Definitely Finney because there aren't many great left wingers to choose from. I think Gordon Banks will win the vast majority of the votes as well. If it wasn't for Bobby Charlton, I think Scholes would be pretty unanimous as well.
Not sure if this is the most suitable thread but here is an attempt to summarise what might be perceived as the “informed consensus” on an all-time England XI. GK: Gordon Banks. Clear majority despite Shilton’s impressive club career. RB: Jimmy Armfield. Not a lot of competition here. Those citing the trophy cabinets of Phil Neal and Gary Neville will politely be told that they were not in the same class. LB: Plenty of candidates on the other side of defence. The order of popularity is debatable but may read something like: Hapgood, Wilson, Cole, Byrne, Pearce then various others. The strongest claim ought to come from Ernest Needham, a left-half in the old 2-3-5, but the equivalent of a wing-back today. Needham was regarded as one of the two or three greatest footballers in Britain, and hence the world, at the turn of the twentieth century, a time largely forgotten by football historians. The others have never been rated as highly. CB: Bobby Moore. Unanimous. CB: No clarity on the identity of the second central defender. Bobby Moore was universally known as an excellent reader of the game, timer of tackles, and distributor out of defence. But he was not very strong in the air, and his partner will need robust stopping qualities.From the Premier League era, the likes of Adams, Campbell and Terry could do a decent job. So could Rio Ferdinand, a rather more refined operator. From the post-war period, Billy Wright was short of stature but effective in the air and a long-serving stalwart for club and country. Neil Franklin was taller with good heading ability and distribution to match Moore and Ferdinand. He succeeded Stan Cullis, another with a useful mix of style and substance. For a dozen years before the first world war Bob Crompton was acknowledged as the leading defender in the country and an outstanding captain. He played right-back in the pyramid system, which is central defender in today’s parlance. Crompton was not renowned for his heading but it was no issue in those days as the ball was usually kept on the ground. Where does all this leave us? Perhaps with the conclusion that Franklin was the best footballer, Crompton the most deserving of inclusion, and Wright the narrow favourite. DM: Many all-time England teams include Duncan Edwards in this position, with Bryan Robson on standby. Both were very strong, tackled well and possessed fine all-round skills, but they did like to get forward. Some selectors pick them both so that one can hold while the other advances. They would probably make it work better than the real life combinations involving Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham and Scholes. Unlike these and so many others, Robson was at his best for England. Over the years English national sides have looked better balanced with a dedicated defensive midfielder, such as Stiles or Butt, but neither is likely to be considered here. RW: Stanley Matthews. Unanimous. AM, LW or Forward: Bobby Charlton will definitely be included, but it is not certain where. The 2 or 3 remaining creative/attacking players. The number of remaining places will depend on whether Robson accompanies Edwards. It could be two or three. Either way there will not be much agreement, a reflection of England’s indifferent tournament record. First there are the club legends, touted as the very best in their positions, who disappointed on the biggest international stage. Finney and Greaves are prime examples. And on a slightly lower level, Keegan and Shearer. Buchan made only a few international appearances, but that was the selectors’ fault rather than his. Of the specialist goal poachers, Bloomer and Lineker never let England down. But they tend to be ranked behind Greaves. With Matthews on the wing delivering pinpoint crosses, aerial power needs to be considered. Dixie Dean? The perceptive Stan Cullis rated Lawton the better centre-forward, conceding little to Dean in the air while proving sharper on the ground and bringing others into play. This last skill was mastered in the early days by John Goodall and the famous amateur G.O. Smith. For subtlety, intelligence and creation of space, Smith could be our man. Raich Carter was also said to carry space around with him and was used to linking effectively with Matthews. Bastin is an option on the left wing. A personal preference would be for Edwards and Robson as twin pillars, Matthews on the right, Charlton on the left, and Smith and Lawton up front. But I have never seen this combination in print or online. What consensus there is would be more likely to exclude Robson, then play Matthews and the versatile Finney on the wings, Charlton through the middle, and Greaves up front with one other, possibly Lineker. It was noted when looking at Brazil’s all-time team that a high proportion of players would probably come from the 1950s and early 1960s. With England it is likely that a similar number, if not more, would be included from this time. But whereas Brazil can point to two World Cup wins as justification, England made little impact on any of the four World Cups of the period and her clubs never threatened to win the European Cup. 1966 apart, the international tournament record since then has remained modest. And the implication is that England’s all-time XIs do not look far enough back into the past.
