Good point made about Bobby Moore, that he was a better player for England.I remember him in the West Ham team when they played Leeds at Elland Road and John Giles is quite correct, because Leeds usually outplayed them and of course Moore didn't stand out, but when he turned out for England he definitely raised his game and was different class.
Interesting that Giles played with Robson would have thought they were different generations it was one of those crossing moments Giles was near the end and Robson was just emerging
The Baggies never really recovered from the loss of both Giles, Atkinson Addidon, Cunningham and Robson; these are the sorts of people you build teams around. It just showed the lack of ambition of Millichip and Lucas.
They both joined West Brom the same year, Robson was 18 and debuting while Giles was 35 and starting to wind down his Premiership career (he'd actually keep playing till 1983 with Shamrock Rovers)
As an England supporter i would have to think carefully about who I'd choose. I have been watching football since i was nine in 1970. However, without question the first name, and the only name i don't have to think about, that I'd put on the teamsheet would be Bryan Robson and he'd be Captain too.
I'd include a couple of pre-60s players as they would definitely have played into the 60s: Gordon Banks Roger Byrne, Duncan Edwards, Bobby Moore, Ashley Cole. Bobby Charlton, Bryan Robson, Paul Gascoigne. Tom Finney, Jimmy Greaves, John Barnes.
Its criminal his comments on Shearer. Best striker ever to come out of England for me, he's just contradicting himself big time, Shearer would have scored ten times more if he'd gone to Man U
*Paul Scholes* was ten times the player that Gascoigne was. Zidane, Guardiola, Iniesta, Henry... they're not all raving about Gazza, but, parochial English football fans after a few beers are.
Scholes was played out of position way too much for England. I'm sorry but Gascoigne was great for England in the 1990 world cup and Euro 96. I can't remember Scholes making that kind of impact for England in a major tournament? I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument.
@@barrysmale8060 Scholes had a far more glorious career than Gaza. Playing well in a tournament in 2 games verses a career of winning at the top level does not compare. Gaza also played in a better England team than Scholes did so that is where the comparisons end. If Gaza had of played for Liverpool or Man Utd we would probably be talking about him in a different light but he did not so we can only judge what we can see.
@@barrysmale8060 Scholes won 11 Premier league titles and two Champions leagues. Gascoigne won an FA cup for Spurs and two Scottish league titles with Rangers. Scholes scored 120 career goals and Gascoigne scored 90 with half of those goals scored in a lower leagues. There is no comparison in their careers so you can either accept the facts or cry.
I thought that too, but you'd need to get the ball past that midfield four - good luck. i agree with the Johnny Haynes selection though; than man was Zidane before Zidane, a complete central midfield player. It's a shame that John Charles wasn't English.
I can't get this Scholes obsession. He was a decent player, but Ferguson didn't start him when he was young. And no England manager really rated him. Give me Finney, charlton, robson, Gascoigne, Gerrard any day.
Scholes won 11 English premier league titles, 3 fa cups, 2 champions leagues. It is not Pauls Scholes fault that he played in a dour English national team that would not even play him in his natural position. Scholes played against the best players in the world and came out on top on many occasions. Sholes played 66 times for England and Gascoigne played 57 times.
You must have poor eyesight then mate. The reason he didn't get straight into the Utd team was because he suffered badly with asthma. It took time to build his lungs up to the pace of the Premiership. As for controlling a game, I have never seen anyone better. Souness is the only player who probably runs him close. As for England, for some reason, all the managers wanted to play 3 players, when there was only 2 positions for them. So the team was always unbalanced. It was criminal what they did to Scholes, and England totally wasted a good opportunity
@@richardbaker3000 Does not really change my point he was not proven as a big match winner as he never played for the best. He repeatedly turned Utd down as he value his lifestyle with Southampton more.
Sorry, anyone says Stuart Pearce is ahead of Ashley Cole is wrong. Ashley Cole in his prime was the best left back in the world. Stuart Pearce was just known in England.
@@bighands69 Agreed. I'd have picked Pearce every day of the week ahead of even Ashley Cole , or even Terry Cooper. His temperament was way better as was his defending.
