The last two 'Great' Blades teams - a comparison

[benn5712]

Interesting OP but I don’t agree that Bassett’s team wasn’t a “great” Blades team.
They rose from the 3rd Division to 9th in the 1st Division.
Stayed up for four seasons. FA Cup Semi-Finalists and Quarter-Finalists.
Scored loads of goals playing an “on the front foot” attacking brand of football.
Beat most of the top teams of the day. Some several times.
Built from a combination of home-grown talent and astute, value for money signings.
No real big money signings. About £700K being the highest.
They might now only be the third best team in United’s recent history but they don’t deserve to be ignored.

Some very good years under 'Arry. 'Appeh days. Some awful performances as well. Some rough displays.
They seemed to be the crazy gang mk2. Never compared them with Harris/Furphy like I am now, along with a few others by the look of it.

 

[benn5712]

Of course he would, he'd have had contact with a pro club from about eight year old.

£100 million plus in today's transfer market.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Sorry.........No comparison for me. The current team would have ripped the Harris/Furphy team apart and they make the Bassett team look very “agricultural” indeed. Unfortunately the same reasons we still revere Currie and Woodward today is exactly same reasons the early 70s team weren’t a “great” team. When we got promoted in 71 we should have build a new team around TC and Woody, but our “sweet shop” mentality at the time made sure it never really happened. Great teams build new stands......We decided to do it the other way round.
I have so many fantastic memories of the Bassett era, but I’m now finding it hard to watch old footage of that team and without my Blades tinted glasses on I can now see how so many fans and pundits viewed us with so much disdain.

 

[benn5712]

The advances in football mentioned here, fitness, training, nutrition, pitches, medical care etc. These have made a vast difference. Would Dave Powell and many others now make full recovery from injuries and continue playing?
The 70's team with these facilities and conditions? Think they would have excelled today.

 

[highgreenintokyo]

The OP with some of the ideas from subsequent posts would make a cracking submission to the Dem Blades fanzine. Well done all round.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

I've always been of the opinion that teams from years ago would get trounced by modern day teams.

For example if the current Liverpool team played the Brazil 1970 team I honestly think it would go into double figures.

 

[Sheffsteel]

The advances in football mentioned here, fitness, training, nutrition, pitches, medical care etc. These have made a vast difference. Would Dave Powell and many others now make full recovery from injuries
The 70's team with these facilities and conditions? Think they would have excelled today.

Agree....really if you had a time machine to match today’s teams with yester year....then the current teams are much better.
Mainly down to physicality, fitness and athleticism. Players are much more professional these days.

 

[Revolution]

I've always been of the opinion that teams from years ago would get trounced by modern day teams.

For example if the current Liverpool team played the Brazil 1970 team I honestly think it would go into double figures.

True. A fairer comparison is whether, with modern training, equipment, diet etc, the "older" team would be better.

It also depends who's refereeing and what rules are being used. To give one example, if you took the Nigel Pearson of 30 years ago and stuck him in the modern Pig side he'd be useless, as the keeper can't pick up backpasses any more so he couldn't perform his primary function of timewasting to play for a 0-0 draw.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

True. A fairer comparison is whether, with modern training, equipment, diet etc, the "older" team would be better.

It also depends who's refereeing and what rules are being used. To give one example, if you took the Nigel Pearson of 30 years ago and stuck him in the modern Pig side he'd be useless, as the keeper can't pick up backpasses any more so he couldn't perform his primary function of timewasting to play for a 0-0 draw.

It also begs the question of where and how the hypothetical match would be played.

A muddy quagmire of a pitch and an old leather case football would put any modern day team at a huge disadvantage, and vice versa.

 

[cahill]

Special mention for Keith Eddy in the 1974/75 team that was close to play europe 4 pts behind winners Derby, (mind that year only 8pts between 1st and 10th) Eddy was calmness and played CH and CMF, Furphy stated he'd love two Eddy's, one in defence and one in midfield. Did he miss any pens? think he took over from Woody that season.

Keith Eddy. Saw him score the winner at Old Trafford

 

[cahill]

I've always been of the opinion that teams from years ago would get trounced by modern day teams.

For example if the current Liverpool team played the Brazil 1970 team I honestly think it would go into double figures.

But that's not a difficult judgement to make is it ? People run faster jump higher etc that's just how it is. Suffiçe to say the generation then would be successful today as they were before if they had modern day technologies and training methods. You can only judge them in their time

 

[GrayBlade]

The last ‘great’ Blades team, prior to the current one, in my lifetime was in the John Harris\Ken Furphy era, spanning 1969-1975. “Great”, in Blades terms, defined by making a successful transition to the top flight while playing an aesthetically pleasing style of football.