CB: If Booby Moore is already a fine distributor, and one needs a pure defender to partner him, Sol Campbell is surely the obvious choice. Neither Terry nor Adams come close to him. Ferdinand is sometimes preferred because he's a cover defender, and also better ball user. However, if Moore already does that job, Sol must be the preferred partner. LB: Not a fan of picking players from the days when top level sports were more like middle-school where the best athletes just played everything. You're also wrong about Cole. When he retires, he'll be regarded as one of the best ever. He is already considered the best in the EPL era, and one of the best in the 21st century. LW & AM: With Stanley Matthews on the right, it would seem to make sense to put Finney on the left. Double knights! Even Brazil has Zico and Luis Pereira, both of whom didn't win the World Cup, in a team full of World Cup winners. However, if Bobby Charlton is to be used as a left inside-forward (would combine well with a marauding fullback like Cole) then I'd argue for Paul Scholes. Easily the best attacking midfielder of the EPL era, and is widely regarded by his peers as the best in the world as well. ST: I'm not so sure who to go for, especially if it's only one. My vote would go to either Shearer or Greaves, since they're the two best goal-scorers I can think of. It's interesting how if instead of England XI, it was UK XI, or even just Great Britain XI, the problematic positions would just disappear. The English teams historically have always depended on the class of the Scots, Welsh, and (both) Irish to push them to the next level. Scotland can provide a proper DM in Graeme Souness. Wales and N.Ireland can offer a unanimous left-wing and striker choices in Giggs/Best and John Charles. If we want to play a more continental style, Danny Blacnhflower can also be that cultured deep-lying playmaker. If Ireland was to be included as well, then Roy Keane would walk into the team miles ahead of any other options.
Really interesting post - thanks. I would put a little doubt on the 'unanimous' (or even near unanimous) selection of Matthews as right winger just because of the number of people from the time and some in hindsight (although the percentage of them supporting Preston North End might need to be looked at!) that say actually Finney was better and/or more complete. So if Finney does not get the left wing slot, there would be some giving him the right wing slot if you know what I mean. The author of 'The All-Time World Cup', himself English although he researched plenty for other nations, did see Matthews as a shoe-in and Finney not and cited Finney not being held in the same regard over the world as he hadn't shown his best form in World Cups (how close Matthews got to that is probably debateable too though?). In that book, Finney was selected as left winger but Charlton was indeed used in all 3 roles in the 'fantasy tournament' the book played out, with Finney being left out at times so that indeed Edwards and Robson would be central midfielders (I'm thinking it wasn't you who wrote it lol! But in case it was, I can say it was an enjoyable and informative read at a time I was really starting to get into football history). My own choice if I hand the team-sheet in now, and the time machine is ready, would have Charlton in central midfield with Edwards backing him up I think. Matthews and Finney as wingers, and Lineker and Greaves as attacking partnership (although I often favour more of a support striker in a partnership in a 4-4-2 or 4-1-3-2, I think Greaves could do enough of what an alternative English player would do, and I'd at least be wanting to see how it worked with him alongside Lineker. Plus most of the chance creating and incision can come from midfield and the wings).
[shameless plug]I have recently uploaded the season reviews I found in "Playfair Football Annual" for the following seasons, which deal with domestic English football but also with international performances of English clubs which might be interesting to read concerning the above quote. [/shameless plug] 1961-62 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review7.pdf 1962-63 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review8.pdf 1963-64 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review9.pdf 1964-65 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review2.pdf 1965-66 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review3.pdf 1966-67 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review4.pdf 1967-68 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review5.pdf 1968-69 http://www.historical-lineups.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Season-Review6.pdf
I don't think Charlton with Edwards would work. Not enough defensive solidarity there. The reason Robson and Edwards are usually chosen together is because neither are true DM by nature.
I'm naturally inclined towards creativity/attacking ability but from what I read about Edwards he'd be an asset and far from a liability on the defensive side. His wing-half position was primarily a DM position, with less players in defence too (although I know for England he took the role of the more attacking wing-half more often, wheras at Man Utd the other wing half was the creative Eddie Coleman and Edwards was the more defensive one). I think Robson was arguably more box to box than Edwards but could be wrong. I feel Robson as a pure DM might be a bit wasted really.
That's the point. Both Edwards and Robson would be wasted as a pure DM. The idea is to play them together so one can cover for the other, both with the athleticism to cover the pitch. If you play Edwards with Charlton, Edwards would never get to go forward.
