Second midfielder

[USRoverME]

Wow...

Does this mean I can't vote since I've only followed Rovers for 2 years, and I've never seen any of these players play?

As much as I agree that only voting for players one has seen is short sighted, lets not rush into eliminating votes.

He was "bribed" into voting for Sherwood as much as I would have to be considered "bribed" into voting for Forrest, since all I can go on is the writings and stories of others. Therefore only people old enough to have seen all of them play can vote! dear me....

P.S. - haven't voted yet, but will probably vote for Forrest near the deadline, just to make things interesting.... 5 medals, I have to agree with that being enough said.

Edited November 16, 2004 by USRoverME

[Manchester Blue]

Wow...

Does this mean I can't vote since I've only followed Rovers for 2 years, and I've never seen any of these players play?

As much as I agree that only voting for players one has seen is short sighted, lets not rush into eliminating votes.

He was "bribed" into voting for Sherwood as much as I would have to be considered "bribed" into voting for Forrest, since all I can go on is the writings and stories of others. Therefore only people old enough to have seen all of them play can vote! dear me....

P.S. - haven't voted yet, but will probably vote for Forrest near the deadline, just to make things interesting.... 5 medals, I have to agree with that being enough said.

Fully agree mate. You vote for who you choose based on what you know, read, and take on board for others. Anyone that deny's you the right to do that whatever the reasons for your choice is an arse in my opinion. If you want to vote for Forrest then I respect that and if he wins full power to him.

good post

[American]

Can you say Hitler was evil? You never saw his work first hand...

So you are comparing a guy who committed one of the worst atrocities in history and who practically everyone studies in school, with a guy who i've never heard of my Dad's never heard but because he won medals when the game was still barely more than an amateur affair with the rules still being changed every week. Yeah I see where you're coming from now good comparison. Can I change my vote please Den?

You didn't see him commit these atrocities. You want to take other people's word for that, but not for other things, I guess.

Sure, let's pick a guy who was NEVER near first choice for his country just because you've seen him play.

I guess using your logic, Grabbi is better than Forrest, as you've seen him play. Heck, he's even better than Crompton.

I see where you are coming from. Den, put me down for Grabbi, he played a couple of matches in the midfield.

[Duff's Minder]

maybe Sherwood is the best midfielder of the last 20 years but when he played for us he was no more than the 5th or 6th best midfielder in the country. How can he get into our greatest ever team? At least Le Saux was the best left-back in the league at the time.

Come on guys, I don't mind people voting for Sherwood if they rated him better than I describe him above but not just because you haven't seen the others play.

Our 'greatest ever since 1990' team would be the '95 team plus Duff. Not very interesting...

[American]

Interesting statistic from reading the History section of the FA's website. Forrest had 11 caps in a time where the English team didn't even go overseas (when they first went overseas in 1908, even that was mainland Europe), and no teams from the continent visited England until 1929.

Contrast that to Sherwood, who had a total of 3 caps in a time where there are players who get that many caps in a month.

Oh, and I'm guessing those of you who wouldn't vote for players you've never seen don't consider Pele one of the greatest of all times.

[Scotty]

Everyone is obviously entitled to vote for who they want, and talk of deleting votes is just pathetic, but I find it staggering that people are still using the "I can only vote for people I've seen play" argument.

Read what people have said, look at the stats on the past and present players, and then make a judgement. If you still think Sherwood (or any other modern-day player) then fair enough. But don't just discard all the older ones.

[Manchester Blue]

This is my opnion. Maybe saying you would only vote for those you have seen is the wrong way of saying it but you clearly will be swayed by that. What others said to me was that with players like Clayton, Douglas and Crompton, then to a massive extent they are players you hear about from an early age as a Rovers fan even now. It's easy therefore to vote for them however with someone like Forrest and even quite a few of the others i've read and even enjoyed the reports but they just don't sway me. I am firmly of the belief that football over 100 years ago just can't be compared to the same stuff that we see today so i'm sorry if that upsets people but there you have it.

I have seen Pele although clearly not live, and many others and Best for one was the one player I would love to see live. I and many others aren't closed which is why Clayton got such a massive vote and England for that matter. However people can only go on what they believe not necessarily what they see. To deride them for that is rude and unnecessary.

[Scotty]

I am firmly of the belief that football over 100 years ago just can't be compared to the same stuff that we see today so i'm sorry if that upsets people but there you have it.

Of course football over 100 years ago wasn't the same, but if the players from that generation were born in this generation then they would still be top players now. They would have access to modern facilities and training methods and they would still have the natural talent that made them the best players of their generation.

From reading the reports and looking at a bit of Rovers history, it seems that Forrest wasn't only the best Rovers midfielder of his generation, he was also the best in the country. Something that could never be said about Sherwood.

[tcj_jones]

He "pointed you to the topic".  You couldn't find it yourself?

Then he asked you to delete your joke?

