League 2 Team of The Year

[Yorkshire Blue]

PFA team of the year voted by the players themselves usually is realistic.

No it isn't.

I don't think voting is even restricted to players in the same division so players vote for their mates or based on past reputation. Players will have come up against an opponent at most twice a season. It may work for the EPL where some players will also watch televised games but in L2 it is voting based on 2 games out of 46 which is a terrible way to decide. Plus if you're a left-back you might have a good sense of how the opposition right-winger performs in those two matches but you're not well placed to judge the opposition left-back who's 70 yards away through a load of bodies and you're still voting on.

 

[mfurok]

No it isn't.

I don't think voting is even restricted to players in the same division so players vote for their mates or based on past reputation. Players will have come up against an opponent at most twice a season. It may work for the EPL where some players will also watch televised games but in L2 it is voting based on 2 games out of 46 which is a terrible way to decide. Plus if you're a left-back you might have a good sense of how the opposition right-winger performs in those two matches but you're not well placed to judge the opposition left-back who's 70 yards away through a load of bodies and you're still voting on.

Spot on.

Much better to rely on spreadsheets, iPads and training timesheets than listen to silly old footballers.

 

[Blue Yonder]

In 1966 England won the World Cup. In 1967 Scotland beat England and claimed (tongue in cheek) to be the best team in the world. Now we have people doing the same kind of ludicrous black and white data analysis and actually believing it. If Phil Brown comes into your world and you think thank goodness for someone talking sense you know that what went before was total nuts.

 

[LBBlue]

That makes no sense as all those players that are in the “teams of the year” were in academies at one point and in 3/5/7 years time there’ll be a bunch of 27 year old that were 19/20/21 now. I’m sure you’ll argue that premier league academies are producing tippy tappy non contact technically good players that aren’t fit for the hurly burly of league 2. I’d say that the players not making it at premier league academies are dropping into league 2 and just taking some time to adjust and learn the game. Which is why they’re 24/25 or older before “we” notice them or appreciate them as any good. My bet is pretty much all of the players standing out in league 1/2 have been at some decent academies and are technically the better players.



Rubbish. I’m sorry but that’s complete rubbish. You think it’s a one size fits all? The average age of a premier league debut is 23. Much the same as a championship debut. So for every Phil Foden there’s a debut at 26.....

Most 20 year olds are far from regulars in any of the divisions. The reason being is players at that age are inconsistent and cannot maintain levels week in and week out of 46 games.

Some players develop early and some late which is why the fa extended the u21s to being u23s. If you can’t understand the early and late development whether it’s physical or technical or maybe just down to luck or opportunity, then you can’t have any experience of youth development at elite levels. Some players who will star in league 1 teams may not even get released from a Cat 1 academy until 22, then spend 2 years trying to get league experience or even drop into non league before becoming a regular in the EFL at 24/25.



It’s nothing to do with the standard dropping so the players who stay fit stand out. It’s because the natural process of elite sport is the maturation of the skills required to perform improve with experience. The reason players ‘peak’ at 28/29 is the fine balance between becoming proficient technically and tactically and still having the peak physical condition before the natural decline begins. Of course there are player who prolong their physical condition longer and there are some who’s technical brilliance allows less physical prowess to be needed ie a player who doesn’t rely on speed will find his tech all ability prolongs his career longer than someone not technically great but was blisteringly quick at 24.



Yes players are athletically at the best they’ve ever been now with sports science and dietary information the way it is. But they are also more skilful than ever before. If you saw the level of ability in even the worst academies you’d know that technically footballers are at a level now, never seen before. The physicality and athleticism makes the standard higher than ever not lower.



Yes I agree that most young players with talent that have broken into EFL teams are getting picked up by championship and premier league clubs. Of course this explains a little towards why the teams of the year are older. But you’ve missed my point massively which wasn’t about there being no good young players, but about the fact that most players aren’t hitting high levels until mid twenties or older while we have wasted time writing off as not good enough and criticising teenagers!!!!



League 2 yes. I’ve watched a lot of league 1 football this year and the gulf from that to league 2 is huge however there are some very good sides that would not disgrace the championship.