I know what you mean to an extent, but I am more creative/attack minded for one thing (neither of us is 'wrong') but also I feel Edwards might be able to contribute something to attack even when not expected to be making many runs forward off the ball. In theory him and Charlton could also be box to box, but I'd favour using him as the anchor probably (as much as it's a bit uncertain because we have limited info/footage) in order to give slightly more freedom to Charlton and the wingers. I think he'd be every bit as good as a more limited DM would be defensively maybe, but with the added bonus of being more complete as a better overall footballer. Robson probably could do a job sitting back (I know you're not suggesting him yourself for that role) but to get something great from him going forwards I feel he'd need to be making off the ball runs moreso than Edwards. That's my best explanation for my rationale anyway. I think Edwards might be too good a player to leave out. But he is actually my most defensive midfield option probably (which sort of makes him a shoe-in in a way potentially).
To be fair I wouldn't dismiss the idea Shearer could be optimum choice, given Matthews and Finney supplying crosses (although I think they could also supply the sort of service Lineker thrived on). Maybe I'd prefer the idea of a support striker with him even more though, or Charlton or perhaps Finney himself (or Gascoigne even - if we're talking prime form I'd have him and Hoddle in the squad I think personally ) in a free role between midfield and attack. Shearer might not be as good a poacher as Lineker or Greaves, but his heading and volleying capabilities (and striking from around the edge of the box) could be very useful. If talking a British XI I might put Dalglish in as the second striker (with options on the bench in case it wasn't working) but then the added pace of Lineker or Greaves, or even his old mate Rush, might become a better fit than Shearer. I'm not sure to what extent we look at potential partnerships and what extent what we consider to be outright the best players with these fantasy XI's.... Just so that I add an on-(main) topic post here is an old diagram I did for all-time Brazil (and Argentina): If I was putting in Garrincha instead of Ronaldinho then I guess I'd move Pele to inside left and Garrincha to floating right wing (a bit like he ended up playing in 1962).
Many of the English teams I have seen pair Charlton and Edwards in central midfield. How well it would work is another matter. Charlton’s playmaking qualities were not appreciated by everyone (eg Brian Glanville). It was nice of you to ask but no I didn’t write the All Time World Cup book! An interesting read as you say. The author appoints Ramsey manager then speculates on the teams he would choose. Jack Charlton starts at centre-half and Ray Wilson at left-back, then Greaves is dropped after one game. Like most pundits he largely ignores those who had retired before 1950. This is an issue with all-time England. Blocking out most of the country’s footballing history because it had yet to enter a World Cup and there were few moving pictures seems illogical, and by definition teams selected on this basis are not all-time. When a future FA president said in 1906 that Needham and G.O. Smith were two of the three greatest match winners he had ever seen, it must mean something. Matthews v Finney is an interesting one. The fans loved Matthews and his fame spread worldwide. British players and managers tended to prefer Finney, who was seven years younger, more of an all-round footballer, and more likely to give the ball back once it had been passed to him! Finney’s global reputation is harder to assess. Would he be viewed in Buenos Aires or Rio in a similar way that the British view Sastre, Walter Gomez and Ademir da Guia? And the opinions of even the most respected figures in the game can be tricky to pin down. When Alex Ferguson was asked around a dozen years ago who the best players were that he had ever worked with, without hesitation he named Bryan Robson and Roy Keane. But recently, after his various spats with Keane, he said that he had only managed four great players: Cantona, Ronaldo, Giggs and Scholes. Ashley Cole is the outstanding English left-back of the EPL era, but his decision not to engage with the media seems to have contributed towards his receiving less than his due from that quarter. How much that will change when he retires for good remains to be seen. An all-time British Isles team could be worth pursuing later. No doubt it will provoke plenty of arguments!
Just to be sure but I guess you mean this quote? (I remembered something to that effect and started looking around a bit) Do you perhaps know the original source/newspaper where he said that? In the way he says there, but perhaps you're thinking of something else, that seems quite harsh to me. I can see his stock raising when he has some space to dribble and transition the ball quickly (as opposed to regimented defenses around the penalty area) but I felt the pace and precision of the passes itself tended to be quite dangerous.