Cole ! So overrated by so so many. A total liability. He spent half the match on his backside, and as for his right foot, a total joke. There's no wonder the England team as never done anything, when the majority think lads like Cole are top players
My all time England 11... 3_5-2 formation GK. Shilton CB. Ferdinand CB. Moore CB. Pearce DM. Robson (C) RM. Beckham CM. Gascoigne CM. Scholes LM. Charlton CF. Rooney CF. Greaves Subs 1. Seaman 2. Gerrard 3. Adam's 4.Shearer 5. Lineker 6. Keegan Manager Sir Bobby Robson
gazza dfiferent league to Scoles, Le Tiss a few tricks haha 20 to 30 goals a season genius, hoddle ?Barnes, Harrsh on Hurst he was getting 25 goals a sason, great striker, no width, to be fair a decent team yeah who needs fullbacks, Tom finney maybe?
When Scholes was played in his rightfully position he was often England's best player . The game against France in euro 04 been a perfectly example when he completely ran the game and the idiot sven took him off and France ran riot.
Ha! That's because, notoriously, he was never utilised by England in the right position. England should have built the team around Paul Scholes, if you did, you might have won something.
The english media was obsessed with england having no left wing players so it became a big deal and what England did was play Scholes as a left sided winger because he was the type of player who could play anywhere on the pitch.
@@bighands69yeah I agree. I think a 4-1-2-1-2 could have worked with Gerrard playing in the hole behind rooney as it was where he played his best with liverpool behind torres.. Scholes and Beckham/lampard could have been be the 2 in centre midfield if there was someone to hold in front of the back 4. Michael Carrick was criminally underused by England and was brilliant in that role for united for years. Ledley king and nicky butt also as more out and out defensive options.England have had plenty of attacking full backs so width wouldnt have been an issue either.
@@mrpotato442 A good central midfield player can play in any formation. Gerrard was a better attacking player and rafael benitez used Gerrard as an attacking player rather than a central midfield player for Liverpool. Lampard was the same in that Chelsea never used him in central midfield and used him more for his goals scoring and attacking play. If England had of used Scholes as a central midfield player and the Gerrard in attack it would have been better. Scholes retired from England due to being misused.
@@bighands69 couldn't agree with you anymore on Scholes. England should have built the midfield around him as he was the best midfield player - not moving him out to the left wing to accommodate Lampard and Gerrard. Hard to blame him for retiring when he new Svens pecking order.
Great team - Think Rooney is lucky - If England has got to a final I would agree. Formation was considered but I would put Gasciogne in there every day of the week. You could move Scholes into the hole instead of Rooney and put PG in there!!
@@stephenobrien5909 In his younger years yes but in his older years he was masterful in possession . His game against Holland in Euro 96 being a perfect example .
@@greengrass811 That game against Holland was the only decent performance that England played. They was garbage in the rest of the matches. Go and watch them if you don't believe me
Rolling stone Messi Ronaldo etc have never had to play against the hatchet men greaves did neather would have scored as many as greaves look at the old videos of sixties and seventies and you will C what I mean
*I'm not English* so let's get that straight, I'm neutral on this. But here's my English team: 1. Shilton. 2. Pearce. 3. Ferdinand . 4. Moore (maybe Terry). 5. B.Robson. 6. Scholes. 7. Charlton. 8. Gascoigne. 9. Sheringham. 10.Rooney. 11.Greaves (his goal scoring record for England is amazing).
I know it is pure speculation but would Maradonna have scored that famous long range goal against England in 1986 World Cup had Bryan Robson been on the field.Have to believe Robson would have put in big challenge on the Argentinian
John Terry.... Never in a million years. Roy McFarland and Colin Todd much better and the best and biggest talent of them all was Kevin Beattie. Even better than Duncan Edwards, according to Bobby Roboson who played with Duncan and managed Kevin
Jimmy Greaves up there with Messi and Maradonna ?. Admittedly i never saw Greaves play but it sounds like hyperbole . What Giles said about Bobby have more ability than Gazza is a bit odd as well.
@@jamesocon1 How ?. I mean Jimmy only ever played for lowly Tottenham . None of the big clubs such as Man United or Liverpool ever wanted to buy him . He is considered a great goal scorer but yet he was outscored by midfielder Bobby Charlton for England.
@@greengrass811 Spurs best team in England 50s 60s. Won double and European cups. Jimmy top scorer in league for years. Look at his stats and Spurs. One of the truly greats.
@@greengrass811 357 goals in top division. Highest ever in English league, when ball was real pigskin and lace, on crap surfaces, and refs who never protected foreards. Messi would never have survived English football in 50s and.60s. He'd be eaten alive and spat out!!
@@jamesocon1 Greaves is better than Messi , Jesus H Christmas ! Are you posting these comments from a State Hospital ? Deluded is an understatement to even suggest that . Absolute bollocks .
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Manchester City fan in England I could listen to Johnny Giles talk about football all day and I just have .