Negating how I got here, Sherwood is still the only player that I would vote for being that he is the best player that we have had since I started watching the Rovers in 1991.

I'm not going to vote for player, no matter how good the elders say they were, when I have not seen the facts first hand.

Nothing has annoyed me more in my time on this bored than hearing this over and over.

If you people, and you CLEARLY are not alone, are so narrow minded that you cannot form an opinion based on information presented right infront of you as well as the blatantly obvious then I can accept that (just about), but to then VOTE on a poll where you admit you are not capable of voting for the majority of the players?... Why vote?! Please, just do not vote and leave it to those who consider themselves able to vote fairly.

RARRRRRRGH it's just so narrow minded and stupid it's unreal!!

Edited November 16, 2004 by tcj_jones

[Manchester Blue]

Of course football over 100 years ago wasn't the same, but if the players from that generation were born in this generation then they would still be top players now. They would have access to modern facilities and training methods and they would still have the natural talent that made them the best players of their generation.

But would they really? How much of the game was about natural talent in those days? It was just about pro and still new as a sport. It wasn't far removed from one village chasing a pig's bladder into another village. Did they even have goal posts and offsides? Hardly anyone in the country played the game at that level whereas today it is the biggest thing in the world. There is just no comparison for me.

[AlanSheppard]

Nothing has annoyed me more in my time on this bored than hearing this over and over.

If you people, and you CLEARLY are not alone, are so narrow minded that you cannot form an opinion based on information presented right infront of you as well as the blatantly obvious then I can accept that (just about), but to then VOTE on a poll where you admit you are not capable of voting for the majority of the players?... Why vote?! Please, just do not vote and leave it to those who consider themselves able to vote fairly.

RARRRRRRGH it's just so narrow minded and stupid it's unreal!!

The only thing it's as bad as is people throwing the toys out the pram every time someone mentions they're voting for Sherwood. I'm surprised Blue_Phil hasn't popped up to compare Jim and Al to pinko liberal enforcing PC behaviour on normal folk.

It's a vote of public opinion and there's 9 pages of thread and links on the first page about the players. If people still think Sherwood's the best, then they're entitled to vote for him.

Now shouldn't we go get those nasty third party Latheron voters who are stopping 'ickle Jimmy from winning?

I voted for Forrest by the way.

[American]

Put it this way. In 50 or 100 years if this poll was taken, Forrest would get more votes than Sherwood.

[Biddy]

Why vote?!  Please, just do not vote and leave it to those who consider themselves able to vote fairly.

RARRRRRRGH it's just so narrow minded and stupid it's unreal!!

So, because I have not looked at players beyond the ones that I know about personally, I should not cast a vote?

So come the next general election, I should not cast my due right to vote as I am too narrow minded and stupid not to look into the Green Party or the National Front or any number of the other fringe parties that everyone ignores. They all may have some very good policies but very few people vote for them.

Then when I vote for maybe one of the two main parties, I should be chastised for exercising my right just because others do not agree.

Maybe we should become the nanny state that Labour seem to be taking us down and someone else can cast my vote for me.

I've voted, get over it and lets get onto finding out who wins this. I am actually finding this quite interesting and I would have no problems with any of our fine players winning. All worthwhile in their own ways.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Biddy

[tcj_jones]

So, because I have not looked at players beyond the ones that I know about personally, I should not cast a vote?

EXACTLY, that is my point. If you will not even look at the other candidates, then no, you should not vote.

Comparing this to a general election is ridiculous - it's hardly a fair comparison. What political parties do in the present is what matters - you are voting for now and for the future. Sure you need to look at the recent past and elements of the not so distant past to base your decision, but not to the same extent.

Big A, you obviously have not understood my point and don't worry, I won't be making it again - people just do not seem to understand, or care

If this person had gone over the terstimonials given, looked at each candidate, or atleast the front runners, and based a decision on what each had achieved, at what times etc and had come to the conclusion that Sherwood was the greatest player of all time then I would accept it, though not agree. Infact some more influential and older board members have voted for Sherwood and I can respect their vote.

Edited November 16, 2004 by tcj_jones

[Biddy]

So, because I have not looked at players beyond the ones that I know about personally, I should not cast a vote?

EXACTLY, that is my point. If you will not even look at the other candidates, then no, you should not vote.

Comparing this to a general election is ridiculous - it's hardly a fair comparison. What political parties do in the present is what matters - you are voting for now and for the future. Sure you need to look at the recent past and elements of the not so distant past to base your decision, but not to the same extent.

No, none of that is the point. You are saying I shouldn't vote.

I don't see why not, I can and have. moving on.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Biddy

[Scotty]

Of course football over 100 years ago wasn't the same, but if the players from that generation were born in this generation then they would still be top players now.  They would have access to modern facilities and training methods and they would still have the natural talent that made them the best players of their generation.

