slated on here i think.

:agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Over-slated on here i think.

The way he was treated by Hibs fans was outrageous. It should have come as no surprise that we were relegated the year after he was fired.

What could he have done with the money given to the managers that followed him?

[Peevemor]

So, Miller actually knew how to build a team. Who'd have thunk it?

I'm not having a go at Miller, but building a squad at a club our size was probably a lot more straightforward pre-Bosman.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not having a go at Miller, but building a squad at a club our size was probably a lot more straightforward pre-Bosman.

Fair comment. I suppose holding onto players was more straightforward. I was impressed with how he was able to up the quality year on year. Nowadays, it seems to be a case of constantly treading water.

[MoscowHibs]

The Tornadoes would wipe the floor with them all IMHO. However, Tornadoes v Famous Five era, now that would be tasty.

[snooky]

The Tornadoes would wipe the floor with them all IMHO. However, Tornadoes v Famous Five era, now that would be tasty.

Stop it! I'm starting tae greet.

Too much, man :boo hoo:

[barcahibs]

The Tornadoes would wipe the floor with them all IMHO. However, Tornadoes v Famous Five era, now that would be tasty.

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin

[snooky]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin

Oh dear. Here comes the cavalry to save the day.....

:kbacker: Tooroot-too-too!

[eastterrace]

The way he was treated by Hibs fans was outrageous. It should have come as no surprise that we were relegated the year after he was fired.

What could he have done with the money given to the managers that followed him?

your having a laugh look at his record against hearts piss poor also think we ony beat celtic three times when he was manager, the 3-1 defeat against hearts finished him off he was to defensive minded against the bigger teams thats why his record was poor. mind saying that he did win the league cup but thats all over 10 years.

[eastterrace]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin
this is a wind up i hope

[lord bunberry]

your having a laugh look at his record against hearts piss poor also think we ony beat celtic three times when he was manager, the 3-1 defeat against hearts finished him off he was to defensive minded against the bigger teams thats why his record was poor. mind saying that he did win the league cup but thats all over 10 years.

I agree watching millers teams apart from that one season was awful his attitude of "if you don't lose a goal you don't lose the game" made it painful to watch sometimes. I would love to see our average league position under miller I can't imagine it would make for pleasant reading. During millers time a team in theory could still challenge for the league but he got nowhere near it

[twiceinathens]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin

Wow for someone who wasn't even born when either of these sides were around you are very confident in your ability to make comparisons. Now I agree with you that it is natural for supporters to assert that the Golden Age of football was they the one that they remember. Nostalgia is a major element in any fan's makeup. However to simply state the "superiority" of the modern player in the terms that you use is logically as reprehensible as blind belief in "the good old days". I would accept that players are fitter than they were. Not quite sure what "technically trained and tactically aware" is supposed to mean".Tactics certainly changed.The Famous Five were used to a 2-3-5 formation. The game then "evolved" through 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 and god forbid 4-6-0! I would argue that the higher level of fitness is employed to stop the opposition scoring, then hoping to score on the break. As far as skill is concerned, players can certainly make the modern ball do all kinds of things that their predecessors would have found impossible using the old lace-up clad in boots which came up to the ankles and had studs hammered into them. Equipment and tactics have changed over the years. If the Famous Five and/or the Tornadoes were to meet the current squad playing the same tactics using the same equipment, then, obviously IMHO:rolleyes:, I don't see the huge gap you envisage.

[Steve-O]

The 91 team are 22 years older now so I reckon the current team would beat them. They'd be much quicker than them :agree:

[blackpoolhibs]

I only saw the tornadoes, so cant comment on the FF. They were superb, and each one of them had ability way above todays Hibs team. You had to see them to see just how good they were, although the Celtic team of just before and during were superb too, and it was only their strength in depth that deprived us of at least one title.

[Forza Fred]

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.



Only caught the tail end of the Famous Five, but was a home and away regular throughout the Tornadoes era.

Hence feel qualified to sum up my response to above in one word....tosh.

Or perhaps better in two words

Absolute tosh

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Fair comment. I suppose holding onto players was more straightforward. I was impressed with how he was able to up the quality year on year. Nowadays, it seems to be a case of constantly treading water.

He "jumped the shark" with Bannon and Wilkins tho'.
he got stale ran out of ideas but Crombe stuck with him and would not have got rid of him.
Derby record is shameful if I ever borrow his autobiography ill be interested in his thoughts and approach. The chimpanzees could have taken time out writing Shakspeare and won one of these games Shirley! I am however grateful and respectful of him as of how he conducted himself in our darkest hour and pulled the team to perform in the final (boy was it nervy until we scored!) and give me my first trophy winning experience as a Hibee.

[barcahibs]

this is a wind up i hope

nah not really, just something I've always had in the back of my mind when the older generation starts banging on about the stars of yesteryear :greengrin

Not denying for a minute of course that these players/teams were something special for their time and are worthy of being venerated!



