comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 27 seconds ago
The majority of the best fullbacks in todays game would probably have struggled pre 2005, or they'd have been turned into a winger.
I think Trent's defensive faults are overstated but put him a 4-4-2 where he barely crosses the halfway line and he's probably not in a top 4 side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I guess a subset of this discussion is how would today's players have been developed differently in a previous era. What would be the best role for a prolific goalscoring inside forward like Salah in a 4-4-2? Second striker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think anyone like Salah would surely be a striker.
Firmino would be an interesting one. Not clinical enough to be an out and out striker but also not quite the right skillset to be a CM, and most definitely not a winger.
I wonder how Ravel Morrison would have been 20 odd years back. He seemed to fail because he lacked the professionalism needed these day, not because of lack of talent. He probably would have gotten away with having a poor attitude but still able to shine on talent alone. Maybe he wouldn’t have been one of the best but occasionally would have done something that blew people away.
It’s also sad the game has lost the classic trequartista role which was the role I always loved to play when playing with friends. Basically being lazy strolling around the pitch occasionally trying a bit of magic.
Good players adapt. That's the thing.
The one that really stands out for me but on the flip side is Glenn Hoddle. He would have been up there as. Ballon D'or candidate with 150 England caps. He was so badly ignored and let down by the English game back in the day. Don't get me wrong, he's still a Spurs legend but he only got 53 England caps. That is a feckin joke.
I remember once a mate of mine once said back in the early 2000s that Beckham was a better player than Hoddle. I nearly throttled him. Beckham was a good player but that's a load of nonsense and think DB would even agree with me on that.
Most would look worse playing in heavy boots on mud. It's carpet slippers on carpets now.
Also, where are the terrifying defenders of the 70s/80's who would have today's strikers pooing in their little panties. They would stop the man and sometimes get the ball as well as a bonus.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
All outfield players have to have such a high work rate now that I think there are quite a few from yesteryear that simply would not be doing enough or have enough to their game.
The decline of the specialist striker and the out and out winger has partially been a result of this.
Someone like Defoe, who was never a great but a really very good striker may not have got much of a look in todays game, but even he was decent at picking up the ball deep, running at defences and scoring from the edge of the box.
But this sort in diminutive finisher pays much lesser role in the modern game, they have to offer something more and often the ability to play from wide. Ings is a current player who barely gets a look in as his game is "limited"
This brings into question some great players like Owen or Fowler, similar strikers like Kevin Phillips, all of whom were often best in a partnership.
United bad boy Greenwood was played from wide more often than not despite him being a natural finisher and he kinda typifies how this type of finisher has to have more strings to their bow. He was pretty effective from wide but he (and may be the fans) probably prefers being up top.
Different player but someone like Berbatov ooozed class but had low work rate. You don't see many languid players anymore, its usually all action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All valid comments but this thread is about sending current players into the past, not past players into the present. For that reason, I'm going to have to delete your post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, although you did bring Gerrard & Carrick into it.
When comparing eras its probably harder to do so in this backwards time machine fashion because most things improve over the years, technically, physically, scientifically. A lot of players now would fairly seemlessly thrive in a league 20+ year ago, unless there is a physical disadvantage.
For me the obvious ones are the defenders. A CB like Martinez would have probably struggled in the big number 9 era, while someone like Maguire would have been a God with his big head, decent technique and ability to pass the ball to a reasonable level.
Lukaku. Big, strong, quick (or was), knows where the goal is. Think he'd have done really well back in the day.
I think Mainoo would have been a revelation for most teams back in the day.
Casemiro the 80’s
Slower pace, could mistime the odd tackle, get on the end of plenty of free kicks fired into the box
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
Shaw in the 1950s. Pies, pints and chips at half time, he’d have been superb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could see McTominay having more impact 20 years ago in a similar way to what Kevin Nolan was doing at Bolton, Newcastle & West Ham; getting goals from midfield at a pretty steady rate without being required to be too fancy or involved in build up play.
