My Favourite Fulham strike force...

[nose]

Gordon Davies and Dean Coney

without question the most naturally matched patrnership in the best football side i have seen. mac had the team running like the best oiled machine and these two were the perfect partnership.
The probblem we had was we had a 14 man squad and the rest were not in the same class. we should have purchased andy thomas... after all these years it still niggles at what should and could have been!

[Forever Fulham]

We think those old timers were better than today's players, but I bet for the most part they weren't.  You judged them against their peers at the time, who they played next to/against.  In their day, they were quality, no doubt, for their era.  But training, and diet, and athleticism have evolved.  It's such a science, such discipline today.  I think today's good player could match up against players considered very good 30+ years ago.  With exceptions of course for sheer genius--like George Best.  And the game has changed too, hasn't it?  It's less physical.  More rules.  Better surfaces to play on.   Now some have said that the past greats, if born today, would simply adapt to the faster pace, the better gear, and rise above the current lot.  But I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

[GloucesterWhite]

Les Barratt, Stevie Earle, and Jimmy Conway.

[Peabody]

We think those old timers were better than today's players, but I bet for the most part they weren't.  You judged them against their peers at the time, who they played next to/against.  In their day, they were quality, no doubt, for their era.  But training, and diet, and athleticism have evolved.  It's such a science, such discipline today.  I think today's good player could match up against players considered very good 30+ years ago.  With exceptions of course for sheer genius--like George Best.  And the game has changed too, hasn't it?  It's less physical.  More rules.  Better surfaces to play on.   Now some have said that the past greats, if born today, would simply adapt to the faster pace, the better gear, and rise above the current lot.  But I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.


There you go, getting all scientific on us. This is surely a lot simpler than that, we were asked who was our favourite strike force, which we responded too, did'nt need anything but an emotional response.

[filham]

Robson, Jezzard and Haynes. No contest

Absolutely right Peabody, they were so good ,skill pace, youth they were devastating and gave us goals galore and each of them  became english internationals. Newcastle wanted to buy all three .
Since then we have had some good strikers but not too many great strike forces. The most memorable were:-
Barrat/ Earl/ Conway. A silky trio with loads of class and some pace, not at all physical but were able to open up defences.

Coney/Davies. Ivor of course was the star but Coney did a great job as the target man and for a few seasons the partnership really sparkled and almost gained us promotion to the top division.

Hayles/ Saha/Boa.  Our first premiership strike force and they were deadly, a great shame that Man. U. snatched Saha away, we struggled to replace him.

We have never produced another great strike force in the premiership, McBride was terrific but we never found the right partner for him, Zamora /Andy Johnson never quite hit the top, and Ruiz/ Berbatov which looked so promising never got off the ground.

Regretabley at the moment it is hard to name the players that make up our strike force, Berbatov seems automatic choice but the other strikers seem to be in and out of favour by the match.

[Fulhampete]

When we were promoted to the premier Saha, Hayles and Boa all scored over 20 goals each. Favourite goalscoring forwards of all time are Leggat, Clark, McBride and Ivor.

[epsomraver]

We think those old timers were better than today's players, but I bet for the most part they weren't.  You judged them against their peers at the time, who they played next to/against.  In their day, they were quality, no doubt, for their era.  But training, and diet, and athleticism have evolved.  It's such a science, such discipline today.  I think today's good player could match up against players considered very good 30+ years ago.  With exceptions of course for sheer genius--like George Best.  And the game has changed too, hasn't it?  It's less physical.  More rules.  Better surfaces to play on.   Now some have said that the past greats, if born today, would simply adapt to the faster pace, the better gear, and rise above the current lot.  But I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

Not true, like to see a modern player hit a wet leather ball with hard toed boots 50 yards time after time as Haynes did in training and on the pitch, the stamina of the older players was also better given the conditions, the weight of ball and boots in those days, sorry your argument does not stack up

[Julius Geezer]

Peschisolido and Horsfield. (Little & Large)

Hayles and Saha were good but thought they were so similar a player that Saha always outshone Hayles.

[LBNo11]

...7 Conway - 9 Earle - 11 Barrett...

Still rate after all I've seen as the most entertaining and exciting combination.

I saw Johnny Haynes, but not at his peak, and would have loved to see him with Robson or Leggat of Jezzard...

[Forever Fulham]

We think those old timers were better than today's players, but I bet for the most part they weren't.  You judged them against their peers at the time, who they played next to/against.  In their day, they were quality, no doubt, for their era.  But training, and diet, and athleticism have evolved.  It's such a science, such discipline today.  I think today's good player could match up against players considered very good 30+ years ago.  With exceptions of course for sheer genius--like George Best.  And the game has changed too, hasn't it?  It's less physical.  More rules.  Better surfaces to play on.   Now some have said that the past greats, if born today, would simply adapt to the faster pace, the better gear, and rise above the current lot.  But I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

Not true, like to see a modern player hit a wet leather ball with hard toed boots 50 yards time after time as Haynes did in training and on the pitch, the stamina of the older players was also better given the conditions, the weight of ball and boots in those days, sorry your argument does not stack up

Ah, the heavy leather ball argument.  OK, then, what these differences are leading to is the position that the conditions were so different back then that you can't fairly compare players of different eras.  We're just romanticising.  In that case, I go with Boa and Saha.

[Peabody]

We think those old timers were better than today's players, but I bet for the most part they weren't.  You judged them against their peers at the time, who they played next to/against.  In their day, they were quality, no doubt, for their era.  But training, and diet, and athleticism have evolved.  It's such a science, such discipline today.  I think today's good player could match up against players considered very good 30+ years ago.  With exceptions of course for sheer genius--like George Best.  And the game has changed too, hasn't it?  It's less physical.  More rules.  Better surfaces to play on.   Now some have said that the past greats, if born today, would simply adapt to the faster pace, the better gear, and rise above the current lot.  But I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.


Not true, like to see a modern player hit a wet leather ball with hard toed boots 50 yards time after time as Haynes did in training and on the pitch, the stamina of the older players was also better given the conditions, the weight of ball and boots in those days, sorry your argument does not stack up

Ah, the heavy leather ball argument.  OK, then, what these differences are leading to is the position that the conditions were so different back then that you can't fairly compare players of different eras.  We're just romanticising.  In that case, I go with Boa and Saha.


Why are you trying to complicate a simple question, we were asked who our favourite strike force is, we have answered but you just seem to want an full debate on the question. Well, just to reiterate, my favourite were Robson, Jezzard and Haynes.

[epsomraver]

...7 Conway - 9 Earle - 11 Barrett...

Still rate after all I've seen as the most entertaining and exciting combination.

I saw Johnny Haynes, but not at his peak, and would have loved to see him with Robson or Leggat of Jezzard...

Have to agree, closely followed by Saha and harry bales

[filham]

Robson, Jezzard and Haynes. No contest

..and then maybe Marsh, Cook and Haynes...we still had Bobby(after a WBA stint), because by then he'd dropped back to Right Half..about 1963 ish....even the playing positions sound antique nowadays !


P.S.  I love that archive photo of  R, J and H relaxing on the terraces after training that comes around now and again. We always wonder what they would cost as a job lot in today's transfer windows !

Haynes Jezzard and Robson would be priceless in today's market and certainly too hot for Fulham to hold on to. Remember Haynes negotiated a wage of £100 per week, today he would have to be earning much more than Rooney for instance.

[Burt]

Ivor and Dixie.

Followed by Saha and Bazza.

[Neil D]

Barrett, Conway and Halom (never rated Earle)

Swap Earle for Halom.