Pleased to see Paul Madeley get recognition. So many people won't know much about him.
A talented guy who could play all along the back four. Madeley was a very astute businessman too after his career ended,
Paul Meadly one of my favour players for leeds great great player. DON RAVIE. Called him a Roll Rice of a player.
A top 'utility' player. He could play in midfield and anywhere across the back four.
great selection ,,,his comments about keegan were spot on
You can always rely on Giles to recognise the influence of great players like Keegan. Particularly his influence on LFC prior to King Kenny.
Johnny Giles is one of the greatest midfielders of all time he could tackle he could shoot he could pass and was a great box to box player
Very intelligent team choice and formation.
Good point made about Bobby Moore, that he was a better player for England.I remember him in the West Ham team when they played Leeds at Elland Road and John Giles is quite correct, because Leeds usually outplayed them and of course Moore didn't stand out, but when he turned out for England he definitely raised his game and was different class.
There is only so much one player can do for a team.
That Leeds team usually outplayed everyone
Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters likewise didn’t stand out as much in the purple and blue as much as they did in the red or white
Good listen to him all day long
Great point made about Shearer
Very interesting selection in Johnny Haynes. & the reasoning 21:11
Interesting that Giles played with Robson would have thought they were different generations it was one of those crossing moments Giles was near the end and Robson was just emerging
The Baggies never really recovered from the loss of both Giles, Atkinson Addidon, Cunningham and Robson; these are the sorts of people you build teams around. It just showed the lack of ambition of Millichip and Lucas.
They both joined West Brom the same year, Robson was 18 and debuting while Giles was 35 and starting to wind down his Premiership career (he'd actually keep playing till 1983 with Shamrock Rovers)
As an England supporter i would have to think carefully about who I'd choose. I have been watching football since i was nine in 1970. However, without question the first name, and the only name i don't have to think about, that I'd put on the teamsheet would be Bryan Robson and he'd be Captain too.
As a Baggies fan, you won't get an argument from me😀
I'd include a couple of pre-60s players as they would definitely have played into the 60s:
Gordon Banks
Roger Byrne, Duncan Edwards, Bobby Moore, Ashley Cole.
Bobby Charlton, Bryan Robson, Paul Gascoigne.
Tom Finney, Jimmy Greaves, John Barnes.
Gilesy cant stand Rodney Marsh!! 41:20 Marsh always gets a mention when it comes to show ponies!
Dennis Tuert practically spits when he’s asked about Marsh too
Its criminal his comments on Shearer. Best striker ever to come out of England for me, he's just contradicting himself big time, Shearer would have scored ten times more if he'd gone to Man U
*Paul Scholes* was ten times the player that Gascoigne was. Zidane, Guardiola, Iniesta, Henry... they're not all raving about Gazza, but, parochial English football fans after a few beers are.
GAZZA was of course far ahead of paul Scoles...Gazza was amongst the absolute best ever....Paul Scoles maybe as well
Scholes was played out of position way too much for England. I'm sorry but Gascoigne was great for England in the 1990 world cup and Euro 96. I can't remember Scholes making that kind of impact for England in a major tournament? I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument.
@@barrysmale8060
Scholes had a far more glorious career than Gaza. Playing well in a tournament in 2 games verses a career of winning at the top level does not compare.
Gaza also played in a better England team than Scholes did so that is where the comparisons end.
If Gaza had of played for Liverpool or Man Utd we would probably be talking about him in a different light but he did not so we can only judge what we can see.
@@bighands69 what utter crap
@@barrysmale8060
Scholes won 11 Premier league titles and two Champions leagues. Gascoigne won an FA cup for Spurs and two Scottish league titles with Rangers.
Scholes scored 120 career goals and Gascoigne scored 90 with half of those goals scored in a lower leagues.
There is no comparison in their careers so you can either accept the facts or cry.
Quick and powerful front three
Watched a few of these enjoyed them all..Some strange comments though. And the sub titles well !
Nice to see Carlton Palmer get the recognition he deserves
wtf
Even as a Baggies fan; I prayed for his transfer😀
@@63Baggies I`m a baggies fan , I thought him a good player.
Off the ball will do a Taliban 11 before they do an Everton 11
Don't be so sensitive.😂
Next should be a 70s UK/IRE XI
At this stage Giles is just phoning it in.....
That back three is a bit slow!!! Turning circle of the Titanic.
I thought that too, but you'd need to get the ball past that midfield four - good luck. i agree with the Johnny Haynes selection though; than man was Zidane before Zidane, a complete central midfield player. It's a shame that John Charles wasn't English.