It would have been interesting to see Jack Grealish in an era where City and Pep couldn't hoover up every decent player. Then he might have grown into an entertaining maverick, rather than a cog in a wheel, an efficient robot who largely tries to win free-kicks and penalties and then gets shouted at on the pitch by his manager for not being boring enough.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 minutes ago
Could see McTominay having more impact 20 years ago in a similar way to what Kevin Nolan was doing at Bolton, Newcastle & West Ham; getting goals from midfield at a pretty steady rate without being required to be too fancy or involved in build up play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good shout!
comment by Clockwork Red: Amrabats in the Belfry (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
It would have been interesting to see Jack Grealish in an era where City and Pep couldn't hoover up every decent player. Then he might have grown into an entertaining maverick, rather than a cog in a wheel, an efficient robot who largely tries to win free-kicks and penalties and then gets shouted at on the pitch by his manager for not being boring enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saint Max is another. So much flair, not enough defending.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
You think it was less structured than it is now? Really? If you apply the English approach, which clearly you are with your references, then everyone pretty much played a 4-4-2. Full backs served their wingers and only really overlapped. Midfielders hated other players entering their patch and goalkeepers stayed in their six yard box. Now you have fullbacks coming into midfield when in possession, wingers that operate centrally and goalkeepers that act as sweepers. Football was far more structured then than it is now.
I can promise you this, and in fact I think I've heard them say it themselves - if Scholes and Keane saw Bruno running all over the place or full backs entering their space, they'd scream at them and tell them to do one. Bruno would be more of a liability then than than he is now. In fact, he wouldn't get a game because he chases down lost causes on his own (which doesn't work), vacates his position leaves the rest of his midfield exposed. He wouldn't last five minutes in that classic United midfield. Keane would have made sure of that. He reminds me a bit of an under 11's player. They all chase the ball with no positional sense. Most of your problems come from his erratic positional sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Players had clearly defined roles and defensive responsibilities, of course, but an attacking midfielder like Scholes in the early 2000s (before he moved back as a more deep-lying playmaker) popped up all over the place, and games were much more like pin-ball than today's football. Rewatching matches from that era on MUTV, it's striking how much more chaotic and transitional the football was: both United's and generally. And striking how often revered players gave the ball away by generally trying the killer ball at high frequency.
As for the idea that Bruno would have lacked the positional discipline / fundamentally runs around like a headless chicken now, I think any defects in his game are magnified by the fundamental deficiencies in the team. The front players are asked to press, but ETH almost never commits enough players to that press to make it hard to play through, because of other weaknesses further back. He doesn't push up full backs as most high-pressing managers would. So we often have two or three pressing vs four or five building from the back, which usually makes it a thankless task for the front players. I assume if Bruno were ignoring tactical instructions, ETH would have addressed this, rather than making him captain and playing him in every match.
DDG before.evwryone became obsessed with GKs being an additional outfielder.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Good players adapt. That's the thing.
The one that really stands out for me but on the flip side is Glenn Hoddle. He would have been up there as. Ballon D'or candidate with 150 England caps. He was so badly ignored and let down by the English game back in the day. Don't get me wrong, he's still a Spurs legend but he only got 53 England caps. That is a feckin joke.
I remember once a mate of mine once said back in the early 2000s that Beckham was a better player than Hoddle. I nearly throttled him. Beckham was a good player but that's a load of nonsense and think DB would even agree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree that Hoddle shades it, but Beckham has been substantially underrated since the understandable backlash against the celebrity he enjoyed.
Also agree that Hoddle should have had a more significant role for England, but worth noting that 53 caps in his era is more like the equivalent of 80-90 in ours because there were far fewer fixtures. A player like Gary Lineker who was first choice pretty much throughout his prime only got 80 caps.
comment by Ryan Howley (U1734)
posted 5 seconds ago
rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He can track back in time and prove himself in any era.
Martinelli in Arsenal’s 07/08 team instead of Eboue/Walcott
Maguire 1885. Preferably on a rainy Tuesday in Stoke.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 18 minutes ago
Pogba
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 90s to early 2000s teams would have a shirt for 2 seasons, so Pogba would be half as valuable as he is in this era.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
Pogba
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vs souness circa 79/80
Dennis Irwin. Could play both right back and left, could cross, pass, took decent free kicks and penalties. Would have been much more appreciated and highly rated in the current era of fullbacks.
Sign in if you want to comment
Player time machine
Page 2 of 3
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 27 seconds ago
The majority of the best fullbacks in todays game would probably have struggled pre 2005, or they'd have been turned into a winger.