Wow for someone who wasn't even born when either of these sides were around you are very confident in your ability to make comparisons. Now I agree with you that it is natural for supporters to assert that the Golden Age of football was they the one that they remember. Nostalgia is a major element in any fan's makeup. However to simply state the "superiority" of the modern player in the terms that you use is logically as reprehensible as blind belief in "the good old days". I would accept that players are fitter than they were. Not quite sure what "technically trained and tactically aware" is supposed to mean".Tactics certainly changed.The Famous Five were used to a 2-3-5 formation. The game then "evolved" through 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 and god forbid 4-6-0! I would argue that the higher level of fitness is employed to stop the opposition scoring, then hoping to score on the break. As far as skill is concerned, players can certainly make the modern ball do all kinds of things that their predecessors would have found impossible using the old lace-up clad in boots which came up to the ankles and had studs hammered into them. Equipment and tactics have changed over the years. If the Famous Five and/or the Tornadoes were to meet the current squad playing the same tactics using the same equipment, then, obviously IMHO:rolleyes:, I don't see the huge gap you envisage.

Just as those who disagree are confident in their comparisons. Its the internet, no-ones grading us. I hope :worried:

I stand by it. Modern players are fitter and stronger (though probably more fragile/wussy - this will depend heavily on us playing by modern rules) - this is just fact, modern training/fitness techniques combined with better childhood diets and more modern medical/nutritional knowledge. I also suspect they'll be faster for the same reasons - and a quick look at steadily falling athletics record times would seem to bear this out?

Tactical knowledge has certainly improved (though I would genuinely like to see a 2-3-5 playing a 4-6-0! :greengrin ) - this is inevitable, any field of human endeavour will improve its techniques over a 40 -60 year time period of constant refinement. Especially when you consider there's so many more people playing and innovating/exchanging new techniques now than there were then.

There is a far larger pool of players/coaches now constantly integrating and exchanging techniques. Almost everything people do has been improved by this free flow of people and ideas, why would football be any different?

Finally, the crux of my argument is just simple logic. We've just watched Scotland be pumped by Wales. If the population of 1950/70's Scotland was capable of producing 11-30 top European/World class by modern standards Scottish players (I know celtc had a good side in the 60/70's and I presume rangers and the rest had some equivalent players) then the (larger) 2013 Scotland would also be producing a similar number of top European/World class by modern standards players today. It isn't - in fact it isn't producing any.

This leads me to conclude that the 11-30 players considered top European/World class then would, by modern standards, be considered average - just like the players being produced by Scotland now. Again, it IS possible that there was a genuine World class player amongst the teams back then - just as its possible Scotland could produce a genuine World class player now - but it stretches credibility beyond belief to propose there were more than that.

The teams then were (almost) exclusively Scottish (I'll admit to not knowing the full nationalities of the entire Hibs squads at the time but the vast majority of the players I've heard of were Scottish or at a pinch Scots with some English heritage), Hibs therefore had a pool of approx 1.5-2.5million people to create their team from. The modern side has the potential to attract players players from all over the world - a far larger pool of players should mean that the average quality of the players who make it is better.

So put 11 1950/70's Scottish players up against 11 fitter, faster, better trained, better coached, better organised, more international players from the 2010's and I think you'll end up with a cricket score.

:devil:

[barcahibs]

Only caught the tail end of the Famous Five, but was a home and away regular throughout the Tornadoes era.

Hence feel qualified to sum up my response to above in one word....tosh.

Or perhaps better in two words

Absolute tosh

:greengrin

You're asking me to believe that the <5 million population of Scotland in the 1950/70's was capable of producing 11-30 Top Class players - while the >5 million population of Scotland today isn't capable of producing any. I don't believe that. I can't see how it could be possible.

my argument is that the natural footballing ability of the people Scotland was producing then was pretty much the same as the natural footballing ability of people being produced now. Only now the players are fitter, faster, better trained etc etc. Otherwise you're saying the people of the 1950/70's were genetically superior to the people now?

I'm not denying that for their time these guys were something special and seemingly a class above the others playing in Scotland. And seven classes above the hertz.

[Eyrie]

I stand by it. Modern players are fitter and stronger (though probably more fragile/wussy - this will depend heavily on us playing by modern rules) - this is just fact, modern training/fitness techniques combined with better childhood diets and more modern medical/nutritional knowledge. I also suspect they'll be faster for the same reasons - and a quick look at steadily falling athletics record times would seem to bear this out?

Players can only be as good as they are within the context of their own time frame. The decidedly average players of today may have the advantages which you've listed, but imagine if the Famous Five or Tornados had had access to those advantages on top of their innate talent?

[Barman Stanton]

:greengrin

You're asking me to believe that the <5 million population of Scotland in the 1950/70's was capable of producing 11-30 Top Class players - while the >5 million population of Scotland today isn't capable of producing any. I don't believe that. I can't see how it could be possible.

my argument is that the natural footballing ability of the people Scotland was producing then was pretty much the same as the natural footballing ability of people being produced now. Only now the players are fitter, faster, better trained etc etc. Otherwise you're saying the people of the 1950/70's were genetically superior to the people now?

I'm not denying that for their time these guys were something special and seemingly a class above the others playing in Scotland. And seven classes above the hertz.

Even when I was a boy (in the 80s) everyone played football. Nowadays there are far more things to do. So I imagine in the 40s and 50s far more people played football and got very good at it. Players also stayed at clubs for far longer meaning quality teams could be built.

Your original post is probably the most nonsense I have ever seen on this site. Or a wind up. Have a look at videos of Hibs in the 70s, quality throughout. Just wish I was around to have seen it live.