Overall, as I say, you’ve missed my point. It wasn’t to discuss the lack of quality in young players it was to point out some fans may do well to bare in mind their age and realise these are just kids still learning and it’s clear from the stand out performers that it’s not until you’re over 24 that you can really judge where their level is.

Of course as a practitioner you are entitled to justify the practitioner's position. A lot of us spend time justifying our own existence in a job. However I don't think my views as a consumer and critical friend are rubbish - they are a conclusion I make considering the evidence. Like all things football evolves - not necessarily for the better.

These are the pen pictures from the team in 1966/67 -our first season in Div 4 - notice how short they are. These days most teams have 5 or 6 6 footers -with some around 6ft 3and 6ft 4. They occupy a lot more pitch and than players 55years ago. That's the increase in athleticism and size -pitches have not increased in size nor the size of goals.




As for youngsters -29 years ago -probably one of our finest ever 11s and their ages on New Years Day 1992 when they beat Newcastle 4-0 to go top of the second division.

Sansome 30, Austin 21, Scully 21, Prior, 20 Powell 22, Jones 26, Tilson 25, Cornwell,27, Ansah 22,Angell 23,Benjamin 30, Subs Locke 21,Butler 25.

7 out of 13, 23 and under.

There are always the exceptions that make it later Steve Tilson being the prime example here, but in the main players are now shielded from proper football unless they really are good enough.

If the gap between League 1 and the championship isn't that great why is it that 2 out of the three promoted sides inevitably get relegated the next season and those that get relegated
get promoted.


Football has to become exciting again i.e. more than one shot every 30 minutes, and much less boring and predictable with sides just waiting to prey on a mistake and if there are no mistakes its 0-0.

 

[mfurok]

Of course as a practitioner you are entitled to justify the practitioner's position. A lot of us spend time justifying our own existence in a job. However I don't think my views as a consumer and critical friend are rubbish - they are a conclusion I make considering the evidence. Like all things football evolves - not necessarily for the better.

These are the pen pictures from the team in 1966/67 -our first season in Div 4 - notice how short they are. These days most teams have 5 or 6 6 footers -with some around 6ft 3and 6ft 4. They occupy a lot more pitch and than players 55years ago. That's the increase in athleticism and size -pitches have not increased in size nor the size of goals.


View attachment 15479

As for youngsters -29 years ago -probably one of our finest ever 11s and their ages on New Years Day 1992 when they beat Newcastle 4-0 to go top of the second division.

Sansome 30, Austin 21, Scully 21, Prior, 20 Powell 22, Jones 26, Tilson 25, Cornwell,27, Ansah 22,Angell 23,Benjamin 30, Subs Locke 21,Butler 25.

7 out of 13, 23 and under.

There are always the exceptions that make it later Steve Tilson being the prime example here, but in the main players are now shielded from proper football unless they really are good enough.

If the gap between League 1 and the championship isn't that great why is it that 2 out of the three promoted sides inevitably get relegated the next season and those that get relegated
get promoted.


Football has to become exciting again i.e. more than one shot every 30 minutes, and much less boring and predictable with sides just waiting to prey on a mistake and if there are no mistakes its 0-0.

Post of the year to date.

 

[OllieSteph44]

I’m not sure how any of that relates to the point I was making ?‍

Expecting young players to be regulars and excel in league 1 and 2 teams (especially shockingly bad ones where they’ve been asked to carry the baton) isn’t fair. Players don’t start to fulfil potential until 23/24 even 25. Criticising them and claiming they’re non league standard when they’re 19 / 20 is a joke amd my point was, that this was emphasised by the stand out players in the teams of the year are, in the main, over 25.

I’m good friends with a Premier League player who I coached at 18.....he’s now 26 and only this season become a regular and only now at 26 does he believe he belongs there and has belief in his ability. 26! He will probably only play at that level for 4 more seasons!

On the size thing...yes players have got bigger, more athletic, more physical. They’ve also become more tactically aware, better coached and technically a million time better. Footballers now are better than ever before.

 

[OllieSteph44]

I don't think my views as a consumer and critical friend are rubbish - they are a conclusion I make considering the evidence

The only view I labelled as rubbish (and apologies it wasn’t meant as personal as it may have come across) was the one suggesting that unless you we’re a regular by the time you are 20/21 then you wouldn’t make it. The evidence suggests quite heavily, otherwise.