I think Trent's defensive faults are overstated but put him a 4-4-2 where he barely crosses the halfway line and he's probably not in a top 4 side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I guess a subset of this discussion is how would today's players have been developed differently in a previous era. What would be the best role for a prolific goalscoring inside forward like Salah in a 4-4-2? Second striker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think anyone like Salah would surely be a striker.
Firmino would be an interesting one. Not clinical enough to be an out and out striker but also not quite the right skillset to be a CM, and most definitely not a winger.
posted on 2/4/24
I wonder how Ravel Morrison would have been 20 odd years back. He seemed to fail because he lacked the professionalism needed these day, not because of lack of talent. He probably would have gotten away with having a poor attitude but still able to shine on talent alone. Maybe he wouldn’t have been one of the best but occasionally would have done something that blew people away.
It’s also sad the game has lost the classic trequartista role which was the role I always loved to play when playing with friends. Basically being lazy strolling around the pitch occasionally trying a bit of magic.
posted on 2/4/24
Good players adapt. That's the thing.
The one that really stands out for me but on the flip side is Glenn Hoddle. He would have been up there as. Ballon D'or candidate with 150 England caps. He was so badly ignored and let down by the English game back in the day. Don't get me wrong, he's still a Spurs legend but he only got 53 England caps. That is a feckin joke.
I remember once a mate of mine once said back in the early 2000s that Beckham was a better player than Hoddle. I nearly throttled him. Beckham was a good player but that's a load of nonsense and think DB would even agree with me on that.
posted on 2/4/24
Most would look worse playing in heavy boots on mud. It's carpet slippers on carpets now.
Also, where are the terrifying defenders of the 70s/80's who would have today's strikers pooing in their little panties. They would stop the man and sometimes get the ball as well as a bonus.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
All outfield players have to have such a high work rate now that I think there are quite a few from yesteryear that simply would not be doing enough or have enough to their game.
The decline of the specialist striker and the out and out winger has partially been a result of this.
Someone like Defoe, who was never a great but a really very good striker may not have got much of a look in todays game, but even he was decent at picking up the ball deep, running at defences and scoring from the edge of the box.
But this sort in diminutive finisher pays much lesser role in the modern game, they have to offer something more and often the ability to play from wide. Ings is a current player who barely gets a look in as his game is "limited"
This brings into question some great players like Owen or Fowler, similar strikers like Kevin Phillips, all of whom were often best in a partnership.
United bad boy Greenwood was played from wide more often than not despite him being a natural finisher and he kinda typifies how this type of finisher has to have more strings to their bow. He was pretty effective from wide but he (and may be the fans) probably prefers being up top.
Different player but someone like Berbatov ooozed class but had low work rate. You don't see many languid players anymore, its usually all action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All valid comments but this thread is about sending current players into the past, not past players into the present. For that reason, I'm going to have to delete your post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, although you did bring Gerrard & Carrick into it.
When comparing eras its probably harder to do so in this backwards time machine fashion because most things improve over the years, technically, physically, scientifically. A lot of players now would fairly seemlessly thrive in a league 20+ year ago, unless there is a physical disadvantage.
For me the obvious ones are the defenders. A CB like Martinez would have probably struggled in the big number 9 era, while someone like Maguire would have been a God with his big head, decent technique and ability to pass the ball to a reasonable level.
posted on 2/4/24
Lukaku. Big, strong, quick (or was), knows where the goal is. Think he'd have done really well back in the day.
posted on 2/4/24
I think Mainoo would have been a revelation for most teams back in the day.
posted on 2/4/24
Casemiro the 80’s
Slower pace, could mistime the odd tackle, get on the end of plenty of free kicks fired into the box
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the 100k comment, fack you Michael Edward’s and your 5m, th (U19119)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
Shaw in the 1950s. Pies, pints and chips at half time, he’d have been superb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/4/24
Could see McTominay having more impact 20 years ago in a similar way to what Kevin Nolan was doing at Bolton, Newcastle & West Ham; getting goals from midfield at a pretty steady rate without being required to be too fancy or involved in build up play.
posted on 2/4/24
It would have been interesting to see Jack Grealish in an era where City and Pep couldn't hoover up every decent player. Then he might have grown into an entertaining maverick, rather than a cog in a wheel, an efficient robot who largely tries to win free-kicks and penalties and then gets shouted at on the pitch by his manager for not being boring enough.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 minutes ago
Could see McTominay having more impact 20 years ago in a similar way to what Kevin Nolan was doing at Bolton, Newcastle & West Ham; getting goals from midfield at a pretty steady rate without being required to be too fancy or involved in build up play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good shout!
