Players who had talent but never quite delivered

[finnster01]

the whole england team from 2000-2011.

or from 1967 - 2012

Not sure the England players really had the talent in the first place...

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they'd have won the WC in 1970 also.

Possibly, but saying they 'would' have won the whole competition when they still would have had to face both Italy and Brazil (one of the best Brazil squads of all time) is potentially a little bit fanciful

Well, after having actually been alive and watched the '70 World Cup, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Your first hand account of the 1970 World Cup can give us a reasonable idea of whether or not England were the best team in the world (lots of people have said that we were) but it couldn't tell us the outcome of two hypothetical matches against two great sides. The best sides don't always win cups.

Even if we were the best side at the time, there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like - and the winners Brazil did beat us in the group stages.

Thank you for your very useful insight Mr IW. I would never have guessed. 

[ImperialWhite]

the whole england team from 2000-2011.

or from 1967 - 2012

Not sure the England players really had the talent in the first place...

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they'd have won the WC in 1970 also.

Possibly, but saying they 'would' have won the whole competition when they still would have had to face both Italy and Brazil (one of the best Brazil squads of all time) is potentially a little bit fanciful

Well, after having actually been alive and watched the '70 World Cup, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Your first hand account of the 1970 World Cup can give us a reasonable idea of whether or not England were the best team in the world (lots of people have said that we were) but it couldn't tell us the outcome of two hypothetical matches against two great sides. The best sides don't always win cups.

Even if we were the best side at the time, there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like - and the winners Brazil did beat us in the group stages.

Thank you for your very useful insight Mr IW. I would never have guessed.  

No problem!

:)

I recommend

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Back-Home-England-1970-World/dp/0575071583/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1339008337&sr=8-4

if  you want to find out more!

[HatterDon]

the whole england team from 2000-2011.

or from 1967 - 2012

Not sure the England players really had the talent in the first place...

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they'd have won the WC in 1970 also.

Possibly, but saying they 'would' have won the whole competition when they still would have had to face both Italy and Brazil (one of the best Brazil squads of all time) is potentially a little bit fanciful

Well, after having actually been alive and watched the '70 World Cup, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Your first hand account of the 1970 World Cup can give us a reasonable idea of whether or not England were the best team in the world (lots of people have said that we were) but it couldn't tell us the outcome of two hypothetical matches against two great sides. The best sides don't always win cups.

Even if we were the best side at the time, there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like - and the winners Brazil did beat us in the group stages.

Thank you for your very useful insight Mr IW. I would never have guessed.  

No problem!

:)

I recommend

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Back-Home-England-1970-World/dp/0575071583/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1339008337&sr=8-4

if  you want to find out more!

Now, now, Mr. Finn. Be nice on IW. Until now I had no idea that the better team doesn't always win. Had I spent more time playing Football Manager, I'd probably have picked up that stunning piece of logic before now.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

the whole england team from 2000-2011.

or from 1967 - 2012

Not sure the England players really had the talent in the first place...

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they'd have won the WC in 1970 also.

Possibly, but saying they 'would' have won the whole competition when they still would have had to face both Italy and Brazil (one of the best Brazil squads of all time) is potentially a little bit fanciful

Well, after having actually been alive and watched the '70 World Cup, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Your first hand account of the 1970 World Cup can give us a reasonable idea of whether or not England were the best team in the world (lots of people have said that we were) but it couldn't tell us the outcome of two hypothetical matches against two great sides. The best sides don't always win cups.

Even if we were the best side at the time, there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like - and the winners Brazil did beat us in the group stages.

Thank you for your very useful insight Mr IW. I would never have guessed.  

No problem!

:)

I recommend

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Back-Home-England-1970-World/dp/0575071583/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1339008337&sr=8-4

if  you want to find out more!

Now, now, Mr. Finn. Be nice on IW. Until now I had no idea that the better team doesn't always win. Had I spent more time playing Football Manager, I'd probably have picked up that stunning piece of logic before now.