 

[Stuart W]

I’m not sure how any of that relates to the point I was making ?‍

Expecting young players to be regulars and excel in league 1 and 2 teams (especially shockingly bad ones where they’ve been asked to carry the baton) isn’t fair. Players don’t start to fulfil potential until 23/24 even 25. Criticising them and claiming they’re non league standard when they’re 19 / 20 is a joke amd my point was, that this was emphasised by the stand out players in the teams of the year are, in the main, over 25.

I’m good friends with a Premier League player who I coached at 18.....he’s now 26 and only this season become a regular and only now at 26 does he believe he belongs there and has belief in his ability. 26! He will probably only play at that level for 4 more seasons!

On the size thing...yes players have got bigger, more athletic, more physical. They’ve also become more tactically aware, better coached and technically a million time better. Footballers now are better than ever before.

"Footballers now are better than ever before". Then please explain this.
I have been watching Southend United since 1967, and in those 54 seasons I believe 25 have been spent in the bottom division.
Without a doubt I would say that this season I have been "priveleged" to see the worst standard of football I have ever seen. I am also not clouding my judgement on the travails of my own club; with the possible exceptions of Cambridge (second half at Roots Hall), and Tranmere Rovers, the standard of football by our opponents has barely been any better than ours (the difference invariably being that they played with a genuine striker) and is comparable at best to many non-league games I have seen in the past 40 years.
To say that the footballers we have seen on IFollow in the last 8 months are technically a million times better and coached better than ever before, is frankly insulting our intelligence.
I know crap when I see it, and this season we have had a whole sewer full of it.

 

[OllieSteph44]

Just because everyone else has improved more does not mean others haven’t improved. And of course there are always exceptions in any generalisation.

However, I firmly believe that any side in an equivalent division now would beat any side from 1967! Of course I'm not saying a side that was in the first division in 1967 would be worse than a side in the 4 division now. It has to be relative.

But I’ll say it again, this wasn’t my point. My point was that we have been very critical of young players (some more scathing than others), particularly our own which we naturally see more often, and our opinion of them is tainted by perception based on our own frustrations and disappointments of our current position. But players aged 23 and below are rarely the stand out performers particularly when having pressure heaped on them and asked to lead a team out of trouble instead of being nurtured and surrounded by good experienced players.

The teams of the year demonstrate that.

 

[mfurok]

Just because everyone else has improved more does not mean others haven’t improved. And of course there are always exceptions in any generalisation.

However, I firmly believe that any side in an equivalent division now would beat any side from 1967! Of course I'm not saying a side that was in the first division in 1967 would be worse than a side in the 4 division now. It has to be relative.

But I’ll say it again, this wasn’t my point. My point was that we have been very critical of young players (some more scathing than others), particularly our own which we naturally see more often, and our opinion of them is tainted by perception based on our own frustrations and disappointments of our current position. But players aged 23 and below are rarely the stand out performers particularly when having pressure heaped on them and asked to lead a team out of trouble instead of being nurtured and surrounded by good experienced players.

The teams of the year demonstrate that.

I can unequivocally assure you that our 1967 team would stuff our current lot and play far more attractive football at the same time.

 

[OllieSteph44]

I can unequivocally assure you that our 1967 team would stuff our current lot and play far more attractive football at the same time.

Weren’t they a promotion side that just dipped away towards the end of season?

So like I said, it needs to be relative. Our side this year is unusually poor for the level. However I still think you would be surprised. Of course the levels can never really be measured and it’s all hypothetical but the physicality and the fitness would bridge a big gap and I maintain the training levels are entirely different.

And anyway....it really wasn’t my initial point which was young players are written off too quickly when the teams of the year demonstrate the stand out players are much more experienced ?

 

[Stuart W]

I can unequivocally assure you that our 1967 team would stuff our current lot and play far more attractive football at the same time.