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Clockwork Red: Amrabats in the Belfry (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
It would have been interesting to see Jack Grealish in an era where City and Pep couldn't hoover up every decent player. Then he might have grown into an entertaining maverick, rather than a cog in a wheel, an efficient robot who largely tries to win free-kicks and penalties and then gets shouted at on the pitch by his manager for not being boring enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/4/24
Saint Max is another. So much flair, not enough defending.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
You think it was less structured than it is now? Really? If you apply the English approach, which clearly you are with your references, then everyone pretty much played a 4-4-2. Full backs served their wingers and only really overlapped. Midfielders hated other players entering their patch and goalkeepers stayed in their six yard box. Now you have fullbacks coming into midfield when in possession, wingers that operate centrally and goalkeepers that act as sweepers. Football was far more structured then than it is now.
I can promise you this, and in fact I think I've heard them say it themselves - if Scholes and Keane saw Bruno running all over the place or full backs entering their space, they'd scream at them and tell them to do one. Bruno would be more of a liability then than than he is now. In fact, he wouldn't get a game because he chases down lost causes on his own (which doesn't work), vacates his position leaves the rest of his midfield exposed. He wouldn't last five minutes in that classic United midfield. Keane would have made sure of that. He reminds me a bit of an under 11's player. They all chase the ball with no positional sense. Most of your problems come from his erratic positional sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Players had clearly defined roles and defensive responsibilities, of course, but an attacking midfielder like Scholes in the early 2000s (before he moved back as a more deep-lying playmaker) popped up all over the place, and games were much more like pin-ball than today's football. Rewatching matches from that era on MUTV, it's striking how much more chaotic and transitional the football was: both United's and generally. And striking how often revered players gave the ball away by generally trying the killer ball at high frequency.
As for the idea that Bruno would have lacked the positional discipline / fundamentally runs around like a headless chicken now, I think any defects in his game are magnified by the fundamental deficiencies in the team. The front players are asked to press, but ETH almost never commits enough players to that press to make it hard to play through, because of other weaknesses further back. He doesn't push up full backs as most high-pressing managers would. So we often have two or three pressing vs four or five building from the back, which usually makes it a thankless task for the front players. I assume if Bruno were ignoring tactical instructions, ETH would have addressed this, rather than making him captain and playing him in every match.
posted on 2/4/24
DDG before.evwryone became obsessed with GKs being an additional outfielder.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Good players adapt. That's the thing.
The one that really stands out for me but on the flip side is Glenn Hoddle. He would have been up there as. Ballon D'or candidate with 150 England caps. He was so badly ignored and let down by the English game back in the day. Don't get me wrong, he's still a Spurs legend but he only got 53 England caps. That is a feckin joke.
I remember once a mate of mine once said back in the early 2000s that Beckham was a better player than Hoddle. I nearly throttled him. Beckham was a good player but that's a load of nonsense and think DB would even agree with me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree that Hoddle shades it, but Beckham has been substantially underrated since the understandable backlash against the celebrity he enjoyed.
Also agree that Hoddle should have had a more significant role for England, but worth noting that 53 caps in his era is more like the equivalent of 80-90 in ours because there were far fewer fixtures. A player like Gary Lineker who was first choice pretty much throughout his prime only got 80 caps.
posted on 2/4/24
rooney
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Ryan Howley (U1734)
posted 5 seconds ago
rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He can track back in time and prove himself in any era.
posted on 2/4/24
Pogba
posted on 2/4/24
Martinelli in Arsenal’s 07/08 team instead of Eboue/Walcott
posted on 2/4/24
Maguire 1885. Preferably on a rainy Tuesday in Stoke.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 18 minutes ago
Pogba
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 90s to early 2000s teams would have a shirt for 2 seasons, so Pogba would be half as valuable as he is in this era.
posted on 2/4/24
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 20 minutes ago
Pogba
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vs souness circa 79/80
posted on 2/4/24
Dennis Irwin. Could play both right back and left, could cross, pass, took decent free kicks and penalties. Would have been much more appreciated and highly rated in the current era of fullbacks.
Page 2 of 3