Harris’ team won promotion in 1971 and then went unbeaten in its first 10 games, racing to the top of the old First Division. The wheels came off, somewhat, after being beaten by George Best in a 2-0 defeat at Old Trafford but ‘United’ still finished in a respectable 10th position. Harris moved ‘upstairs’ in December 73, replaced by Ken Furphy. The Blades remained a mid-table, First Division team for 4 seasons, culminating in a 6th place finish in 1975 – an achievement only bettered on three occasions in the last 100 years (when finishing 5th in 1924, 26 and 62).



The 11 players who epitomised that period, for me, are:



Hodgkinson (576 apps)

Badger (458 apps)

Hemsley (247 apps)

Flynn (190 apps)

Colquhoun (363 apps)

Salmons (180 apps)

Woodward (536 apps)

Hockey (68 apps)

Dearden (175 apps)

Currie (313 apps)

Reece (210 apps)



Hockey makes it into the line-up, despite a relatively short Blades career, due to his key role as Currie’s minder in the 1971 promotion winning team.



Goalkeeper, Hodgkinson was at the end of his career and replaced by John Hope, in the 1971 promotion winning season so didn’t play in the return to the top flight.



The Blades employed an exciting, expansive style of, “on the front foot”, football, attacking down both wings, with both full-backs encouraged to get forward. Currie ran the show from centre mid and developed a telepathic understanding with Woodward.



Despite finishing the season as runners-up, Harris’ team were comfortably the division’s top scorers, while remaining frugal in defence. Only champions, Leicester conceded fewer goals.



My comparative, current day, 11 – again chosen on the basis of playing a key role in the transition from 2nd to top tier – is:



Henderson (70 apps)

Baldock (85 apps)

Stevens (117 apps)

Basham (254 apps)

Egan (69 apps)

O’Connell (162 apps)

Norwood (71 apps)

Fleck (155 apps)

Duffy (111 apps)

Sharp (207 apps)

McGoldrick (69 apps)



Duffy makes it over Lundstram - despite being moved on following promotion - due to his more influential role in the promotion winning team.



In terms of similarities, the glaringly obvious one is in the stability of the two line-ups, measured by numbers of appearances. The 60s/70s team averaged a staggering 300+ appearances per player. Even from an age where players moved club less frequently, this is an extraordinary statistic. By comparison, the ‘current’ roster has already notched up an average of 123 appearances with, hopefully, plenty more to come.



Harris, like Wilder, saw the value of having a settled team with players who understood and trusted each other.



Harris built his team from a combination of home-grown talent (Hodgkinson, Badger, Salmons and Woodward) and astute, value signings (Hemsley, Flynn, Reece, Dearden and Hockey). Significant money, (bearing in mind the record transfer fee at the time was £150k spent by Leicester City on Allan Clarke), was invested in signing Currie from Watford (£26,500) and Colquhoun (£27,500) from West Brom. Currie was a young player deemed to have outstanding potential; Colquhoun was an established, highly rated centre half, who’d already proven himself in Division One.



Wilder employed a similar approach in building his promotion winning team; focusing mainly on younger players with raw attributes, who he felt could be improved (Henderson, Baldock, Stevens, Fleck, O’Connell and Egan).



1968 was a critical year of recruitment in building the successful team of the seventies, with Hemsley, Colquhoun and Currie joining a squad, which already included Hodgkinson, Badger, Salmons, Woodward and Reece. Fifty years later, in 2018, Wilder signed Henderson, Egan, Norwood and McGoldrick prior to storming to promotion.



A notable point of difference in the two eras is the relative lack of home-grown talent in the current group, with only Billy coming through the ranks.



Wilder has also had the luxury of being able to spend big following promotion – an option unavailable to John Harris during an era which preceded the riches of the Premier League.



A word of noteworthy caution from the 70s era:



In 1976, one year after that 6th placed finish, the Blades were relegated, not returning to the top flight until 1990, under Dave Bassett. From that ‘great’ team: Badger, Hemsley, Colquhoun, Flynn, Currie, Woodward and Dearden all played their last game for the Blades in the two years between 1976-78. The successful 70s team, assembled in a relatively short period, had - with the exception of Currie who was sold to Leeds - grown old together without being effectively replaced.

