Is this our best team yet?

[Johnny Mars Bar]

They’re good but they’re not as good as the United or Liverpool sides who came second, obviously.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

This Pep's City teams are better than that Liverpool side.

This Pep's City teams are better than that Liverpool side.

Been thinking about it. I saw the Liverpool side that included Tommy Smith, Emlyn Hughes, St. John etc. many times. With Clemence in goal. They were just incredibly difficult to beat.
It's so difficult to judge these things. The game has changed so much, apart from anything because pitches now look like billiard table tops pretty much right through the season. What's required of footballers is so very, very different. And there's an awful lot of football required of the top clubs now, so if you don't have a good squad, you're dead in the water.
That Liverpool side (and the one on into the 80s that included Rush, although I had much less experience of it live) would certainly give a good account of itself. Not sure, though, if it was as creative, or as tactically aware, as our current side. In fact it certainly wasn't. Hard, though – a hard team that hated to lose.

 

[domalino]

The best Pep side is always next years.

 

[threespires]

Before my time, sadly.

I was eight in 1982 and I had never seen football played the way that Brazil team did of Zico (my early hero), Junior, Socrates, Falcao.

Still the greatest spectacle I have seen from any team, but they were bat shit crazy going forward and didn't even need to play the way they did against Italy, but they only ever played to win.

Greatest team to not win the World Cup, certainly?

I first remember Zico taking the piss out of that great Liverpool team for Flamengo in 81.

Much as I think Maradona is still the greatest player I have seen in my lifetime, my heart belonged to Brazil after '82.

Have never seen that footage with the overhead camera really interesting. Looking at the state of the pitch and the way Zico handled a ball that was almost never rolling flat on the playing surface you can only imagine what he'd have been able to do in the modern game.

Being a little bit too young to properly remember the 1970 Brazil team, the first iconic team I really remember were the Dutch 74 team but (maybe because the world was much less connected?) even without the results there was just something a bit more mystical and magical about Brazil through the 70's and into the early 80's. Fast forward 30-40 years and we somehow end up with Sideshow Bob!

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

's' needed here.

Yer right, b, I can spin a tale. The football was dire!

 

[WNRH]

There's so much romanticism tied up in the 11/12 side, people don't want to admit the gulf in quality.

The truth is this side, and 17/18 and 18/19 would embarrass them.

Hyperbole as per usual.

The 17/18 side were beaten by League One Wigan Athletic.

I'm sure a team consisting of Kompany, Zabaleta, Silva, Nasri, Yaya, Barry, Tevez, Aguero, Dzeko and co would cope.

 

[daveiw01]

Been thinking about it. I saw the Liverpool side that included Tommy Smith, Emlyn Hughes, St. John etc. many times. With Clemence in goal. They were just incredibly difficult to beat.
It's so difficult to judge these things. The game has changed so much, apart from anything because pitches now look like billiard table tops pretty much right through the season. What's required of footballers is so very, very different. And there's an awful lot of football required of the top clubs now, so if you don't have a good squad, you're dead in the water.
That Liverpool side (and the one on into the 80s that included Rush, although I had much less experience of it live) would certainly give a good account of itself. Not sure, though, if it was as creative, or as tactically aware, as our current side. In fact it certainly wasn't. Hard, though – a hard team that hated to lose.

Good side yes, but if I recall correctly, much of the time the ball was played back to the keeper then picked up, then played out (long ball usually) like a very slow, less effective and much more boring (generally) version of us now.

Of course, my memory may be playing tricks.

 

[LongsightM13]

Before my time, sadly.

I was eight in 1982 and I had never seen football played the way that Brazil team did of Zico (my early hero), Junior, Socrates, Falcao.

Still the greatest spectacle I have seen from any team, but they were bat shit crazy going forward and didn't even need to play the way they did against Italy, but they only ever played to win.

Greatest team to not win the World Cup, certainly?

I first remember Zico taking the piss out of that great Liverpool team for Flamengo in 81.

Much as I think Maradona is still the greatest player I have seen in my lifetime, my heart belonged to Brazil after '82.

Imagine how good Brazil 82 would have been if they had a better player than the clumsy, lumbering Serginho at centre forward? Imagine playing Mangala in our midfield today and you get an idea of how he ‘stood out’ in that sublime side.
Having said that, however, I stumbled across this article a while back which offers some mitigation in his defence. He was third choice striker and only played due to injuries.
Still, the quote from a former Brazil manager after he was substituted in one game - “Now the ball is round again” - is a wickedly acerbic and memorable burn

On Second Thoughts: Serginho | Brazil | The Guardian

<p><strong>Rob Smyth: </strong>Blamed for Brazil's failure to capture the 1982 World Cup, Serginho unfairly carried the can for the team's defensive failings</p>

amp.theguardian.com

 

[LongsightM13]

Good side yes, but if I recall correctly, much of the time the ball was played back to the keeper then picked up, then played out (long ball usually) like a very slow, less effective and much more boring (generally) version of us now.

Of course, my memory may be playing tricks.

I know its a united fan cliche but like many cliches it is at least partly true - they really didn’t get a sniff of the title for three decades once picking up a backpass was outlawed.
A ruthlessly efficient winning machine, usually with a sprinkle of magic from the likes of the brilliant Dalglish, Barnes, Beardsley etc.
But they were also a very streetwise and often thuggish outfit (Case, Souness) who knew how to manage a game, run down the clock and and go very defensive when needed. Including multiple backpasses

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Good side yes, but if I recall correctly, much of the time the ball was played back to the keeper then picked up, then played out (long ball usually) like a very slow, less effective and much more boring (generally) version of us now.

Of course, my memory may be playing tricks.

My memory wouldn’t run to that either. But in a general way, I think that’s what I’m saying. They weren’t terrifically creative. It was all about graft. Especially on those pitches. If you read Eamon Dunphy’s Only A Game?, it’s striking that that’s the word that keeps coming up. It’s all about people who work hard — he doesn’t seem to be concerned about creativity. Of course, hard work’s vital, but when England were smashed by Puskas’s Hungary (twice, by the way), they saw — or should have seen — that graft alone wasn’t enough. One of the best things that ever happened to the English game was foreign players, and then foreign coaches, coming in to it. Of course, that also brought players rolling around on the floor when breathed on, and other such attendant bollocks.