sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would any of today's players be able to play 60 years ago if they had to drink and smoke before a game? I rest my case.
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 17 minutes ago
sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't a lot of modern players go partying to all hours. Hardly a healthy lifestyle. So many modern players getting accused of sexual impropriety. Hardly conducive to being a good clean professional footballer.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I have already said I don't acknowledge Prem records. Just records from 1888, when the league started.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I have already said I don't acknowledge Prem records. Just records from 1888, when the league started.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's your right. Hopefully you accept the same right of other people not to compare records of different eras since it doesn't make much sense to them and then we see an end to these articles where you claim records don't exist etc.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy chickened out of meeting me last year at the Freemason's Arms in Hampstead.
He's just a lot of noise and never to be believed!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy chickened out of meeting me last year at the Freemason's Arms in Hampstead.
He's just a lot of noise and never to be believed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL may have actually helped if I was in London on the same day as you, you doughnut. Had you laid on a private jet for me, I would certainly have been in the public bar for opening time.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Ted don't post stuff that could end up getting you into trouble.
Calling posters liars who you have never met, is one such case.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you Brummie. I am not the one talking about Spurs spending money in the 1950s. The money Spurs spent back then was minuscule compared to the vast amounts Chelsea are throwing around now. And you know it. Stop trying to deflect.
Sorry Ted, you are accusing me of lieing. I'm not having it. Bye.
https://thepfsa.co.uk/football-history/
That link ahould answer most questions. Apparently at one stage it got banned because entire villages used to play each other over a "pitch" about 2 miles long and there were virtually no rules. Consequently people actually died playing, obviously a Ronaldo dive would not have helped much in those days
Another ban was because it took focus away from military training
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 16 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you Brummie. I am not the one talking about Spurs spending money in the 1950s. The money Spurs spent back then was minuscule compared to the vast amounts Chelsea are throwing around now. And you know it. Stop trying to deflect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the money spent back then was miniscule compared today, what do you think I’m trying to tell you? Do you have no comprehension of inflation? Whether you like to admit it or not. Tottenham were paying more than average for players in the 50s and 60s, you even continued to accumulate star players in the 80 and 90s that became famous for not being able to chalk a league victory over Chelsea for a generation.
You played your part in the escalation of spiralling transfer fees – did you raise your concerns when Tottenham broke the transfer record to pay £1 short of £100,000 for Jimmy Greaves as long ago as 1961? No – of course you didn’t.
The truth is you’re an old, moaning whinge bag, bitter that the financial landscape has changed over the years and Tottenham have been saddled by owners that don’t care enough about the club to supply the investment you crave.
Sign in if you want to comment
I was sitting in the pub with some
Page 2 of 2
posted on 22/8/23
sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would any of today's players be able to play 60 years ago if they had to drink and smoke before a game? I rest my case.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 17 minutes ago
sandy
I think the issue the game has changed. Would Greaves be able to play at all today? He like a lot of players at the time was a heavy drinker and smoker. Sure he had talent, but he was a functional alcoholic, unless he could learn how to control that he would be terrible in today's football.
Bobby Moore was an unusual exception, that famous photo of him and Pele, one of the very few players from that era that looks like a fit modern day athlete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't a lot of modern players go partying to all hours. Hardly a healthy lifestyle. So many modern players getting accused of sexual impropriety. Hardly conducive to being a good clean professional footballer.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
posted on 22/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
posted on 22/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I have already said I don't acknowledge Prem records. Just records from 1888, when the league started.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
posted on 22/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
posted on 22/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I understand why it's difficult to compare eras but the part I find most weird is that Shearer's league goals for Southampton aren't added to his top flight tally of 260. He's actually got 287. Not adding those goals on the basis of a name change is just absurd. The competition was still the same. I get that it's difficult to compare Greaves to Shearer or Kane but to take away someone's top flight goals from their tally is just weird. I'm surprised Shearer doesn't bang on about it to be honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the league games shortened by four games early 90s for starters, meaning less poorer sides and less games but the main reason is when comparing eras you need a specific place to begin and end, unless you start saying 'from 1988...' etc, which doesn't really sound right. So people say PL record. I don't really see the issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not from 1888 when the league started? That makes more sense. And also does not airbrush out 100 years of football, and some of the greatest players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly it doesn't airbursh out 100 years of football, it's literally stated PL record, not all time record. The all time records are still acknowledged, just not compared. Secondly why? I already explained why. It doesn't make sense to compare records from different eras due to huge changes in the game. Even comparing the 80s with the 90s doesn't make much sense since you had more league games in the 80s and more poorer sides to score against, with less of the worlds best players concentrated in only a few leagues. Host of other changes, subs, increase of subs, diets, fitness, medical science, balls, boots, tactics. The list is endless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I have already said I don't acknowledge Prem records. Just records from 1888, when the league started.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's your right. Hopefully you accept the same right of other people not to compare records of different eras since it doesn't make much sense to them and then we see an end to these articles where you claim records don't exist etc.
posted on 23/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy chickened out of meeting me last year at the Freemason's Arms in Hampstead.