[Eyrie]

I agree watching millers teams apart from that one season was awful his attitude of "if you don't lose a goal you don't lose the game" made it painful to watch sometimes. I would love to see our average league position under miller I can't imagine it would make for pleasant reading. During millers time a team in theory could still challenge for the league but he got nowhere near it

Miller took over in November 1986 and left in September 1996. Our average league position in seasons 86/87 to 95/96 was sixth (also our long term average over the last 40 years) and on average we made the quarters for both cups (a round further than average).

I agree though that there were times when we'd be leading and he seemed to be holding out for a draw.

[barcahibs]

Even when I was a boy (in the 80s) everyone played football. Nowadays there are far more things to do. So I imagine in the 40s and 50s far more people played football and got very good at it. Players also stayed at clubs for far longer meaning quality teams could be built.

Your original post is probably the most nonsense I have ever seen on this site. Or a wind up. Have a look at videos of Hibs in the 70s, quality throughout. Just wish I was around to have seen it live.

Funny, when I was a boy (80's 90's) everyone played football too. And still did in the noughties and now. Kids still play football - in fact judging by the kids I know they play more often, in better facilities and with better coaching than anyone in my time did. I'll give you that the kids who aren't very good drop out quicker now and play FIFA instead but the kids who are good still stick at it. Some potentially great kids today are lost to girls and drink - but I suspect there were girls and drink in the 70's too and a similar number of potential players were lost. Plus nowadays far fewer potentially world class footballers die at the age of 13 stuck up a chimney or caught up in a Spinning Jenny - this balances out the few modern kids killed by heroin binges or cut down in gang warfare by AK47 wielding neds.

Your argument still comes down to the fact that in the 50/70's the Scottish people were somehow genetically 'better' than the people of today and produced children with a greater degree of innate footballing ability than the Scottish people today. Sorry but that is tosh. The Scottish people then produced the same number of genuinely innately gifted world class players per head of population as the Scottish people today do - anything else is absurd.

Once again I'm not denying that the Hibs teams of yesteryear were capable of ripping opposing teams apart and looked wonderful in comparison to those around them- but those we're comparing them to were also of a lower standard than today.

[barcahibs]

Players can only be as good as they are within the context of their own time frame. The decidedly average players of today may have the advantages which you've listed, but imagine if the Famous Five or Tornados had had access to those advantages on top of their innate talent?

Absolutely agree about looking at them in the context of their own time - and in that context there's no doubt they were amongst the best Scotland could produce. All I'm saying is that today they would still be amongst the best Scotland could produce - and unfortunately, by modern world standards, that isn't very good :devil:

People then were just like people now, there is no reason why the Scottish people then would be producing children more innately talented than the Scottish people today.

But today's players do have modern advantages (and come from further afield) and would use those advantages to destroy the teams of yesteryear.

[Barman Stanton]

Funny, when I was a boy (80's 90's) everyone played football too. And still did in the noughties and now. Kids still play football - in fact judging by the kids I know they play more often, in better facilities and with better coaching than anyone in my time did. I'll give you that the kids who aren't very good drop out quicker now and play FIFA instead but the kids who are good still stick at it. Some potentially great kids today are lost to girls and drink - but I suspect there were girls and drink in the 70's too and a similar number of potential players were lost. Plus nowadays far fewer potentially world class footballers die at the age of 13 stuck up a chimney or caught up in a Spinning Jenny - this balances out the few modern kids killed by heroin binges or cut down in gang warfare by AK47 wielding neds.

Your argument still comes down to the fact that in the 50/70's the Scottish people were somehow genetically 'better' than the people of today and produced children with a greater degree of innate footballing ability than the Scottish people today. Sorry but that is tosh. The Scottish people then produced the same number of genuinely innately gifted world class players per head of population as the Scottish people today do - anything else is absurd.

Once again I'm not denying that the Hibs teams of yesteryear were capable of ripping opposing teams apart and looked wonderful in comparison to those around them- but those we're comparing them to were also of a lower standard than today.

Different fitness levels yes but quality no. Have a look at videos of the Brazil team of 1970. Skilful players passing the ball on the deck will be quality in any era.

Stayed overlooking the Links for many years and other than organised games (Leith Athletic) there was not much football getting played. So doubt kids are playing as much as the 80s when we played pretty much every night until the street lights went on.

A huge part of Hibs success was obviously the difference in contracts back then. The Hibs team of the 50s nowadays would have all been sold before they had a chance to win a league.

[barcahibs]

Different fitness levels yes but quality no. Have a look at videos of the Brazil team of 1970. Skilful players passing the ball on the deck will be quality in any era.


Are we on the same side now? That's exactly what I'm arguing! :greengrin Though I'll give you that the modern Hibs team would probably only scrape a narrow 2-1 win against the 1970's Brazil side, and only then by running them into the ground :greengrin



Stayed overlooking the Links for many years and other than organised games (Leith Athletic) there was not much football getting played. So doubt kids are playing as much as the 80s when we played pretty much every night until the street lights went on.


The kids I know play organised football at a much earlier age, in much better facilities and with much better coaching standards than I did. They also do so more often than I ever did (admittedly I wasn't very good!) They possibly do play less in the streets - though even then they DO still play in the streets, and knock shapes on the wall, play keepie in etc. They're also exposed to much better players, techniques and role models (in the footballing, not social sense!) via the TV and internet. I used to try to emulate Keith Houchen (the amount of skint knees I got trying to do diving headers on red ash pitches is ridiculous :greengrin ) - kids today get to pretend they're Messi.



