Loyalty

[cornwallwhite]

Was just listing 2 leeds programmes on ebay and noticed that even though there is a 4 year difference in dates, 1968 and 1972. the team line ups were almost identical. Clarke for Cooper were the only differences in the line ups. Cant see that happening with todays clubs aand players :nono:

[nozer]

Totaly agree,the old adage used to be ......never change a winning team.

[WileBrownAstle]

Yep shame there are so many players swapping clubs over the last few years.
_________________
Please check out my wants list

[sharrowblade]

cornwallwhite wrote:

Was just listing 2 leeds programmes on ebay and noticed that even though there is a 4 year difference in dates, 1968 and 1972. the team line ups were almost identical. Clarke for Cooper were the only differences in the line ups. Cant see that happening with todays clubs aand players

Quite remarkable.

By an amazing coincidence, during the same period, no side that faced Leeds, .....ever managed to play an unchanged side the following week.

[goonerboy]

It was certainly a different era. A while ago I read Gordon Banks' autobiography and he was discussing various rumours during his playing days about him moving clubs. He did highlight a very pertinent issue from that time...wages. By and large most clubs paid the same wages. Initially because of the maximum wage but even afterwards only a few players commended premium wages while the rest were pretty much in the same wage bracket. Also the impact of bonuses was a lot bigger than today eg can't see someone on £50-60k a week caring too much about a few extra quid for a win.

The other thing I now feel is a big miss is first teamers playing in the reserves. In the good old days when a player was dropped from the first team matchday squad or was coming back from injury he would turn out for the stiffs. These days (the premier teams anyway) have a virtual youth squad as their reserves and the first teamers never get near the reserves. But how good would it be to go along to a reserve game and see cesc fabregas or rio ferdinand etc having a run out. The good old days.

[Kickoff3pm]

I do wonder why in the 1970s player could play 60 games a season and not a word about resting them was bought up. Seems to me todays players spend so much time rolling about on the ground they shouldn't need a rest.

As for staying loyal ? some stayed because of loyalty but others stayed because they had no choice. No freedom of contract, no real power within there contracts meant they never knew when clubs come in for them. In those days football was still being run as a gentlemens club for directors so players were not tapped up so much either.

Long gone are the days when supporters had breakfast with Albion players in the a local cafe before the game. But myself I don't think for one minuite past players would have accepted the cash these players are being offered.

The thing with loyalty is you can only really see it once it's past and today not many players are even wanted for more then a few seasons so loyalty doesn't come into it.

Personally I think the turnover in players is far to high. Managment is now often about what players you can buy to improve the team not what tactics or other improvements a manager could make.

[mark01]

Interesting thoughts kickoff - you refer to the 70s and I guess we must be around the same age.

The 70s - yes the players could play a lot more games, patch 'em up and get them out there! Replay some of those games now, have a look at the big games take World Cup finals 74 and 78, yes, entertaining, but its like watching the action in slow motion. Yes the players were fit - 1970s fit! We've moved on in every respect, players fitness, new stadia, better facilities, programmes, etc - thats what investment brings to the game.

Loyalty, yes, most players were local lads, who usually married local girls, settled down in the area and were happy with their lot. Top players earned top money and dont let anyone tell you different, they were well looked after, even then.

You say players would not have accepted present players wages - come on!

It's great to look back to our youth and think those times were the best ever - it's only natural, but you've got to move with the times.

One thing you didn't mention, violence, thuggery, hooliganism - rife in the 70's and early 80s - now disappeared completely. At least that's one thing we can be proud about today.

[Kickoff3pm]

mark01, sorry I meant they WOULD have accepted the wages today, sorry that,s a problem I seem to have.

I agree about the speed of the game, but for me that not a good thing. Playing with beach balls and keepers being able to kick the ball over the bar - at the other end - is not the kind of football I want to watch.

Footballs a easy game but made difficult be technology. Players get injured more, have to run fast, be taller and cheat today. The first two is not because the pace of the game but simply because the change of ball design. The last one is a result of the first two, because the game is so fast the officials can't keep up and often not even tv cameras can workout if a foul was made.

If you asked me if I would rather see Theo Walcott out run a full back for the ball and chip the ball into the far corner from 30 years or Willie Johnstone slowly drag the ball back and then past the full back twice or three times and then pull the ball back - I know which one I would choose.

I don't actually think footballers need to be as fit as they are. I don't think it makes the game better.