When did we last have a better team ?

[PeterNdlovu081]

The Referral Unit beckons...

No actual response then?

 

[Pinchy]

No actual response then?

Not at 2-58 on match day, no. Too busy supporting my team. In any event, I don’t dance to your tune. That’s your job,

Tell me, why are you so fond of rubbish football?

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Not at 2-58 on match day, no. Too busy supporting my team. In any event, I don’t dance to your tune. That’s your job,

Tell me, why are you so fond of rubbish football?

I'm fond of winning football.

You've admitted that winning football and good football are one and the same.

So I guess we must be on the same page.

 

[oldblade]

That’s fine but falls into the usual trap of distinguishing between good football and winning football. The truth is they are one and the same. The best footballers play for the best teams. They win the matches, leagues and trophies. They play the most attractive football and they succeed. Hoofers play grotesque football and fail. The days of the ragamuffin upanatem underdogs went out with the demise of Wimbledon. No loss to football there. Mourned only in S2.

It really is time to accept that this debate was won and lost a very long time ago and continues nowhere else but here. It’s embarrasing.

Cavemen, please shut your eyes...

Football won. Reep, POMO Hughes, Bassett, Beck and SemiPro were soundly beaten.

“Proper football. The Right Way”

Chris Wilder.
Manager, Sheffield United F.C.

I always knew you were a closet Warnock and Blackwell fan. After all, winning football and good football are one and the same.

 

[Pinchy]

I'm fond of winning football.

You've admitted that winning football and good football are one and the same.

So I guess we must be on the same page.

Far from it. I love players who caress the football like it’s an extension of their being. You like players who chase around like kids in the playground, kicking it as long, hard and high as they can. We couldn’t be further apart, thank Pele.

Here we are, top of the league, playing some sublime football. Proper football, the right way. Yet two minutes before kick off in the match that would propel us to the top. you want to perpetuate an argument on the internet?

Pathetic. You have your grotesque anti-football and enjoy it. Don’t bring it to me. I’m above that shite.

 

[Blade82]

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Far from it. I love players who caress the football like it’s an extension of their being. You like players who chase around like kids in the playground, kicking it as long, hard and high as they can. We couldn’t be further apart, thank Pele.

Here we are, top of the league, playing some sublime football. Proper football, the right way. Yet two minutes before kick off in the match that would propel us to the top. you want to perpetuate an argument on the internet?

Pathetic. You have your grotesque anti-football and enjoy it. Don’t bring it to me. I’m above that shite.

You haven't got a clue.

Chris Wilder is my favourite Blades manager of all time. Or at least, the manager I've enjoyed watching most in my lifetime.

If you actually took the time to read my posts instead of filling in the blanks with your imagination you'd realise the following.

Never have I once said that Warnock or anybody else had a better style of play or been more enjoyable to watch than Wilder.

All I've ever said is that Blackwell's, Bassett's and Warnock's achievements in the game of football are greater than Wilder's.

I'll repeat it again, IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

P.S. There's no such thing as hoofball.

 

[oldblade]

At last, someone acknowledges the obvious. Well said. This team gets respect and admiration. Under Bassett and Warnock other teams would dismiss us as nothing more than a ‘style of play’ and it wasn’t a compliment. They were always able to say they were beaten by a system rather than talent.

Of course S2 parochials will glory in ‘nobody likes us, we don’t care’ but sensible Blades who enjoy the considerable advantage of coherent thinking, do care.

I trust the evidence of my eyes. We are playing infinitely better football than any United team since the Harris days. This lot beat even them in one important detail. They turn up and play with hugely impressive consistency. Better footballers win more games, win more points, win more trophies. Not only is that an unassailable proposition, it is to be hugely welcomed that we now have more than our share of better footballers as opposed to the upanatem, ragamuffin underdogs that a disturbing minority of our fans risibly continue to prefer.

Only in S2.

Are we? How do you quantify that?

Give me some evidence that the football is better, such as a promotion to the premier league, or four consecutive seasons in the premier league.

I would agree that the football is generally more attractive than it has been for a long time, but that is a completely subjective opinion. Does attractiveness mean it is better? Maybe time will show that it is - if we get promoted to the premier league and finish higher than 9th.

 

[oldblade]

You haven't got a clue.

Chris Wilder is my favourite Blades manager of all time. Or at least, the manager I've enjoyed watching most in my lifetime.

If you actually took the time to read my posts instead of filling in the blanks with your imagination you'd realise the following.