A huge part of Hibs success was obviously the difference in contracts back then. The Hibs team of the 50s nowadays would have all been sold before they had a chance to win a league.


I'll give you that one - maybe their team spirit and knowledge of each other would allow them to hold the modern Hibs side to just 9-0. :greengrin

Though I'm sure I've heard it said that one of the greatest pities of the Tornadoes side is that it was broken up and sold on too soon? Hows that different from today?

[ruthven_raiders]

Players can only be as good as they are within the context of their own time frame. The decidedly average players of today may have the advantages which you've listed, but imagine if the Famous Five or Tornados had had access to those advantages on top of their innate talent?

Exactly put the famous 5 and turnbulls tornadoes into today's environment with training techniques fitness regimes and today's ball they would be mild ahead of today's lot! Their skill on the ball was superior maybe cause most kids played on the streets all day 😉

[heretoday]

Miller's team would win because they were well organised and confident. The current team has made giant strides on last year but isn't very well organised. You get the feeling there's always a gubbing just around the corner.

You have to say who of the stature of Weir or Wright takes the field today? Sparky?

[kentao]

I think money has a big part to play in it. Back then the players played for the jersey and were proud to wear it and they gave 100%, nowadays most are just happy to pick up a decent pay packet and are not really bothered about who pays them or who they play for. I would say the 91 team would hammer todays team on entertainment, work rate and scoreline.

[Just_Jimmy]

I'm going to tell my grandkids about Rob Jones' flying header in the snow at hampden.

That team would smash the current team. In fact (thomson apart), Griffiths is the only player (maybe big Ben?) who would get anywhere near that team and even then, on that day, who is dropping Fletcher or Benji?

[Ray_]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin

Our national sides regularly qualified for the World Cup & now we qualify for the wooden spoon, our club side reach the later stages of European competitions, Celtic European cup winners, runners up & semi finalists.

Rangers won the secondary European competition, beating Bayern Munich in the semi & Hibs beat that same Rangers team three times in Cup Semi's in a period of eight months starting from a couple of months before their Barcelona triumph, with a 6-0 aggregate score. Even a Alex Edwards inspired Dumfermiline reached the the Cup Winners Cup Semi, beating English FA Cup winners, WBA, in the quarters.

Better recent Hibs teams than the current one get hammered in the inter toto! Say's it all really.

[Ray_]

Are we on the same side now? That's exactly what I'm arguing! :greengrin Though I'll give you that the modern Hibs team would probably only scrape a narrow 2-1 win against the 1970's Brazil side, and only then by running them into the ground :greengrin



The kids I know play organised football at a much earlier age, in much better facilities and with much better coaching standards than I did. They also do so more often than I ever did (admittedly I wasn't very good!) They possibly do play less in the streets - though even then they DO still play in the streets, and knock shapes on the wall, play keepie in etc. They're also exposed to much better players, techniques and role models (in the footballing, not social sense!) via the TV and internet. I used to try to emulate Keith Houchen (the amount of skint knees I got trying to do diving headers on red ash pitches is ridiculous :greengrin ) - kids today get to pretend they're Messi.



I'll give you that one - maybe their team spirit and knowledge of each other would allow them to hold the modern Hibs side to just 9-0. :greengrin

Though I'm sure I've heard it said that one of the greatest pities of the Tornadoes side is that it was broken up and sold on too soon? Hows that different from today?

Brownlie, Blackley, Stanton, Duncan, Schaedler all spent most of their career at the club, the remainder of the TT's, with the exception on Alex Cropley, were at the tail end of their career when they left.

[snooky]

Brownlie, Blackley, Stanton, Duncan, Schaedler all spent most of their career at the club, the remainder of the TT's, with the exception on Alex Cropley, were at the tail end of their career when they left.

Here's my thoughts ....

Most fans of that era would agree that the beginning of the end for TT was the signing of Joe Harper
Cropley's transfer and Alan Gordon not being allowed to go part-time to do his accountancy degree (and so transferred to Dundee) were two other major factors.
Onion's leg break also caused a great hiccup the success story of TT.

To be fair, AC was always going to go on to better things. I've always felt that if Ned had brought in 'like for like' he could have stretched the Tornados life span a good few years.

He bought Iain Munro to replace Sodjer but he was a different type of player. He should have signed Paul Hegarty who was playing CF and scoring regularly for Stranraer (to replace Tosh). Also, G Strachan from Dundee (Ally McLeod bought him for a song, IIRC) to replace Mickey later on.
While Harper looked like a good buy on paper, he was not popular with the fans or, from the reports, his team mates.
I remember Jocky Scott playing really well for 'Well at that time. He could have done a decent job for us in Crop's position.

[Ray_]

Here's my thoughts ....

Most fans of that era would agree that the beginning of the end for TT was the signing of Joe Harper
Cropley's transfer and Alan Gordon not being allowed to go part-time to do his accountancy degree (and so transferred to Dundee) were two other major factors.
Onion's leg break also caused a great hiccup the success story of TT.

To be fair, AC was always going to go on to better things. I've always felt that if Ned had brought in 'like for like' he could have stretched the Tornados life span a good few years.