Puck - The quote I have for Glanville on Bobby Charlton, given below, says much the same as yours but with different wording. The source is The Story of the World Cup [Faber and Faber , 1993 Edition] P 136. There are several editions of this book. The first was called The Sunday Times History of the World Cup, and the next two The History of the World Cup, so our respective quotes probably come from different editions. The quote below compares Charlton with Johnny Haynes. “A naturally more gifted player in terms of technique – though Haynes’s ball control was often undervalued – he had none of Haynes’s vision of play, eye for an opening, great strategic sense. His long, powerful crossfield passes were usually cause for a delighted roar at Wembley, but often they were merely lateral and spectacular, making no real impact. Yet his sinuous ability to beat a man with a lovely swerve could set problems to a defence which then found itself obliged to commit another defender, while his glorious shooting when he did come forward was a harbinger of goals.” The Cullis comparison of Dean and Lawton came from Jack Rollin’s Soccer at War [Collins, 1985]. I consulted the book in a London library many years ago and made notes rather than copying out quotes. Cullis basically said that Dean and Lawton were the two leading old-fashioned English centre-forwards, and that he favoured Lawton. The reasoning was that Lawton was little behind Dean in the air, while on the ground he was quicker to bring the ball under control and shoot before defenders could get to him. Both scored a lot of goals but Cullis felt that Lawton was more of a team man and better at bringing others into the game.
GK: GILMARCB: CARLOS ALBERTO CB: DOMINGOS RB: DJALMA SANTOS LB: NÍLTON SANTOS CM: FALCAO CM: DIDÍ CAM: ZICO RW: GARRINCHA LW: PELÉ CF: RONALDO
I think you will find there isnt' that much agreement if you speak with younger people... Anyway, there's no doubt Brazil could form 5 different squads and almost every player in those squads would be world class - no other nation in the world can claim to be able to do the same. GK: really is Gilmar much due to his resume, but many say Leao was technically the best of all. RB: most would go for Djalma Santos, but picking Carlos Alberto Torres and Cafu wouldn't cause too much disagreement. Leandro, Nelinho and Jorginho would all have a few votes as well. LB: Nilton Santos almost unanimous, although you correctly make a point for Roberto Carlos. Let's not forget Junior has a lot of followers as well. CB: Domingos da Guia (although I personally do not like to pick pre-50's players). CB: Too many choices. Agree with you: but many would throw in Luis Pereira, Mauro Ramos and even Aldair. DM: Danilo Alvim was a CM, not a DM (I threw in the name of Danilo Alvim to Dearman and now it seems to have spread around)... so he's out. So are Falcao and Cerezo (also CM's). Zito would get most of the votes, without a doubt (did you the see them paying homage to him at Copa America when he died earlier this year? What other DM would receive that kind of attention?). CM: Didi unanimous, although Falcao and Gerson would gather a lot of votes as well. I'd include Ademir da Guia (and Danilo Alvim - pre 50's), but unfourtunately they are not as well known as the other three. The other 4 are the usual: Zico, Garrincha, Ronaldo and Pele. Agree Zizinho could be mentioned (but pre-50's players usually get overlooked - I personally choose not to include them at all in my evaluations). Answering your first question, Brazil 58-62, in terms of player per position, is the strongest squad Brazil has ever assembled, even though Brazil 70 gets more acclaim due to how well they performed at the WC. But, IN THEORY, Brazil 58-62 was the strongest squad ever and many Brazilians (including Zico) agree on that. It had world class players in almost every position, except perhaps for the left wing (Zagallo).
That wouldn't be a problem. Barcelona plays with only one winger (Neymar) on the left. Messi is not truly open on the right and Suarez is centralised - and look at what Barcelona are doing right now. Not a problem at all to have just one player open in the wing. A lot of modern teams are playing like that. (Besides, if Neymar carries on like that, I'll be forced to add him on the left into my Brazil all time squad anyway and make it a 4-2-4, dropping Zico, and making it Didi-Garrincha-Pele-Ronaldo-Neymar).
And yet Brazil all-time D-team would probably be in the same level as those nations' all-time A-teams (except maybe for Argentina).
Tough to leave out Garrincha. But even if I had to leave him out and add in another midfielder, it wouldn't be Ronaldinho - it would be Rivellino (just as talented, but more consistent throughout his career). The only slight disagreement I have is Cafu in the place of Djalma Santos and I'm not sure I would choose Carlos Alberto as a CB. Nice to see the set-up against Argentina. I guess it's fair to say Argentina has the second best all-time squad out of all countries. Better GK and CB than Brazil, Brazil has better RB and LB. The rest is pretty even, except that Brazil has Ronaldo, who is infinitely superior to Kempes. Brazil "wins" by a small margin, in my opinion (and obviously Brazil has far more options for B-Team, C-Team, D-Team, E-team than Argentina). Nice post!
I'd sill go for a DM. This looks too offensive without someone to protect the midfield, in my humble opinion...