I will have whatever Giles is drinking lol
Neil Franklin - CB
"I don't want to be disrespectful".....
I can't get this Scholes obsession. He was a decent player, but Ferguson didn't start him when he was young. And no England manager really rated him. Give me Finney, charlton, robson, Gascoigne, Gerrard any day.
Obviously don't know your football then, all the top players like iniesta, zidane even gerrard say scholes was the best
Scholes won 11 English premier league titles, 3 fa cups, 2 champions leagues. It is not Pauls Scholes fault that he played in a dour English national team that would not even play him in his natural position.
Scholes played against the best players in the world and came out on top on many occasions. Sholes played 66 times for England and Gascoigne played 57 times.
You must have poor eyesight then mate. The reason he didn't get straight into the Utd team was because he suffered badly with asthma. It took time to build his lungs up to the pace of the Premiership. As for controlling a game, I have never seen anyone better. Souness is the only player who probably runs him close. As for England, for some reason, all the managers wanted to play 3 players, when there was only 2 positions for them. So the team was always unbalanced. It was criminal what they did to Scholes, and England totally wasted a good opportunity
Banks...Wilson Ferdinand Terry Cole...Scholes Robson Keegan Moore....Greaves Shearer
Great listening but the idea that Le Tissier didn't win matches is ridiculous. Southampton would have been relegated with out him plenty of times.
Le Tissier never proved that he could win matches. Being part of a team that avoided relegation is hardly something to boast about.
@@bighands69 see my original text.
@@richardbaker3000
Does not really change my point he was not proven as a big match winner as he never played for the best.
He repeatedly turned Utd down as he value his lifestyle with Southampton more.
Interestingly, no wingers in the selection
Sorry, anyone says Stuart Pearce is ahead of Ashley Cole is wrong. Ashley Cole in his prime was the best left back in the world. Stuart Pearce was just known in England.
Ya idjit
Cole was good but not at the level of leadership that Pearce offered.
@@bighands69 Agreed. I'd have picked Pearce every day of the week ahead of even Ashley Cole , or even Terry Cooper. His temperament was way better as was his defending.
@@63Baggies not against San Marino it wasn't
Moore, Hurst and Peters were not the same players for West Ham that they were for England….
4 4 2 shilton - wilson todd moore cole - robson bell charlton hoddle - greaves shearer
Cole ! So overrated by so so many. A total liability. He spent half the match on his backside, and as for his right foot, a total joke. There's no wonder the England team as never done anything, when the majority think lads like Cole are top players
My all time England 11... 3_5-2 formation
GK. Shilton
CB. Ferdinand
CB. Moore
CB. Pearce
DM. Robson (C)
RM. Beckham
CM. Gascoigne
CM. Scholes
LM. Charlton
CF. Rooney
CF. Greaves
Subs
1. Seaman
2. Gerrard
3. Adam's
4.Shearer
5. Lineker
6. Keegan
Manager
Sir Bobby Robson
DM! Dont let Giles hear you talk about "defensive" midfield players! Or even worse "holding" midfield players!
No Duncan Edwards or Tom Finney 🤔
Wow no way. I thought he said those two!
gazza dfiferent league to Scoles, Le Tiss a few tricks haha 20 to 30 goals a season genius, hoddle ?Barnes, Harrsh on Hurst he was getting 25 goals a sason, great striker, no width, to be fair a decent team yeah who needs fullbacks, Tom finney maybe?
Paul Scholes? Great player in an United jersey. In an England jersey - different story.
When Scholes was played in his rightfully position he was often England's best player . The game against France in euro 04 been a perfectly example when he completely ran the game and the idiot sven took him off and France ran riot.
Ha! That's because, notoriously, he was never utilised by England in the right position. England should have built the team around Paul Scholes, if you did, you might have won something.
The english media was obsessed with england having no left wing players so it became a big deal and what England did was play Scholes as a left sided winger because he was the type of player who could play anywhere on the pitch.
Scholes was probably the only British player in the last 30yrs to be truly WORLD CLASS
@@greengrass811 Agreed. Like Hoddle and LeTissier before him; Scholes wasn't quite understood by the England coaches.
Very irritating and long adverts. Totally ruined the enjoyment of the broadcast! A shame.
Norman Hunter and Paul Madley ??.. You must be fkin joking!!! 😅
Shearer best striker ever to come out of England
no Gerrard and lampard together in midfield? they were such a formidable partnership🙄🤣
They were dreadful in midfield because neither of them is a genuine central midfield player.