I really enjoyed that, thanks for putting it together.

As for our demise, I think that financing the new South Stand had a major bearing on it much as it was needed. The old ‘should we improve the team and build on its success or improve the facilities to reflect on the success we’ve had to date?’ conundrum.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

It's interesting and entertaining to do the comparison of teams from different era. Ultimately it's futile though, with too many variables as pointed out in this thread. That 70s team was potentially taking the club to the very top, but lack of investment in the team ultimately caused it's demise. The team grew old together. The current situation seems to be more positive, with investment seemingly being made.

 

[benn5712]

Surprised no ones put together a best 11 out of them two sides! Obviously different era's but on individual qualities you can pick one or the other.

Wish i could but I'm not 30 yet!!

I'll have a go.

MacAlister - because he was ours, good GK.
Badger. the finest of RB's
Egan
JOC
Stevens

Woodward. nobody else gets that shirt.
Currie. as above
Salmons. Engine room LH side and more
Hockey

Dearden. scored goals at the top level.
A N Other. tried a few ,Jim Bone for one, but the midfield and wingers scored many. Eddie Colquhoun from corners.

Bit tough leaving Colquhoun Flynn Eddy Reece Hemsley out.
Interested on other selections.

 

[Bonzodog]

Great post, I am other one that sees the 68/75 team as a reference to how good (or bad) our other teams have been since, & I was at an age where the flamboyant flair players left a deep impression on me. I have to say that I would have had David Powell in instead of John Flynn even though he only played around the half the number of games, injuries were the reason he isn't as highly thought of as he should be IMO, at only 5ft 10in he had a brilliant spring & was superb in the air. I have to mention John Hope too, up until his back problem he was excellent & played a pivotal part in the promotion campaign. Despite the fact that team were capable of having off days, when they were on it they played some of the best football I have ever seen, & because of the memories I have had in my head for the last 50 years would lean towards them, although I have to concede that the current side would get my vote if I had to put my house on a result. The current team is more pragmatic, & has lost some of the swagger of the previous 3 years, but I can see the plan & feel that with the new players on board & safety in the Prem all but sealed there will be another change that will see us be a bit more offensive & play more on the front foot.

Great comment about Dave Powell I agree totally with you

Sorry.........No comparison for me. The current team would have ripped the Harris/Furphy team apart and they make the Bassett team look very “agricultural” indeed. Unfortunately the same reasons we still revere Currie and Woodward today is exactly same reasons the early 70s team weren’t a “great” team. When we got promoted in 71 we should have build a new team around TC and Woody, but our “sweet shop” mentality at the time made sure it never really happened. Great teams build new stands......We decided to do it the other way round.
I have so many fantastic memories of the Bassett era, but I’m now finding it hard to watch old footage of that team and without my Blades tinted glasses on I can now see how so many fans and pundits viewed us with so much disdain.

I agree this team is superior to 70-71 which although capable of sublime football was also very unpredictable. E.g. the 7-0 thrashing of Ipswich followed 4 days later by a 5-0 defeat at West Ham and 3 days after that a 5-1 tonking at Crystal palace.
However the best I've ever seen us play was the 3-0 defeat of Leeds in August 1971 but overall it has to be today's team.

 

[BushBlade]

Agree....really if you had a time machine to match today’s teams with yester year....then the current teams are much better.
Mainly down to physicality, fitness and athleticism. Players are much more professional these days.

That’s the key issue for me. Would the players of that era have had the discipline to make it in the modern game? You’d guess most of them would but it’s far more demanding, physically and mentally, than it was in those days. You could also question how some of the modern day players would cope with the violence of the 70s game. I don’t know if those old players would cope with the intensity of training and having to watch what they eat and drink, having their body fat measured regularly, seeing themselves being slated in the media and social media, nor do I know how a modern player would cope with being kicked all over the pitch (proper kicked, not like Zaha got).

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

I'll have a go.

MacAlister - because he was ours, good GK.
Badger. the finest of RB's
Egan
JOC
Stevens

Woodward. nobody else gets that shirt.
Currie. as above
Salmons. Engine room LH side and more
Hockey

Dearden. scored goals at the top level.
A N Other. tried a few ,Jim Bone for one, but the midfield and wingers scored many. Eddie Colquhoun from corners.

Bit tough leaving Colquhoun Flynn Eddy Reece Hemsley out.
Interested on other selections.

That's a very good call and you've rightly identified that in order to accommodate the outstanding players from the early 70's team , it would be necessary to tweak the formation to more of a 4-1-3-2 with Hockey in the holding midfield role .