None of Zico, Ronaldo, or Pele played on the left though. It's not like any of them were ever described as an inside-forward. If your all-time team included Neymar or Ronaldinho then that's understandable. As things stand, one of Brazil's 3 all-time greats have to play out of position on the left. Now, that might still be the best solution, but it doesn't change the fact that one of them has to play in an unfamiliar position. Challenge accepted! Create a Brazil all-time D Team (show at least 3 superior players in each position) and show us it's actually better than the European Nations' A-teams.
Thanks mate - yeah I tend to focus on peak more than anything and I suppose I also feel Ronaldinho fits better as a forward than Rivelino (who had better longevity for sure, although consistency in peak I don't know). Brazil has a choice of a few of the all-time top RB's I suppose. I felt that Argentine XI would give a good match to Brazil in theory indeed, although whether I think of them as 2nd I'm not sure - teams like France, Holland could make a pretty special XI and teams like Italy, Germany have often been successful and could mould a team from the best of those who'd brought that success. I don't really think Argentina's team would be 'inferior' to any teams, even Brazil's in general terms though.
To be honest though I can't say I agree with this! Maybe the 'B' Team at a push I dunno! No doubt there will be some Brazilians I don't fully appreciate or even know much about at all that had great qualities, although I guess the same is true for you and some other nations. It is fair to suggest Brazil's first XI is the best (even if some might build a different case or have a different feeling) and it's also factual that Brazil have had the most success on the world stage. I still feel Pele might well be the best player ever too. But Brazil D vs France A goes to France for me for example (on paper and I'd think in theory if such teams had played a few times on the pitch).
Of course, they did. Not Ronaldo, who was a striker... but Pele played as a forward to the left and Zico as a midfielder slightly more open to the left as well. We're talking about great players who didn't remain static on the pitch. I'll make a comparison with nowadays Barcelona: Zico would play where Iniesta plays (AM), Ronaldo would play where Suarez plays (CF), Garrincha would play where Neymar plays (only he would be on the right instead) and Pele would play where Messi plays (but slightly on the left - not as a winger - just like Messi plays slightly on the right). _____________DIDI_______________ _________________ZICO_________________________INIESTA_________ _GARRINCHA__________PELE______________MESSI______________NEYMAR ____________RONALDO________________________SUAREZ____________ Not a problem at all. As for the challenge. I wont' make full squads now, 'cause it would take too long; but I'll give you some positions where Brazil would have dominance: RB: Djalma Santos, Carlos Alberto Torres and Cafu - all 3 are in the Top 5 greatest RBs of all time worldwide. And you'd still have Leandro, Nelinho, Jorginho... not to mention contemporaries like Maicon and Dani Alves (both were the best RBs in the world for a few years). LB: Both Nilton Santos and Roberto Carlos are usually in the top 3 greatest ever (together with Maldini) - and you still have Junior, who is somewhere in the Top 10. CM: Didi is widely reagarded as the greatest CM in history. And you'd still have Falcao, Gerson, Ademir da Guia, Toninho Cerezo, Carpegiani.... I mean, Gerson was one of the most important names in Brazil'70 (regarded as the greatest squad ever) - and he would still be only included in the C-Team. AM: Zico, Rivellino, Rivaldo, Socrates, Ronaldinho, Dirceu Lopes... pick one - any of them would be good enough to be in the A team (I didn't even have to mention the likes of Kaka and Rai and a few others...). FORWARD: soooo many.... Pele, Garrincha, Tostao, Evaristo...this is probably the position with the biggest amount of options. STRIKER: Ronaldo probably the greatest ever number 9. Romario amongst the top 5 greatest ever worldwide. Then you still have Reinaldo, Careca, Roberto Dinamite, Coutinho... quite a few names there as well... You can definitely make at least 4 squads full of world class players. And there would still be some left behind...
Hmm.. Gotcha, mate. We'd have to make full teams, but that would be hard work. It's common saying in Brazil, up until mid-2000s that Brazil could always take 2 or 3 different squads to every World Cup and still be highly competitive. It's just the amount of great players is too big. I have no doubt Brazil C-Team at least would still be full of stars. Guys like Gerson, Junior, Ronaldinho, Careca/Reinaldo would all be in it. But I guess it is a bit subjective. Anyway, I talk a bit about this in the post right above.
Yes, I think they'd be full of stars (moreso than any other NT I do think indeed). I feel it might be a stretch to say as good as some other 'A' Teams, but I didn't mean to say it wouldn't be a highly impressive 'D' Team by anyones standards (maybe in the all-timer/world class category to a good extent yeah).