Ouch.

[finnster01]

Thank you for the link as I would never have been able to google that myself. However I am absolutely in awe of your tremendous analyst skills in drilling down on the reason why England never won in 1970. "there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like ".

Fantastic stuff  fp.gif

[ImperialWhite]

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they would have ["they'd"] won the WC in 1970 also.

Until now I had no idea that the better team doesn't always win. Had I spent more time playing Football Manager, I'd probably have picked up that stunning piece of logic before now.

You asserted that England would have won if only there weren't two questionable coaching decisions.

I would argue that even had those two decisions been made differently - a heck of a lot of luck can happen over the course of (at the very minimum) three hours of football against Italy and Brazil.

Chalking 1970 up as England's win - however good the side were - is silly and neglects one of the fundamental characteristics of football.

[cmg]

the whole england team from 2000-2011.

or from 1967 - 2012

Not sure the England players really had the talent in the first place...

but for a couple of highly questionable coaching decisions, they'd have won the WC in 1970 also.

Possibly, but saying they 'would' have won the whole competition when they still would have had to face both Italy and Brazil (one of the best Brazil squads of all time) is potentially a little bit fanciful

Well, after having actually been alive and watched the '70 World Cup, I will respectfully disagree with you.

Your first hand account of the 1970 World Cup can give us a reasonable idea of whether or not England were the best team in the world (lots of people have said that we were) but it couldn't tell us the outcome of two hypothetical matches against two great sides. The best sides don't always win cups.

Even if we were the best side at the time, there's no accounting for luck, form, refereeing decisions (linesmen's decisions!) and the like - and the winners Brazil did beat us in the group stages.

As an old bum with some extant memories of both 66 and 70 I feel, with respect all round and some trepidation, the need to wade in here.

I've always felt that the 1970 England side was superior to its 1966 counterpart. Newton/Cooper were probably slightly inferior defensively , but better going forward, than Cohen/Wilson. Mullery was a step up on Stiles, and I thought Labone to be superior to Charlton. I'm far from convinced that Lee was better than the very underrated Hunt, but Bell, coming off the bench was a more skillful version of the amazing Alan Ball. Apart maybe from Bobby Charlton who was World class anyway), the other 66 survivors had matured and improved. They played in the conservative style of 1966 (although at the time, of course it was ground-breaking - can one be conservative and revolutionary at the same time?) but were, by then, supremely confident in it.
The group match against Brazil was an absolute classic. Two fine teams, of differing styles, both at the top of their game. England dominated early, Brazil worked their way back, England's defence was immense. Eventually Tostao outwitted Moore and Pele put Jairzinho ("The Black Graham Leggat") away to score the only goal. Astle should have provided England with a draw, but famously missed. It didn't really matter (except to England fans). It was a match in which winners and losers both gained stature.

A point that should not be overlooked, though, is that Brazil were, that day, without Gerson, who despite Carlos Alberto, Clodoaldo, Tostao, Rivelino, Jairzinho and Pele, was maybe their best player. His stand in (Paulo Caesar?) had an excellent game, but players with Gerson's skills are not replaceable. He went on to run the final and Brazil remain, despite a goalkeeper who wouldn't have made the England squad and a dodgy centre-half, the best team I ever saw.

England looked like they would demolish the Germans, but playing without Banks (I don't blame Bonetti, it's just that Banks added more to the England equation than just his goalkeeping skills, which were themselves as good as anybody ever had) and some unwise substitutions meant that it was downhill from that moment to the present day.

England might have beaten Brazil in the 1970 WC Final, they were that good, would almost certainly have been tougher to beat than a very good Italy. But I doubt it.

[CorkedHat]

That is an excellent summation Mr CMG. Perhaps I shall disagree with you on Roger Hunt - to me he was largely ineffective and made the absence of Jimmy Greaves absolutely risible – but the one thing that the 1966 team had in spades was a fighting determination and a will to win. This compensated for any deficiencies in skill or talent.
We seem to have lost this zest and national pride in recent years and you don't see a Nobby Stiles or an Alan Ball who would walk barefoot over broken glass for their country.
Foreign managers in charge of England didn't help the cause so let's hope that Roy can instil some purpose and pride in the England shirt once again.