He bought Iain Munro to replace Sodjer but he was a different type of player. He should have signed Paul Hegarty who was playing CF and scoring regularly for Stranraer (to replace Tosh). Also, G Strachan from Dundee (Ally McLeod bought him for a song, IIRC) to replace Mickey later on.
While Harper looked like a good buy on paper, he was not popular with the fans or, from the reports, his team mates.
I remember Jocky Scott playing really well for 'Well at that time. He could have done a decent job for us in Crop's position.

Dundee, :greengrin along side John Duncan & GS, Andy Gray was at United and ended up at Villa for 110K, within a season he was both the English player & young player of the year, also Drew Jarvie had for a few years been doing great things at Airdrie, although to be fair, Aberdeen signed him up for around 70k in 1972..

[Eyrie]

People then were just like people now, there is no reason why the Scottish people then would be producing children more innately talented than the Scottish people today.

So who in today's team has the talent of a Smith or Stanton? Would you class Griffiths or Fletcher as better players than Baker?

[Ray_]

So who in today's team has the talent of a Smith or Stanton? Would you class Griffiths or Fletcher as better players than Baker? :greengrin We wish.

As for the fitness angle, kids were generally a lot fitter then, as somebody alluded to, we would play football after school every day & all days on Sundays. They never had Ipods/Pads, computers & gaming counsels, subbuteo was as about good as it got. As a result, it took years of excesses before your average teen's natural fitness to wane.

They also had teams in those days and the only changes would be injury related, none of this rotation, two games a week was normal practice for a team like Hibs as they would be competing in the league cup and more often than not, European games.

The league cup used to end in early December, not March, with far more games required. when Hibs won in 1972 they played six section games, then played Dundee Utd, over two legs in the second round, Airdrie, two legs in the QTR, Rangers in the semi & Celtic in the final. That is twelve games there alone, St Mirren game on Sunday was their fifth in the competition.

By the time Hibs won the League cup on the 9th December 1972 they had played their normal league quota, three games in the Drybrough cup, including extra time at Hampden in the final, twelve in the league cup & four in the Cup winners Cup, well over thirty games & a vast majority with the same 11.

Most will be able to reel off the Hibs team of that day, the Celtic team was Evan Williams, Danny McGrain, Jim Brogan, Pat McCluskey, Billy McNeil, David Hay, Jimmy Johnstone, George Connolly, Kenny Dalglish, Harry Hood and Lou Macari.

They were the losers & talent wise, at least seven of that team would be shoo on's for a place in the current Scotland team.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I think the 91 team would win by a couple but its difficult to call. I have a bit of a selective and bias memory when it comes to the 91 team - I was a kid at the time and idolised footballers a lot more than I do now.

Out of the current team, Griffiths, McPake, Williamas and an in-form Cairney would probably get in. But I think the biggest difference is the 91 team has a stronger midfield.

[snooky]

Dundee, :greengrin along side John Duncan & GS, Andy Gray was at United and ended up at Villa for 110K, within a season he was both the English player & young player of the year, also Drew Jarvie had for a few years been doing great things at Airdrie, although to be fair, Aberdeen signed him up for around 70k in 1972..

Duh! My mistake, Ray - you're quite correct.
I did actually know that but alas, I let my train of thought wander.
As I was typing, I was also thinking of Tom Forsyth when he was a decent football player (i.e. in his pre hun-clugger days).

[danhibees1875]

The '91 team are all in their late 40s and early 50s now so there would be something wrong if the current team didn't win...

:wink:

Did you see Ian Murray's testimonial? Our team at the time struggled v the old guys. :agree:

[Hibercelona]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.
If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and celtc had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and thats coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.
In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin

Players aren't fitter now, thats nothing but an overhyped myth. The work effic would have been far greater back then. Players were on standard wages and were made to earn them.

Todays pro footballers have the world in the palm of their hands. They don't need to work hard, their whole life is sorted after 1 season.

[MB62]

So, Miller actually knew how to build a team. Who'd have thunk it?


Here's my thoughts ....
Most fans of that era would agree that the beginning of the end for TT was the signing of Joe Harper
Cropley's transfer and Alan Gordon not being allowed to go part-time to do his accountancy degree (and so transferred to Dundee) were two other major factors.
Onion's leg break also caused a great hiccup the success story of TT.

To be fair, AC was always going to go on to better things. I've always felt that if Ned had brought in 'like for like' he could have stretched the Tornados life span a good few years.

He bought Iain Munro to replace Sodjer but he was a different type of player. He should have signed Paul Hegarty who was playing CF and scoring regularly for Stranraer (to replace Tosh). Also, G Strachan from Dundee (Ally McLeod bought him for a song, IIRC) to replace Mickey later on.
While Harper looked like a good buy on paper, he was not popular with the fans or, from the reports, his team mates.
I remember Jocky Scott playing really well for 'Well at that time. He could have done a decent job for us in Crop's position.


Fair points, but should it not be 'here's your THUNKS'? a word that seems to have crept in to the english language, or at least on Hibs.net, in the recent months.

Anyway, thunking about the original question, I thunk it's unfair to compare teams of different periods and under different managers.

[--------]

Had this discussion with a buddy a few days ago - I don't buy the misty eyed romanticism espoused by many about the teams of bygone days.