@@bighands69yeah I agree. I think a 4-1-2-1-2 could have worked with Gerrard playing in the hole behind rooney as it was where he played his best with liverpool behind torres.. Scholes and Beckham/lampard could have been be the 2 in centre midfield if there was someone to hold in front of the back 4. Michael Carrick was criminally underused by England and was brilliant in that role for united for years. Ledley king and nicky butt also as more out and out defensive options.England have had plenty of attacking full backs so width wouldnt have been an issue either.
@@mrpotato442
A good central midfield player can play in any formation. Gerrard was a better attacking player and rafael benitez used Gerrard as an attacking player rather than a central midfield player for Liverpool.
Lampard was the same in that Chelsea never used him in central midfield and used him more for his goals scoring and attacking play.
If England had of used Scholes as a central midfield player and the Gerrard in attack it would have been better. Scholes retired from England due to being misused.
@@bighands69 couldn't agree with you anymore on Scholes. England should have built the midfield around him as he was the best midfield player - not moving him out to the left wing to accommodate Lampard and Gerrard. Hard to blame him for retiring when he new Svens pecking order.
Formidable partnership ? When? Show me the evidence
Banks....Terry Moore Hunter....Scholes Charlton Robson Haynes....Rooney Greaves Keegan...
Great team - Think Rooney is lucky - If England has got to a final I would agree. Formation was considered but I would put Gasciogne in there every day of the week. You could move Scholes into the hole instead of Rooney and put PG in there!!
Gasciogne gave the ball away too many times. I watched him vs Germany here and great skill but not much end product.
@@stephenobrien5909 In his younger years yes but in his older years he was masterful in possession . His game against Holland in Euro 96 being a perfect example .
Moving Scholes! Jesus! Has history taught you nothing. England should have built their team around Paul Scholes. That's why they didn't win anything.
@@greengrass811 That game against Holland was the only decent performance that England played. They was garbage in the rest of the matches. Go and watch them if you don't believe me
Gascoigne lacked a major asset, he was born without a brain
Rolling stone Messi Ronaldo etc have never had to play against the hatchet men greaves did neather would have scored as many as greaves look at the old videos of sixties and seventies and you will C what I mean
*I'm not English* so let's get that straight, I'm neutral on this. But here's my English team:
1. Shilton.
2. Pearce.
3. Ferdinand .
4. Moore (maybe Terry).
5. B.Robson.
6. Scholes.
7. Charlton.
8. Gascoigne.
9. Sheringham.
10.Rooney.
11.Greaves (his goal scoring record for England is amazing).
Terry, Gascoigne, Scholes, Ferdinand, Sheringham or Rooney are not the best English players.
I know it is pure speculation but would Maradonna have scored that famous long range goal against England in 1986 World Cup had Bryan Robson been on the field.Have to believe Robson would have put in big challenge on the Argentinian
God ahout mate...
My english team 1Nigel Martin, 2Paul Reaney, 3Paul Meadly, 4Tony Currie, 5Jack Charlton, 6Norman Hunter, 7Duncan McKenzie, 8Allan Clarke, 9John Hawley, 1ODavid Batty, 11Trevor Cherry,
John Terry.... Never in a million years. Roy McFarland and Colin Todd much better and the best and biggest talent of them all was Kevin Beattie. Even better than Duncan Edwards, according to Bobby Roboson who played with Duncan and managed Kevin
Jimmy Greaves up there with Messi and Maradonna ?. Admittedly i never saw Greaves play but it sounds like hyperbole . What Giles said about Bobby have more ability than Gazza is a bit odd as well.
No, Rolling Stone. Jimmy Greaves is up there with Messi, or any of them. Giles is right.
@@jamesocon1 How ?. I mean Jimmy only ever played for lowly Tottenham . None of the big clubs such as Man United or Liverpool ever wanted to buy him . He is considered a great goal scorer but yet he was outscored by midfielder Bobby Charlton for England.
@@greengrass811 Spurs best team in England 50s 60s. Won double and European cups. Jimmy top scorer in league for years. Look at his stats and Spurs. One of the truly greats.
@@greengrass811 357 goals in top division. Highest ever in English league, when ball was real pigskin and lace, on crap surfaces, and refs who never protected foreards. Messi would never have survived English football in 50s and.60s. He'd be eaten alive and spat out!!
@@jamesocon1 Greaves is better than Messi , Jesus H Christmas ! Are you posting these comments from a State Hospital ? Deluded is an understatement
to even suggest that . Absolute bollocks .