[HatterDon]

Excellent, Mr. CMG. I remember Pele's interview where he said the entire Brazil team breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when England was eliminated. They all feared facing England a second time.

[cmg]

"A match for adults" as Zagalo put it.

A big difference between then and now is of attitude. Then England were World Champions, they knew it and played like they knew it. The match itself was a genuine Champions v Challengers job.

These days a match against Brazil would have some people shooting their mouths off and everybody secretely shitting themselves for a fortnight in advance.

(I won't get into the Roger Hunt question, Mr CH. I admit that my Hunt admiration is one of my (many) eccentricities. Please be assured, however, that I do not rate him above, or anywhere near to, the wonderful, unique talent that was Jimmy Greaves.)

[King_Crud]

Francis Jeffers and Luke Chadwick

[cebu]

That is an excellent summation Mr CMG. Perhaps I shall disagree with you on Roger Hunt - to me he was largely ineffective and made the absence of Jimmy Greaves absolutely risible

I can't imagine any German manager leaving a striker of Greaves' deadliness out of his team - it would be like ignoring, say, Gerd Müller. Just think of what a combo of Hurst and Greaves could have achieved!

[cmg]

I can't imagine any German manager leaving a striker of Greaves' deadliness out of his team - it would be like ignoring, say, Gerd Müller. Just think of what a combo of Hurst and Greaves could have achieved!

It seems so obvious now, with the benefit of hindsight. But at the time it was hardly a consideration.

As far as Ramsey was concerned it was always going to be Greaves OR Hurst.
Hunt played a different game for Liverpool (he was their leading scorer for eight years in a row) but Ramsey wanted him for his workrate as much as his other skills and he was ideally suited to the slightly withdrawn role in Ramsey's setup. Workrate was not high on Greaves' list of talents, but he would have been Ramsey's first choice. Hurst had 5 caps going into the Finals without really exciting many people. In the pre-Finals matches Ramsey had tried all three combinations, Greaves/Hunt had been easily the most impressive and that's what he started with. Greaves' injury gave Hurst his chance against Argentina - and the rest is history. We all know now that Geoff Hurst was a top-class international striker, but not even Alf Ramsey knew that in mid-July of 1966.

[Burt]

Paul Gascoigne has got to be up there somewhere.

A massive talent blighted by injuries and a self-destruct button.

[EJL]

Michael Johnson. Everybody will be talking about the wasted talent of Ravel Morrison in several years time as well ... I'm pretty sure of it.

[cebu]

I can't imagine any German manager leaving a striker of Greaves' deadliness out of his team - it would be like ignoring, say, Gerd Müller. Just think of what a combo of Hurst and Greaves could have achieved!

It seems so obvious now, with the benefit of hindsight. But at the time it was hardly a consideration.

As far as Ramsey was concerned it was always going to be Greaves OR Hurst.
Hunt played a different game for Liverpool (he was their leading scorer for eight years in a row) but Ramsey wanted him for his workrate as much as his other skills and he was ideally suited to the slightly withdrawn role in Ramsey's setup. Workrate was not high on Greaves' list of talents, but he would have been Ramsey's first choice. Hurst had 5 caps going into the Finals without really exciting many people. In the pre-Finals matches Ramsey had tried all three combinations, Greaves/Hunt had been easily the most impressive and that's what he started with. Greaves' injury gave Hurst his chance against Argentina - and the rest is history. We all know now that Geoff Hurst was a top-class international striker, but not even Alf Ramsey knew that in mid-July of 1966.

I think Ramsey had a fairly good idea about Hurst's abilities - that's surely how he got to be in the squad in the first place.