But the point about coaching that OS made giving modern day sides the edge does hold true on a few points.
For instance, players were never coached in 1967 to:-

1) take the ball in to the corner with 5 minutes to go to protect their lead.
2)"take one for the team", by the way one of the most negative, destructive comments in football.
3) writhe in agony with alleged "cramp" in the last few minutes, but again, only when your team is winning.
4) encourage your goalkeeper to fall on the ball and cradle it like a baby, after he has made a simple catch, but (yes you have guessed it), only when your team is winning.
5) if injured, make out it is a head injury, not only to guarantee the ref stopping play, but also in the hope that your opponent may get sent off.

Yes, the game in 1967 was hard and physical, with it's fair share of bad fouls, but the cynicism and dirty tricks are of a more recent generation and I am sure today's players would benefit in a huge way over their 1967 predecessors, using all of the above (and more) from their "professional footballer's toolkit"

 

[The Eternal Optimist]

T Conlon any relation to Barry Conlon.

He has a big bald head and gormless expression so it is possible ?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Of course as a practitioner you are entitled to justify the practitioner's position. A lot of us spend time justifying our own existence in a job. However I don't think my views as a consumer and critical friend are rubbish - they are a conclusion I make considering the evidence. Like all things football evolves - not necessarily for the better.

These are the pen pictures from the team in 1966/67 -our first season in Div 4 - notice how short they are. These days most teams have 5 or 6 6 footers -with some around 6ft 3and 6ft 4. They occupy a lot more pitch and than players 55years ago. That's the increase in athleticism and size -pitches have not increased in size nor the size of goals.


View attachment 15479

As for youngsters -29 years ago -probably one of our finest ever 11s and their ages on New Years Day 1992 when they beat Newcastle 4-0 to go top of the second division.

Sansome 30, Austin 21, Scully 21, Prior, 20 Powell 22, Jones 26, Tilson 25, Cornwell,27, Ansah 22,Angell 23,Benjamin 30, Subs Locke 21,Butler 25.

7 out of 13, 23 and under.

There are always the exceptions that make it later Steve Tilson being the prime example here, but in the main players are now shielded from proper football unless they really are good enough.

If the gap between League 1 and the championship isn't that great why is it that 2 out of the three promoted sides inevitably get relegated the next season and those that get relegated
get promoted.


Football has to become exciting again i.e. more than one shot every 30 minutes, and much less boring and predictable with sides just waiting to prey on a mistake and if there are no mistakes its 0-0.

Players have definitely got taller that's not a surprise but what is, is the weight of them. I think modern players may be lighter, even before taking into account how much taller they are.

 

[LBBlue]

Players have definitely got taller that's not a surprise but what is, is the weight of them. I think modern players may be lighter, even before taking into account how much taller they are.

Modern day players certainly play as if they are lighter - you just have to blow on them and they fall over.

Players’ weights don’t seem to get published much these days.

According to Soccerbase JD is 5ft 9 and 11 stone which is similar to Graham Birks in 66. John White apparently is 6ft and also 11st.

Players with less athletic body shapes could thrive 60 years ago as there was more space and time. Bobby Smith centre forward in Spurs double winning side was a archetypal burly - 5ft 9/10 and 12st 11lbs. He never said I felt contact so I went over....


Akinfenwa is I understand 5ft 11 and 16 stone..... he doesn't go over easily either.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Modern day players certainly play as if they are lighter - you just have to blow on them and they fall over.

Players’ weights don’t seem to get published much these days.

According to Soccerbase JD is 5ft 9 and 11 stone which is similar to Graham Birks in 66. John White apparently is 6ft and also 11st.

Players with less athletic body shapes could thrive 60 years ago as there was more space and time. Bobby Smith centre forward in Spurs double winning side was a archetypal burly - 5ft 9/10 and 12st 11lbs. He never said I felt contact so I went over....


Akinfenwa is I understand 5ft 11 and 16 stone..... he doesn't go over easily either.

I would be interested to know from those who have watched since the 60s whether the difference was greater from the 60s to the early 90s or from the early 90s to the current day.

Football has certainly developed substantially since I started watching. Players are fitter, faster and run more but the biggest difference is in their technical ability. Back when I started someone would get a round of applause for controlling a difficult pass as it was such a rarity, now that's taken for granted and there are only groans if they are unable to instantly control a 60 yard ball with their first touch. Defenders are probably more skilled now than attackers were back then.

The funny thing is that whilst technically, tactically, athletically it has all vastly improved in that time I actually think the product is somehow worse