Never have I once said that Warnock or anybody else had a better style of play or been more enjoyable to watch than Wilder.

All I've ever said is that Blackwell's, Bassett's and Warnock's achievements in the game of football are greater than Wilder's.

I'll repeat it again, IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

P.S. There's no such thing as hoofball.

Very well put.

 

[Roygbiv]

This felt like the right thread to post this view from a Villa fan

 

[Pinchy]

Are we? How do you quantify that?

Give me some evidence that the football is better, such as a promotion to the premier league, or four consecutive seasons in the premier league.

I would agree that the football is generally more attractive than it has been for a long time, but that is a completely subjective opinion. Does attractiveness mean it is better? Maybe time will show that it is - if we get promoted to the premier league and finish higher than 9th.

Nonsense. Outside the back woods of S2 there is a clear concensus as to what is good football and what isn’t. It is so well defined that people routinely speak of ‘playing football’. Nobody takes that phrase literally and nobody is in any doubt what it means. Also in general use, especially by our own manager, are the phrases ‘proper football’ and ‘the right way’. Again, there is no doubt what these phrases mean, at least beyond the end of Shoreham Street.

This is hard work, but I’ll keep trying.

 

[oldblade]

Nonsense. Outside the back woods of S2 there is a clear concensus as to what is good football and what isn’t. It is so well defined that people routinely speak of ‘playing football’. Nobody takes that phrase literally and nobody is in any doubt what it means. Also in general use, especially by our own manager, are the phrases ‘proper football’ and ‘the right way’. Again, there is no doubt what these phrases mean, at least beyond the end of Shoreham Street.

This is hard work, but I’ll keep trying.

As usual you don't address the question put to you or come up with any meaningful evidence. You just talk down to people. You really are a thoroughly dislikeable person.

I don't know why you bother to come on a forum like this when your mind is closed to any point of view except your own.

You ought to emigrate to Russia and try and become Yeltsin's right hand man. You'd fit right in.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Are we? How do you quantify that?

Give me some evidence that the football is better, such as a promotion to the premier league, or four consecutive seasons in the premier league.

I would agree that the football is generally more attractive than it has been for a long time, but that is a completely subjective opinion. Does attractiveness mean it is better? Maybe time will show that it is - if we get promoted to the premier league and finish higher than 9th.

I do find it strange that so many people (not just the usual outlier) are saying this team is better than Bassett’s.

Better than the team that finished 9th in the top division?

Better than the team that won 8 successive Premiership matches?

Better than the team that regularly got results against the biggest and best clubs in the land?

More attractive to watch if you like but not quite obviously not a “better” team. Yet.

 

[DaleHillBlade]

I LOVE how Wilder can be stubborn in some ways and yet demonstratively willing to learn and adjust. He has every right to be proud, and does so without a hint of arrogance. He might not (yet) be as successful as some predecessors, but is without the best manager (for the reason given). And I say that without a hint of Bladey Bladeyness.

 

[Harrisblade]

I do find it strange that so many people (not just the usual outlier) are saying this team is better than Bassett’s.

Better than the team that finished 9th in the top division?

Better than the team that won 8 successive Premiership matches?

Better than the team that regularly got results against the biggest and best clubs in the land?

More attractive to watch if you like but not quite obviously not a “better” team. Yet.

But would the biggest and best clubs in the land THEN get anything fom the biggest and best clubs NOW?

 

[tomtheblade]

Generally speaking, modern teams are quantifiably superior to older teams in every way we know that matters to making a difference in a football game. Fitness, strength, speed, flexibility, tactical awareness, passing accuracy, shot power etc.

The differences are small the nearer in time the two teams are apart, but the gap grows larger the further you go back, and it's the same in all sports - athletics, tennis, you name it.

It's like saying Messi is inferior as a player to a striker who won the world cup in 1930, because the former has never won that tournament. Just watching Leo play tells you all you need to know, never mind his incredible stats everytime he takes to the field.

All the excuses given for why this is so - equipment, training regimes etc, are simply just more reasons why contemporary players are better. Sure, it's not the historical players fault that they didn't have access to those resources so we can't hold it against them, but it shouldn't prevent us from making the fair assessment that on a broader scale the modern game produces players of higher quality.

It's the reason why Usain Bolt is the fastest man in history, not just 'in the recent past'.

 

[Pinchy]

As usual you don't address the question put to you or come up with any meaningful evidence. You just talk down to people. You really are a thoroughly dislikeable person.