But would they really? How much of the game was about natural talent in those days? It was just about pro and still new as a sport. It wasn't far removed from one village chasing a pig's bladder into another village. Did they even have goal posts and offsides? Hardly anyone in the country played the game at that level whereas today it is the biggest thing in the world. There is just no comparison for me.

Might as well just vote for the entire 1995 Championship squad then if we're using that logic.

[philipl]

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough

It isn't fit for humans now....

Now that's just hilarious.

I'll edit that, I will agree, it is a ###### hole. Good job I live just outside isn't it.

Slough

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough

It isn't fit for humans now,

There isn't grass to graze a cow

Swarm over, Death!

Come, bombs, and blow to smithereens

Those air-conditioned, bright canteens,

Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans

Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town --

A house for ninety-seven down

And once a week for half-a-crown

For twenty years,

And get that man with double chin

Who'll always cheat and always win,

Who washes his repulsive skin

In women's tears,

And smash his desk of polished oak

And smash his hands so used to stroke

And stop his boring dirty joke

And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add

The profits of the stinking cad;

It's not their fault that they are mad,

They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know

The birdsong from the radio,

It's not their fault they often go

To Maidenhead

And talk of sports and makes of cars

In various bogus Tudor bars

And daren't look up and see the stars

But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care

Their wives frizz out peroxide hair

And dry it in synthetic air

And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough

To get it ready for the plough.

The cabbages are coming now;

The earth exhales.

-- John Betjeman

[Glenn]

“This is the poem Slough, by Sir John Betjemen, probably never been here in his life. ‘Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough, it isn’t fit for humans now.’ Right, I don’t think you solve town planning problems by dropping bombs all over the place, he’s embarrassed himself there. Next ‘In labour saving homes with care, their wives frizz out peroxide hair, and dry it in synthetic air, and paint their nails-’ they wanna look nice, what’s the matter, doesn’t he like girls? ‘And talks of sports and makes of cars, and various bogus Tudor bars, and daren’t look up and see the stars, but belch instead.’ What's he on about? What, has he never burped? ‘Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough, to get it ready for the plough. The cabbages are coming now, the earth exhales-’ He’s the only cabbage round here. And they made him a night of the realm. Overrated.” - David Brent.

As much as I enjoy John Betjeman, David Brent and the ins and outs of tactical voting I'm sure Den would be a lot happier if we meandered back onto the topic.

[Brownie]

Can't wait to see how many votes Wilcox gets for best left winger !

It's a shame Sellars won't get in because of the Irish Wizard.

Vote Sherwood !

[den]

As much as I enjoy John Betjeman, David Brent and the ins and outs of tactical voting I'm sure Den would be a lot happier if we meandered back onto the topic.

Nah, stick with it for a while. It's like a breath of fresh air.

[jim mk2]

It's a shame Sellars won't get in because of the Irish Wizard.

It's a shame Duff won't get in because of Dave Wagstaffe or Mike Harrison.

Both were better than him.

[92er]

I don't agree with you on either shout Jim. What about Joe Haverty!!

[Brownie]

It's a shame Sellars won't get in because of the Irish Wizard.

It's a shame Duff won't get in because of Dave Wagstaffe or Mike Harrison.

Both were better than him.

Waggy Waggy Waggy Waggy Wagstaffe on the wing ?

You've named a player that I've witnessed now Jim !

Not in Duff's class though.

Duff's the best left winger in the world (Bold statement )

[Al]

It's a shame Sellars won't get in because of the Irish Wizard.

It's a shame Duff won't get in because of Dave Wagstaffe or Mike Harrison.

Both were better than him.

Sorry Jim but this is where we have to disagree.

Duff is the best left winger I have ever seen, including Scott Sellars and Mike Harrison. Recent but the best.

Let's be fair it is not always the older ones who are the best, don't be drawn into the points scoring experienced v newbies syndrome.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Al

[Manchester Blue]

Of course football over 100 years ago wasn't the same, but if the players from that generation were born in this generation then they would still be top players now.  They would have access to modern facilities and training methods and they would still have the natural talent that made them the best players of their generation.

But would they really? How much of the game was about natural talent in those days? It was just about pro and still new as a sport. It wasn't far removed from one village chasing a pig's bladder into another village. Did they even have goal posts and offsides? Hardly anyone in the country played the game at that level whereas today it is the biggest thing in the world. There is just no comparison for me.

Might as well just vote for the entire 1995 Championship squad then if we're using that logic.

That's the attitude that annoys me. What logic? I can't take seriously the idea of voting for someone who played the game when it was barely starting and was so far removed from the game i've know and loved. I have stated previously that one of the greatest players i've seen is Best, I also firmly believe that players like Matthews, Mortensen and Finney would easily be as good now as they had class.

I can't be sure about the same for someone who I can read nothing about other than he played in 5 cup winning sides when few teams even played the game. I've voted for Clayton and i'd vote for any other player who I knew enough about or could find enough about to consider but i'm not going to change my opinion to suit others.