If Hibs really did have 11 top European class Scottish footballers by modern standards (and if you listen to my dad, not just European class, but World class) in the 1970's - and Celtic had 11 more - then modern Scotland would also have at least 20+ top European/World class players. We don't. In fact I can't think of one - and that's coming from a larger population base than the previous eras too.

In reality I suspect that the Tornadoes - and the Famous Five - were very average footballers, just like the players modern Scotland is producing today. Its just that back then standards were lower across the board as people weren't aware of anything better and there was a much smaller pool of potential players.

I reckon the current side would put seven past the Tornadoes and would reach double figures against the Famous Five without breaking a sweat. Modern footballers are fitter, better technically trained and more tactically aware.

In addition the modern side has the benefit of a much larger pool of players, being able to bring in players from across the world rather than just Scotland. The average player available to a Scottish team now almost has to be better than the average player available to a Scottish team then, its just statistics.

This doesn't mean that one - or maybe even two if we're being really generous - of the players back then could have been genuinely World class by modern standards but its still pretty unlikely.

Of course a large part of it would depend on what equipment and rules system the teams were made to use.

Tin hat firmly on :greengrin


With respect, I think you're on shaky ground delivering such a negative opinion about players you never saw, and suggesting that those of us who did see them don't know what we're talking about.

FWIW, Scottish football in the 1950's and 60's was a prime hunting-ground for top English clubs - by 'top' I mean clubs that consistently competed in the top half of a very strong and competitive First Division, and at top level in the European competitions.

I would be surprised if anyone were able to name a Football League Championship-winning side or an FA Cup-winning side that didn't have at least one or two Scots in it (Bobby Johnstone with Manchester City and Alan Gilzean with Spurs being cases in point), and if Denis Law and Joe Baker hadn't been at least European-class strikers, no Italian or English club would have been interested in signing them. I should also perhaps remind you of Des Bremner, from Deveronvale to Hibs to Aston Villa to a European Cup winner's medal? Not world class, maybe, but too good for Bayern Munich that night. Peter Cormack, UEFA Cup winner with Liverpool?

I'm grateful to you for reminding me how insular I was in those days and how very unaware we all were of the great players of world football. So unaware, in fact, that I'm amazed that 134,000 Scots knew enough about European football to fill Hampden in 1960 to watch Real Madrid and Eintracht Frankfurt play in a game entirely irrelevant to our benighted, blinkered Scots existence. Or that anyone bothered to turn up to watch our very average players defeat Barcelona at ER a couple of years later. What was the score against Napoli, by the way?

The truth is that modern training, fitness and coaching methods aren't necessarily better than those of the past. Try running five-and-a-half miles in 90 minutes in the sort of boots Gordon Smith wore, kicking the sort of football he kicked, and see how long you last. I wouldn't back Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard to last the full time, actually. Given a few days acclimatisation and who knows, Laurie and Gordon and big Tam Younger might just surprise you. Remember - in those days defenders were allowed to tackle. Properly.

As for Onion and Sloop and Paddy and Co .... :hmmm:

In terms of British, European, and world football in those years, I am in no doubt that Scottish players were well comparable to those of other nations. Where Scotland, to a far greater extent than England, have failed is in assimilating and adapting to new team structures and concepts in the game. But the players you're criticising weren't tactical novices, you know. The Famous Five played a W-M formation, not 2-3-5 - Younger in goal, a back three of Govan, Paterson and Shaw, the wing-halves (let's say Combe and Buchanan) as the back half of a midfield completed by Johnstone and Turnbull, and a front line of Smith, Reilly, and Ormond. Something close to a 3-4-3 that could change to 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 according to events.

Jock Govan was one of the first attacking full-backs in the British game - when he attacked up the wing, Bobby Combe fell back to cover and Gordon Smith tucked in towards Reilly with Turnbull pushing forward on the back post, so that when the cross came in from Govan, he had three heads to aim for rather than one. And so on. Maybe they wouldn't have had as much trouble understanding tactics some folks think.

And the Tornadoes played in a formation not all that different.

Give either of those teams a fortnight with a modern coach and they'd play the pants of the present lot.

[barcahibs]

So who in today's team has the talent of a Smith or Stanton? Would you class Griffiths or Fletcher as better players than Baker?

I'd say Griffiths and Fletcher as (arguably) the best of the Scottish strikers around today would be exactly the level Baker and his ilk were at (ignoring the fact that Baker wasn't technically Scottish!). The best Scottish players then were exactly equivalent to the best Scottish players now talent wise - but the modern players are fitter, stronger, better coached etc etc.

This is where I run into problems having this argument with my dad he won't have a word said against Baker - in fact I'm often told that Joe Baker is the reason I'm a Hibby as he singlehandedly made my dad follow Hibs.


Players aren't fitter now, thats nothing but an overhyped myth. The work effic would have been far greater back then. Players were on standard wages and were made to earn them.

Todays pro footballers have the world in the palm of their hands. They don't need to work hard, their whole life is sorted after 1 season.

Sorry, strongly disagree with that. Its a simple fact that techniques for ensuring strength and fitness in humans have improved over the past 60+ years. And I don't see any evidence why people in the past should have had a stronger work ethic than people now. Its part of the modern attitude of constantly doing down today's youth and society - who are in reality no better or worse than those who came before them.