[cmg]

I think Ramsey had a fairly good idea about Hurst's abilities - that's surely how he got to be in the squad in the first place.

Well, yes, my friend. Ramsey, being the shrewd judge that he was, probably had as good idea of Geoff's abilities as anybody. And that was enough to make him the no. 3 front man in the squad out of three. At that time he had 5 caps and one international goal. Unlike in the case of, say, Rooney, at the same stage, nobody was saying "Wow, this bloke is fantastic, let's get him in the team."
Even after his fine showings against Argentina and Portugal many (most?) people expected Greaves, having recovered from injury, to replace him in the final. Typically, Ramsey showed faith in the man who had done well in possession; perhaps he foresaw something of what Hurst would become; I doubt that he foresaw him scoring the World Cup Final hat-trick that made him a World -famous name in a single afternoon.
Geoff continued to improve and develop as a player after he had achieved such fame and became a World-class striker in actuality. (The six he got against Sunderland in 1968 might have coincided with the high point of his talent.)

Anyway, an interesting discussion and an opportunity to recount one of my favourite Ramsey stories.
After the last International of the season following the WC victory, Hurst, by then a fully established international, said goodbye to Ramsey wih a cheery, "See you next season, Alf."
Ramsey's reply (you have to imagine his deadpan Posh/Cockney accent, like a high class butler), "If selected, you will be informed in the normal way,  Geoffrey."

As Hurst said, Ramsey was always fiercely loyal to his players, but, World Cup hat-trick or not, you always knew who was boss.
 

[cebu]

Anyway, an interesting discussion and an opportunity to recount one of my favourite Ramsey stories.
After the last International of the season following the WC victory, Hurst, by then a fully established international, said goodbye to Ramsey wih a cheery, "See you next season, Alf."
Ramsey's reply (you have to imagine his deadpan Posh/Cockney accent, like a high class butler), "If selected, you will be informed in the normal way,  Geoffrey."

As Hurst said, Ramsey was always fiercely loyal to his players, but, World Cup hat-trick or not, you always knew who was boss.
 

The Ramsey story is a much quoted one and I certainly suspect it to be true.

You have to understand that Alf's stature as a manger was evaluated quite differently in West Germany. His tactical decisions were evaluated as strange and the persistence with wingless play as inept. Unfortunately, when they're right, they're right. Alf's track record after '66 is uninspiring. I think he set the development of English back quite a bit. A "lucky general" rather than a "competent general", perhaps?

[cmg]

 >A "lucky general" rather than a "competent general", perhaps?<


Well, Napoleon said he would prefer 'lucky' generals to 'clever' ones. But then he was another gent upon whom views differ dependent on what side of the water you are on.

It's very interesting to get a different view of a bloke (a rather strange one in many ways) for whom, as you can probably guess, I have a great deal of admiration. No manager I have ever known stuck his neck out as far as Ramsey did. "Most certainly, England will win the World Cup Competition." was his stock reply to questions for some time before the event, and at a time when that seemed, at best, most unlikely, if not downright stupid.

It is understandable that the Germans would take a particular view of him. His decisions regarding subs in Mexico and his selection in the return Euro fixture in '72 must have seemed pretty bizarre (they didn't impress many over here).
The 'wingless wonders' thing was a bit of a puzzler, too. It was fairly successful when he first tried it in December 1965 (wins against Spain and WGermany and a draw against Poland) but from then on, in the eight of nine matches up to the Quarter Final against Argentina he always played one of Paine, Callaghan or Connelly. He seemed to suggest it was not a 'philosophy' but merely a practical response to the talent available to him. Of course, after it was seen to work, everyone jumped on the bandwaggon, probably to England's long-term detriment.

His record after winning the WC was something like p66 w38 d18 l10 (includes a 3rd place in the 68 Euros) which is as good as any subsequent England manager (apart from Capello!). His big failure was not qualifying for the 74 WC, for which he was sacked. (Useless fact of the Week: The last player to score against Ramsey's England was Fabio Capello.)