I don't know why you bother to come on a forum like this when your mind is closed to any point of view except your own.

You ought to emigrate to Russia and try and become Yeltsin's right hand man. You'd fit right in.

The rich irony being that you don’t address anything I say in the post to which you now respond. There is no “point of view” about what professionals mean when they use the phrases I have cited. It’s crystal clear. They are talking about pass and move played on the ground; not kick and rush played in outer space. You may not like it. That’s your point of view. What isn’t in doubt is that the overwhelming majority of those in the game don’t share it with you.

 

[oldblade]

Generally speaking, modern teams are quantifiably superior to older teams in every way we know that matters to making a difference in a football game. Fitness, strength, speed, flexibility, tactical awareness, passing accuracy, shot power etc.

The differences are small the nearer in time the two teams are apart, but the gap grows larger the further you go back, and it's the same in all sports - athletics, tennis, you name it.

It's like saying Messi is inferior as a player to a striker who won the world cup in 1930, because the former has never won that tournament. Just watching Leo play tells you all you need to know, never mind his incredible stats everytime he takes to the field.

All the excuses given for why this is so - equipment, training regimes etc, are simply just more reasons why contemporary players are better. Sure, it's not the historical players fault that they didn't have access to those resources so we can't hold it against them, but it shouldn't prevent us from making the fair assessment that on a broader scale the modern game produces players of higher quality.

It's the reason why Usain Bolt is the fastest man in history, not just 'in the recent past'.

I don't disagree with you, but modern sides are competing in the league now, not 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Their success or failure is measured in exactly the same way that it was in the past - by league position and trophies won.

Whether they are good or not depends on how they measure up to the teams they are competing against. This Wilder side has so far reached upper mid-table in the championship. Warnock, Bassett and Harris sides achieved more against their contemporaries. However, Wilder is still our manager and the side is still evolving so it is obviously possible that things could change.

It is quite probable that most of our teams from the past would lose to a Wilder team. But that is irrelevant. Wilder's sides are competing now, not then. His success is measured in how well his sides do now, just as those sides were measured in how well they did back then. Bassett's side played at a higher level than any Wilder side and in 1991-2 it finished 9th. Warnock had a side that reached two cup semi finals and finished 3rd in the championship. 3 years later he had a side that got promoted. Both of those side were better in their time than Wilder's has been up to now.

And to be honest I think it is far from certain that Warnock's promotion side or the 2002-3 side would lose to this Wilder side. But that is a subjective opinion and can never be proven one way or the other.

I'm also not so sure that players from the past were unable to shoot as powerfully as those in the present. I would say that Woodward's shot (and he's just one example) was as vicious as any current player that we have. Currie's pass accuracy would also stand up today.

 

[oldblade]

The rich irony being that you don’t address anything I say in the post to which you now respond. There is no “point of view” about what professionals mean when they use the phrases I have cited. It’s crystal clear. They are talking about pass and move played on the ground; not kick and rush played in outer space. You may not like it. That’s your point of view. What isn’t in doubt is that the overwhelming majority of those in the game don’t share it with you.

The irony is purely in your head.

Who said anything about kick and rush, or playing football in outer space? Please refer me to any of my posts where I have held that up as an example of good football. For that matter, please show me any other poster who has extolled the virtues of that type of football.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

But would the biggest and best clubs in the land THEN get anything fom the biggest and best clubs NOW?

Fergie’s Man Utd team of the early 90’s is better than the current Man Utd team for one

If we’re honest, our current team has yet to prove they can get consistently good results against the best teams in The Championship (Wolves, Cardiff, Fulham, Middlesbrough)

 

[tomtheblade]

I don't disagree with you, but modern sides are competing in the league now, not 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Their success or failure is measured in exactly the same way that it was in the past - by league position and trophies won.

Whether they are good or not depends on how they measure up to the teams they are competing against. This Wilder side has so far reached upper mid-table in the championship. Warnock, Bassett and Harris sides achieved more against their contemporaries. However, Wilder is still our manager and the side is still evolving so it is obviously possible that things could change.

It is quite probable that most of our teams from the past would lose to a Wilder team. But that is irrelevant. Wilder's sides are competing now, not then. His success is measured in how well his sides do now, just as those sides were measured in how well they did back then. Bassett's side played at a higher level than any Wilder side and in 1991-2 it finished 9th. Warnock had a side that reached two cup semi finals and finished 3rd in the championship. 3 years later he had a side that got promoted. Both of those side were better in their time than Wilder's has been up to now.