My A N Other would be Billy . The prospect of him playing alongside Dearden and supported by Woodward , Currie and Salmons is mouth watering ! Goals galore among that lot .

PS - not sure that McAlister qualifies but agree he was a top , top keeper .

 

[metalblade]

It is quite arguable that the team of 97-98 had better players than the early 70's or today's team.
That squad had more than two players for every position.
GK
Tracey, Kelly, Dibble
DF
Borbokis. Dellas, Holdsworth, Quinn, McGrath, Tiler, Sandford, Nilsen, Hamilton, Wilder, Short, Barrett, Vonk, Marker.
MF
Whitehouse, Stuart, Ford, Hutchinson, Derry, Devlin, Woodhouse, Ward, Henry, Beard, White, Cullen,
FW
Deane, Fjortoft, Taylor, Saunders, Marcelo, Katchuro, Patterson, Morris, Lehtinen, Walker, Rush, Scott

 

[Addison]

John Harris team of 70/71 was for me the best I have seen in that they were able on their day to take the top teams in the division apart. Its early days for CW's team in the top flight so when comparing team against team the 1970's IMO currently have the advantage in midfield and up front. If only we'd had some of to-days defence in the 1970's team. Based on individuals players abilities I would go with the following joint team;

Henderson
Badger, David Powell (the 1970's Jake Wright before his injuries) JOC, Stevens
Hockey, Salmons, Currie
Woodward Sharp, Dearden

Sub: Duffy

Manager: CW.

What a team that would have been playing Revies dirty Weeds.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I really enjoyed that, thanks for putting it together.

As for our demise, I think that financing the new South Stand had a major bearing on it much as it was needed. The old ‘should we improve the team and build on its success or improve the facilities to reflect on the success we’ve had to date?’ conundrum.

Allus buy a No 9.

 

[finlaytheblade]

Thanks for this fascinating comparison. I saw both teams and a big obvious difference is wingers - or lack thereof ... the 1971 version had no fewer than three playing at once (Woody, Salmons, Scullion or Reece) and even Billy Dearden, the centre forward, was a converted winger. So the team was devastating down both flanks, particularly when Woodward and Salmons were on form, with TC pinging inch-perfect crossfield passes to them. I never thought I’d live to see a Blades team that was as good, potentially better, but now I have.

Yep great attacking team that was, they just didnt have the backbone to dig out results like Wilders group ,we never got anywhere in cup competition's due to that failing.
Had some fantastic matches in early 70 s
Nearest weve been to man city of today .
They have the ability to dig out results through sheer flair, have a soft under belly but the ability to create and score goals usually Carrie's them through , had a few hiccups this season though up to now.

 

[Woodys Thunderbolt]

The 70's side is where it all began for me and is still the best side i have seen down at the Lane, but that could all change if Wilder's boys continue as they are. Think Basset's sides also need to be included in this debate.
Currie has always been regarded as one of or the greatest player in our history but for me it was always Alan Woodward, what a player.

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

Teams and individual players can only be judged objectively from their own time period. It's nonsense to say this currect team would trounce teams of the past. Without question the TC/Woody team under the same development conditions and playing under modern conditions and rules would be at least equal to our current crop of players. Our promotion winning team featuring Alan Hodginson, Joe and Graham Shaw etc playing under Chris Wilder in today's conditions would have been a pretty formidable outfit too.

 

[Old Programme seller]

When Dave Bassett’s teams had their day in the sun they were brutal and beautiful at the same time, very long ball but honed to near perfection everyone knew their job with the money we had at the time that team/squad over achieved and the football they played had to bypass midfield because of the main guys up front, or perhaps I have rose tinted glasses I just love my blades.

 

[N20 Blade]

It is quite arguable that the team of 97-98 had better players than the early 70's or today's team.
That squad had more than two players for every position.
GK
Tracey, Kelly, Dibble
DF
Borbokis. Dellas, Holdsworth, Quinn, McGrath, Tiler, Sandford, Nilsen, Hamilton, Wilder, Short, Barrett, Vonk, Marker.
MF
Whitehouse, Stuart, Ford, Hutchinson, Derry, Devlin, Woodhouse, Ward, Henry, Beard, White, Cullen,
FW
Deane, Fjortoft, Taylor, Saunders, Marcelo, Katchuro, Patterson, Morris, Lehtinen, Walker, Rush, Scott

I think this deserves a separate thread, this squad should have been out of sight by Christmas. We should never have had to lose our strikers but that’s another story. Squad not team maybe.