With respect, I think you're on shaky ground delivering such a negative opinion about players you never saw, and suggesting that those of us who did see them don't know what we're talking about.

SNIP (for length, no disrespect to your points meant) SNIP



I kind of thought I might get your reply on this one Doddie :greengrin

I think I've been slightly misunderstood on this thread, people are making the assumption that I'm having a go at or criticising the teams of the past. I'm not. The Famous Five and the Tornadoes were clearly superb football teams for their time - and I've no doubt that were they to be born today their innate talent, combined with the modern advantages, would once again see them playing near the top of the Scottish game, just as they did in their own time.

The crux of my argument is that the people being born now are exactly the same genetically as the people being born then. I would hope no-one could possibly argue with that? People in the past weren't supermen, much as the British psyche seems to like to make them out to be.
On average, the Scottish players being born 20 odd years ago and reaching near the top of the Scottish game now (ie turning out for Hibs) have exactly the same innate footballing talent and mental sporting attributes as the Scottish players being born 80/60 years ago and reaching near the top of the Scottish game then.

If Scotland then were really producing 11-30 top modern European class players, then so would Scotland today. It isn't.

I maintain however that the modern team, coming from the same talent base, would win any footballing contest due to 60/40 years worth of advances in medicine, physiotherapy, sports science and tactics. I'll admit the 'double figures' remark was a bit of hyperbole to get replies - but I would expect the modern team to win almost every contest on the park and comfortably win almost every game. You can't say



Give either of those teams a fortnight with a modern coach and they'd play the pants of the present lot.


because thats exactly my point! Its the modern coaching and footballing techniques that would help ensure the modern team won. The talents the same, the physical and coaching side has improved. I'm grateful for your comments about the formations the FF played, I find that really interesting, I genuinely didn't know they were at the forefront of experimenting with formations like a fluid 5-3-2/3-5-2 - but when you say something like



Jock Govan was one of the first attacking full-backs in the British game


Then you're making my point for me. Jock Govan was one of the first, there's been 60 odd years of experimentation, refinement and advance of that position since then.

Its just one of my (many) bugbears, the 'modern' obsession with glorifying the past and denigrating the present - it seems to be something the British are especially good at. (I say 'modern' but I suspect way back on Ancient Greek messageboards there were posters banging on about how these modern Athenian players were hopeless, and football had never been the same since old Xeno of Tsort retired)

I'll say again that of course its perfectly possible that one or two of these players (lets say Baker to keep my dad happy) could have been genuinely top European class in a modern sense - just as its possible that Scott Brown or Steven Fletcher (or Andy Goram or John Collins) could have arguably become top European class but not ALL of them - which is the impression you get when you hear the older generation talk of these teams.
It bugs me when a new player breaks through into the Hibs team and the messageboard becomes full of comments like "ah I see shades of Shades in him" or "he reminds me of big Jimmy Threelegs McClintock - now there was a player" and within a few months the player is regarded as crap because he cannot possibly match up to the memories of these players - who in reality exist only in memory!

Of course in 30 years time I fully expect to be coming out with comments about how so and so could never compare to "Le God Sauzee" or "One Touch Murphy" - and as for "Dirk Diggler Lehmann" - there'll never be a player of his quality again! I'll also be complaining about these new-fangled hover boots and how in my day it was illegal to genetically engineer a goalkeeper to be exactly the same width as the goal (though we tried with Andy Goram in the latter days of his career) Nevertheless I'd expect the team of 2043 to cuff the team of today.

There's also the point that the modern team has the advantage of picking up players from a much wider pool than they did in the 50/70s. Back then we could only really pick players from Scotland (or the British Isles at a push) now we get to see what Honduras has to offer too. Are you absolutely sure there were no Hondurans in the 50/70s that could have improved the Hibs side of the day?

I'm not denying that back in the day these Hibs teams were capable of competing with the best in Europe - I've been to the Camp Nou and seen the Hibs programme framed on the wall. But you also can't deny that today we've just seen Serbia pump the Scottish team seemingly without raising a sweat (I say "we've" seen but technically I haven't as I wouldn't open the curtains to watch international football in my back garden - that's another argument :greengrin )

The rest of the world has caught up, there are more countries and more people playing the game and standards have risen - We haven't gone backwards, but we have stood still.

[derekHFC]

Lexo Miller would not have been manager for as long had .net been as it is today, back then.

[Ray_]

I'd say Griffiths and Fletcher as (arguably) the best of the Scottish strikers around today would be exactly the level Baker and his ilk were at (ignoring the fact that Baker wasn't technically Scottish!). The best Scottish players then were exactly equivalent to the best Scottish players now talent wise - but the modern players are fitter, stronger, better coached etc etc.

This is where I run into problems having this argument with my dad he won't have a word said against Baker - in fact I'm often told that Joe Baker is the reason I'm a Hibby as he singlehandedly made my dad follow Hibs.



Sorry, strongly disagree with that. Its a simple fact that techniques for ensuring strength and fitness in humans have improved over the past 60+ years. And I don't see any evidence why people in the past should have had a stronger work ethic than people now. Its part of the modern attitude of constantly doing down today's youth and society - who are in reality no better or worse than those who came before them.