He's just a lot of noise and never to be believed!
posted on 23/8/23
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
posted on 23/8/23
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
This entire article is built on a fallacy, as if any of us believe Sandy has any pals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plenty mate. Just not on JA606 though. I am a very popular guy within my circle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As if!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, as we have never met, then you will just have to take my word for it. I have a very large circle of friends. Just not on JA606. Although I have met Genius and Edbo off the board at WHL. Very nice fellas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy chickened out of meeting me last year at the Freemason's Arms in Hampstead.
He's just a lot of noise and never to be believed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL may have actually helped if I was in London on the same day as you, you doughnut. Had you laid on a private jet for me, I would certainly have been in the public bar for opening time.
posted on 23/8/23
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 23/8/23
Ted don't post stuff that could end up getting you into trouble.
Calling posters liars who you have never met, is one such case.
posted on 23/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
posted on 23/8/23
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 24/8/23
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you Brummie. I am not the one talking about Spurs spending money in the 1950s. The money Spurs spent back then was minuscule compared to the vast amounts Chelsea are throwing around now. And you know it. Stop trying to deflect.
posted on 24/8/23
Sorry Ted, you are accusing me of lieing. I'm not having it. Bye.
posted on 24/8/23
https://thepfsa.co.uk/football-history/
That link ahould answer most questions. Apparently at one stage it got banned because entire villages used to play each other over a "pitch" about 2 miles long and there were virtually no rules. Consequently people actually died playing, obviously a Ronaldo dive would not have helped much in those days
Another ban was because it took focus away from military training
posted on 24/8/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 16 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 15 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 9 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
These days one of the most overlooked facts (when looking at footie history) is that in Jan 1961 the maximum wage was abolished.
From that point onwards the bigger/richer clubs were always gonna take over and thats why the trophies were spread around so much more up until then.
That's what makes Spurs 61 double such a great achievement, it hadn't been done since 1897 and was very much the holy grail in those days. Unlike today when it seems like a financially doped club does it every other season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Load of rubbish - that 61 team were expensively put together in relation to the time.
You were the cheque book Charlie's of the period!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, Billy Nicholson purchased just three players in three seasons, White, Brown and Mackay. The rest of the team were assembled from 1952.
Unlike modern Chelsea who purchase three players in every three minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you like to go back as far as 2003 with Chelsea to suit your agenda.
And you're not even right about just the three you mentioned!
Typical Sandy - you'd make a great politician!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK will throw in Les Allen as well. Spurs never purchased anymore players than any other clubs over that period. Just purchased well.
Compared to how many players Abramovich purchased and now Boehly, Spurs hardly spent a penny or purchased a player.
As a previous supporter said Spurs Double of 1961 was hugely unique because football was so much more competitive back then, however you care to dress it up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't including Les Allen (Although he did very well for you) in the role of honour as he was a part exchange deal with Johnny Brookes with us!
You may have purchased well but you purchased expensively for the period - more lavishly than most clubs of the time, hence you had a reputation as cheque book Charlies in the 50s and 60s.
And only a total idiot would try and compare the spending of football clubs back then to the present era!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be you Brummie. I am not the one talking about Spurs spending money in the 1950s. The money Spurs spent back then was minuscule compared to the vast amounts Chelsea are throwing around now. And you know it. Stop trying to deflect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the money spent back then was miniscule compared today, what do you think I’m trying to tell you? Do you have no comprehension of inflation? Whether you like to admit it or not. Tottenham were paying more than average for players in the 50s and 60s, you even continued to accumulate star players in the 80 and 90s that became famous for not being able to chalk a league victory over Chelsea for a generation.
You played your part in the escalation of spiralling transfer fees – did you raise your concerns when Tottenham broke the transfer record to pay £1 short of £100,000 for Jimmy Greaves as long ago as 1961? No – of course you didn’t.
The truth is you’re an old, moaning whinge bag, bitter that the financial landscape has changed over the years and Tottenham have been saddled by owners that don’t care enough about the club to supply the investment you crave.
Page 2 of 2