 

[The Bohemian]

The 70's side is where it all began for me and is still the best side i have seen down at the Lane, but that could all change if Wilder's boys continue as they are. Think Basset's sides also need to be included in this debate.
Currie has always been regarded as one of or the greatest player in our history but for me it was always Alan Woodward, what a player.

And to be fair to TC, he’d probably agree with you. I’ve heard him acknowledge Woody as the best player he ever played with, which is quite something when you consider who he played in the England team with - Keegan, Brooking etc.

 

[Silent Blade]

It always annoys me when Blades fans forget Dave Powell when naming the best X1 from 1969 to 1975. Flynn played only 9 league games in the 1970-71, 23 in 1971-72 and 18 in 1974-75 seasons

 

[Silent Blade]

Special mention for Keith Eddy in the 1974/75 team that was close to play europe 4 pts behind winners Derby, (mind that year only 8pts between 1st and 10th) Eddy was calmness and played CH and CMF, Furphy stated he'd love two Eddy's, one in defence and one in midfield. Did he miss any pens? think he took over from Woody that season.

Yes in the 5-1 defeat at L**ds in Sept 1974 and in the 4-1 home defeat against Man U in Dec 1975

 

[tomtheblade]

The football industry is one of the most brutal meritocracies in the world.

Generation upon generation of millions of kids dreaming of becoming pros, playing every spare minute of every day. Some of these get an opportunity to join a club at a young age, a tiny minority of these are offered a pro contact and an even tinier minority of this already super selective group actually play at a high level throughout their career.

Each of the top clubs these players play for spends tens of millions of pounds every season trying to eke out any and every possible advantage they can to get ahead of the competition.
Fitness regimes, diet & nutrition, data and statistical analysis, huge technological advances in sports science, wider and more comprehensive scouting methods, tactical innovations which start as revolutionary become commonplace before being exploited for their weaknesses and evolving into new types of play.

The data we have from any team will always be from their own era: wins, losses, draws, shots, possession etc, and we can look at a 5-0 win by a side in the 70s, compare it to a 5-0 win by a modern side and exclaim how both were exciting and both teams were a joy to watch.

However, underneath the subjective interpretation of a performance are raw numbers.
How fast can a player run and for how long, what's their recovery time, how hard can they hit a shot and how accurately. How high can they jump, how strong are they whilst maintaining speed, how quickly can they turn, how agile are their feet when dribbling the ball.
In terms of team play, how long do they spend training together to form reproduceable patterns of play and cement understandings of each other on the pitch.

A team that can outrun, out-endure, outjump and outplay the opposition whilst passing and dribbling around them at will due to superior technical skills, all of these governed by the above attributes and more, will reliably beat a side with lesser ability in these areas.

Individual teams or players can deteriorate or fall apart, but the overall trajectory across the game is unquestionably upwards. The meritocracy is just too demanding for it to be otherwise.

We will never know what an actual result between two sides from different eras would look like, but just because we don't have a definitive answer doesn't mean we can't make an educated assessment based on the data and attributes that universally govern good performance within the game. It's a fair assumption that a top modern side would beat its equivalent from 1/2 generations ago, and the further back you go the clearer the distinction would be.
I've seen some replies stating that modern players couldn't cope with older pitch conditions, weight of ball, foul play etc. Whilst this would make it more difficult for the modern side it's hard to imagine this fully compensating for the advantages they'd enjoy in every other area, and if you'd like a fairer comparison simply split the difference between eras and imagine them playing a game in a time in between the two. ie a team from the 60s vs a team from the 90s playing in mid 70s conditions or median equivalent.

I've also seen people saying that if older players had access to modern coaching and facilities they'd be just as good as their contemporaries. Perhaps, but instead of being reasons why they could potentially be as good, these are really just more reasons why a modern side would be superior.

The 100m sprint world record time has steadily gone down over the decades. It may well be that way because of better tracks, coaching, conditions, investment, technology etc. But 9.58 does not care that the 9.90 won 2 decades earlier came under more adverse conditions. Both are incredible and deserve appreciation, but only one is better.

 

[The Vicar]

Memories EH!

Penultimate game of the season, Cardiff at home, sat in the top of the cricket pavilion with my dad [now 97] - we won 5 - 1, & on theSaturday clinched promotion by beating Watford 3 - 0, on a blistering hot day! What a team1