I kind of thought I might get your reply on this one Doddie :greengrin

I think I've been slightly misunderstood on this thread, people are making the assumption that I'm having a go at or criticising the teams of the past. I'm not. The Famous Five and the Tornadoes were clearly superb football teams for their time - and I've no doubt that were they to be born today their innate talent, combined with the modern advantages, would once again see them playing near the top of the Scottish game, just as they did in their own time.

The crux of my argument is that the people being born now are exactly the same genetically as the people being born then. I would hope no-one could possibly argue with that? People in the past weren't supermen, much as the British psyche seems to like to make them out to be.
On average, the Scottish players being born 20 odd years ago and reaching near the top of the Scottish game now (ie turning out for Hibs) have exactly the same innate footballing talent and mental sporting attributes as the Scottish players being born 80/60 years ago and reaching near the top of the Scottish game then.

If Scotland then were really producing 11-30 top modern European class players, then so would Scotland today. It isn't.

I maintain however that the modern team, coming from the same talent base, would win any footballing contest due to 60/40 years worth of advances in medicine, physiotherapy, sports science and tactics. I'll admit the 'double figures' remark was a bit of hyperbole to get replies - but I would expect the modern team to win almost every contest on the park and comfortably win almost every game. You can't say



because thats exactly my point! Its the modern coaching and footballing techniques that would help ensure the modern team won. The talents the same, the physical and coaching side has improved. I'm grateful for your comments about the formations the FF played, I find that really interesting, I genuinely didn't know they were at the forefront of experimenting with formations like a fluid 5-3-2/3-5-2 - but when you say something like



Then you're making my point for me. Jock Govan was one of the first, there's been 60 odd years of experimentation, refinement and advance of that position since then.

Its just one of my (many) bugbears, the 'modern' obsession with glorifying the past and denigrating the present - it seems to be something the British are especially good at. (I say 'modern' but I suspect way back on Ancient Greek messageboards there were posters banging on about how these modern Athenian players were hopeless, and football had never been the same since old Xeno of Tsort retired)

I'll say again that of course its perfectly possible that one or two of these players (lets say Baker to keep my dad happy) could have been genuinely top European class in a modern sense - just as its possible that Scott Brown or Steven Fletcher (or Andy Goram or John Collins) could have arguably become top European class but not ALL of them - which is the impression you get when you hear the older generation talk of these teams.
It bugs me when a new player breaks through into the Hibs team and the messageboard becomes full of comments like "ah I see shades of Shades in him" or "he reminds me of big Jimmy Threelegs McClintock - now there was a player" and within a few months the player is regarded as crap because he cannot possibly match up to the memories of these players - who in reality exist only in memory!

Of course in 30 years time I fully expect to be coming out with comments about how so and so could never compare to "Le God Sauzee" or "One Touch Murphy" - and as for "Dirk Diggler Lehmann" - there'll never be a player of his quality again! I'll also be complaining about these new-fangled hover boots and how in my day it was illegal to genetically engineer a goalkeeper to be exactly the same width as the goal (though we tried with Andy Goram in the latter days of his career) Nevertheless I'd expect the team of 2043 to cuff the team of today.

There's also the point that the modern team has the advantage of picking up players from a much wider pool than they did in the 50/70s. Back then we could only really pick players from Scotland (or the British Isles at a push) now we get to see what Honduras has to offer too. Are you absolutely sure there were no Hondurans in the 50/70s that could have improved the Hibs side of the day?

I'm not denying that back in the day these Hibs teams were capable of competing with the best in Europe - I've been to the Camp Nou and seen the Hibs programme framed on the wall. But you also can't deny that today we've just seen Serbia pump the Scottish team seemingly without raising a sweat (I say "we've" seen but technically I haven't as I wouldn't open the curtains to watch international football in my back garden - that's another argument :greengrin )

The rest of the world has caught up, there are more countries and more people playing the game and standards have risen - We haven't gone backwards, but we have stood still.

The premiership standard has risen because they have the SKY money to source the worlds top talent, Barcelona are widely acknowledged to be the best ever club side, fair enough, it took decades to get a side to match and beat Ajax's early seventies team & the same as Spain deserves comparisons with Brazil from 1970. You would have thought with the way everything has progressed, apart from maybe AC Milan's late eighties team, there have been few modern sides that have been compared to Ajax in the seventies or Madrid a decade before them.

For all the modern training our players struggle to put two meaningful passes together and very few have the skill to go past a player & this with tackling almost totally outlawed. The TT's midfield for example, all the players could produce [and regularly did] the type of passes that have the English media emanating bodily fluids when done by Gerrard or Rooney. That isn't standing still! it is as far away from it as you can get because all this enhanced training & coaching must have sucked out the ability to pass a ball as we struggle to move the ball six feet forward without giving it away, that has certainly not always been the case.

Lacking the ability to do something as elementary as passing a football doesn't exactly enhance your argument about current superiority or stagnation.

Never mind Joe Baker, I wouldn't bother wasting him as a comparison for today's lot, if there was anybody around today that had the same level of ability Joe McBride had when he arrived at Hibs, he would currently finish this country's top scorer. Injuries saw that Joe McBride was fairly well done in when he reached us but his finishing was something you were born with.

[H18Y GW]

The '91 team are all in their late 40s and early 50s now so there would be something wrong if the current team didn't win...

:wink:

That would be the only way the current team would win I'm sure lol

Keef Keef v Mcpake/ Hanlon mismatch