And to be honest I think it is far from certain that Warnock's promotion side or the 2002-3 side would lose to this Wilder side. But that is a subjective opinion and can never be proven one way or the other.

I'm also not so sure that players from the past were unable to shoot as powerfully as those in the present. I would say that Woodward's shot (and he's just one example) was as vicious as any current player that we have. Currie's pass accuracy would also stand up today.

Yeah I agree with you that success is measured that way, I just think that quality is not. A 100m sprinter 50 years ago would have been successful (i.e. gold medal winning) with a time that he now would not be so. I guess that this partially comes down to the inherent vagueness of the term 'good', or 'better'. For Currie/Woodward etc, there will always be individual players whose stats would hold up long past their time, but it's safe to say the general trend is in one direction.

I think measuring the league success and achievements is a fine way of assessing how well those teams have done in a comparison, but there are other ways of looking at it which enable us to further appreciate the qualities of the players now here. Nearly every week we have fans on here talking about the best football since the Harris era. They're clearly not talking about league position, since we're a division below where we were then. Clearly there's something other than league position alone that people care about. The quality of the side, in a sense that is removed from pure league position, clearly matters to people.

I don't think it's irrelevant that teams from the past would lose to a Wilder side, I find it to be an interesting discussion which brings to light the ways in which the game has moved on. Maybe its irrelevant to you in this particular debate as to which team is better, fair enough, but i'm more interested in looking at it from a broader perspective, I don't care that much about arguing which particular team is better really

 

[Harrisblade]

Fergie’s Man Utd team of the early 90’s is better than the current Man Utd team for one

If we’re honest, our current team has yet to prove they can get consistently good results against the best teams in The Championship (Wolves, Cardiff, Fulham, Middlesbrough)

You don't think that this seasons team is already better than last seasons team?

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

The irony is purely in your head.

Who said anything about kick and rush, or playing football in outer space? Please refer me to any of my posts where I have held that up as an example of good football. For that matter, please show me any other poster who has extolled the virtues of that type of football.

Just ignore him, he's an idiot.

He's completely unable to give any evidence of anybody ever saying that they enjoy kick and rush football or the mythical hoof ball.

Like I said earlier in the thread, he's trying to win an argument against a group of people who don't exist. It's bizarre.

 

[oldblade]

Yeah I agree with you that success is measured that way, I just think that quality is not. A 100m sprinter 50 years ago would have been successful (i.e. gold medal winning) with a time that he now would not be so. I guess that this partially comes down to the inherent vagueness of the term 'good', or 'better'. For Currie/Woodward etc, there will always be individual players whose stats would hold up long past their time, but it's safe to say the general trend is in one direction.

I think measuring the league success and achievements is a fine way of assessing how well those teams have done in a comparison, but there are other ways of looking at it which enable us to further appreciate the qualities of the players now here. Nearly every week we have fans on here talking about the best football since the Harris era. They're clearly not talking about league position, since we're a division below where we were then. Clearly there's something other than league position alone that people care about. The quality of the side, in a sense that is removed from pure league position, clearly matters to people.

I don't think it's irrelevant that teams from the past would lose to a Wilder side, I find it to be an interesting discussion which brings to light the ways in which the game has moved on. Maybe its irrelevant to you in this particular debate as to which team is better, fair enough, but i'm more interested in looking at it from a broader perspective, I don't care that much about arguing which particular team is better really

I think there are two ways of viewing a side. One is by how successful it is and the other is by how attractive or entertaining it is to watch. In an ideal world the two go together, but often they don't.

I think those that talk about a side being the best they've seen since the Harris era are probably talking about our style of play and the fact that it is now a pleasure to watch.

In the not too distant past Kevin Blackwell was our manager. He had a pretty good win rate and one of his sides finished third in the championship, winning almost half it's games and losing only 10. I would argue that side was better than the current Wilder side and may well have beaten a Wilder side. It achieved more, but it gave me very little pleasure from watching it! It was certainly not entertaining.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

You don't think that this seasons team is already better than last seasons team?

Yes I do but we have only played one of the the current top eight so far (and lost)

Scant evidence on which to call this our best team ever

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Both Bassett and Warnock were/are part of our history. I don’t like slagging either of them off. But in hindsight it was all very basic stuff indeed. You can see why nobody really rated us as a football team and why it’s taken so long the shake off the “long ball” tag.