Left back

[jim mk2]

[unfortunately Jim, most people share my opinion that you can only vote for people you've seen play.

.

Then the whole thing is a waste of time.

[92er]

We have to keep plugging away, Jim.

[Alex Rover]

[unfortunately Jim, most people share my opinion that you can only vote for people you've seen play.

.

Then the whole thing is a waste of time.

Yes, you're right. Otherwise the 1884 to 1886 team that won the FA Cup three years in a row would be nailed on choices. Hang on, none of that squad have appeared as nominations yet. I wonder why that is?

[philipl]

I have to say that I find this left back thread bizarre in the extreme.

For right back, Bob Compton won at a canter but I doubt even the grand fathers of the vast majority of contributors to the MB would have seen him play at his peak.

So what's this nonsense about a generational divide and having to havee seen the player to be able to vote for him?

Yet at left back we are busilly voting for a player who will be resoundingly booed by three sides of the ground when he comes to Ewood with Southampton. Whilst Sauxy is a great player, he will certainly deserve those boos far more than Alan Shearer ever did.

At the same time we are ignoring the claims of a true great of the English game who was Blackburn Rovers through and through and whose mortal remains are even at Ewood.

[jim mk2]

. Whilst Sauxy is a great player,

..... good player, not great. In the modern era, Bailey was his equal in my opinion.

The greats are the likes of Eckersley and Newton.

[Manchester Blue]

You don't play for England as often as he did without being great, or win Championsip medals either for that matter. The difference between this and the right back is that we haven't had a decent right back for so long. People can deride Le Saux but many on this board watched him regularly and know first hand that he was the best left back in the league at the time. It's difficult to ignore that for a player that many will not have even heard of let alone seen play.

[Manchester Blue]

So I guess you can't say that Hitler was worse than Saddam, as you never saw Hitler in action.

Not seen either so just have to take the reports i've read. Have you seen Saddam in action?

[jim mk2]

You don't play for England as often as he did without being great,

Nonsense. Just because he played for England does not make a "great". Carlton Palmer anyone? Equally, Simon Garner qualifies as a Rovers "great", but he never came anywhere near a senior England cap.

No one is "deriding" Le Saux and you are probably right that he was the best left back in the league at that time. But he is not the best left back to play for Rovers, not by a long way.

[92er]

Didn't Suter play in the cup winning teams?

[Manchester Blue]

You don't play for England as often as he did without being great,

Nonsense. Just because he played for England does not make a "great". Carlton Palmer anyone? Equally, Simon Garner qualifies as a Rovers "great", but he never came anywhere near a senior England cap.

No one is "deriding" Le Saux and you are probably right that he was the best left back in the league at that time. But he is not the best left back to play for Rovers, not by a long way.

Carlton Palmer played once for England Le Saux played 36 times. Notice the word often or did you just choose to ignore it. He may not be the best ever left back but he's the best i've seen by a mile and nothing i've read convinces me to vote elsewhere. If that is so upsetting for other members then i'm sorry but that is the point of a poll to vote for what you think.

[billy]

the trouble with eckersley v le saux was the different games they played, eckersley had to mark a winger, good wingers, who attacked him with speed and dribbling skills, which we hardly see in todays game, but le saux always had help from a winger who had to tackle back, in fact the wingers job ( wilcox ) was to stand by the post for corners and run the ball out. but eckersleys winger ( langton or macleod ) would stand on the halfway line at corners waiting for the ball to be passed to them, but thinking of le saux trying to stop tom finney-- not a cat in hells chance, but finney said eckersley was one of the hardest fullbacks he ever played against, all the votes for le saux must have come from supporters unlucky enough not to have seen eckersley in action.

[jim mk2]

all the votes for le saux must have come from supporters unlucky enough not to have seen eckersley in action.

or Newton.

[92er]

Bill Eckersley played 432 times for the Rovers and won 17 caps, at a time when it is acknowledged that it was harder to win caps than in more recent times.

Keith Newton played around 350 games and won 19 caps whilst with us.

The only doubt I have is that Bill's last International was the debacle against Hungary and my dad had doubts as to how good he was. As he had died a long time before Graeme arrived, he could not see him and I suspect he would have had even more doubts about LeSaux.

[billy]

newton to me played best at right back, what a combination newton right back eckersley left back.

[billy]

after the hungary games there was doubts how good all the england players were

[92er]

But presumably some played again for England.

[American]

So I guess you can't say that Hitler was worse than Saddam, as you never saw Hitler in action.

Not seen either so just have to take the reports i've read. Have you seen Saddam in action?

Don't you get CNN over there?

[billy]

reply to 92er

l some played again, but if l remember right, hungary licked us 6-3 at home and 7-1 in hungary in 1953. we got knocked out of the world cup in 1954 by uruguay 4-2. knocked out by russia in 1958. wales and northern lreland at least reached the quarter finals that year. brazil knocked us out in 1962 3-1. and that was the end of winterbottom as manager. a bad time for england was the fifties

[FourLaneBlue]

You don't play for England as often as he did without being great,

Nonsense. Just because he played for England does not make a "great". Carlton Palmer anyone? Equally, Simon Garner qualifies as a Rovers "great", but he never came anywhere near a senior England cap.

No one is "deriding" Le Saux and you are probably right that he was the best left back in the league at that time. But he is not the best left back to play for Rovers, not by a long way.

Carlton Palmer played once for England Le Saux played 36 times. Notice the word often or did you just choose to ignore it.

Carlton Palmer actually played eighteen times for England. It's shocking I agree and not something I like to bring up when people may be eating but it did happen when Taylor managed the national side.

Regarding voting for players you haven't seen, I think American summed it up best and it was a valid Hitler analogy. If you are prepared to look at the candidates and then make a decision without having solely to have seen them play live then you have got the point of having a 'Greatest XI'. If you wish to vote for Le Saux or Lucas Neill or Brett Emerton or whobloodyever then great but if you are only going to consider players you have seen play then there is little point in doing this and it is a bit of a kick in the teeth for Den and the others who have worked hard to try and get a feature going for people on here to enjoy reading. Everyone can vote for whoever the hell they want but that isn't the real point, it's about thinking who actually deserves to be in the greatest ever team, not to just discount players because you haven't seen them. Or am I wrong and we should just have a 'Greatest Ever Rovers XI' from the last ten years?

Jim - You say that Newton should be in the team otherwise it is a farce. So what about Eckersley? You don't like Le Saux winning but surely Newton losing to Eckersley would not quite so 'farcical'.

[thenodrog]

Carlton Palmer actually played eighteen times for England. It's shocking I agree and not something I like to bring up when people may be eating but it did happen when Taylor managed the national side.

Bit unfair all this. Palmer was never a constructive player but rather a getter and giver. I do rem him putting in an absolutely superb performance v the mighty Dutch, he tackled everything and covered every blade of grass, but that was his style. Like Robbie Savage honest 100% work rate was guaranteed every game. Sure it's maybe a step too far to international level but I would much rather have him in that role than Nicky Butt. In fact it's probable he'd have had a shed load more caps if he had payed for MU.

He'd have been superb next to Tugay in our midfield.

[den]

but if you are only going to consider players you have seen play then there is little point in doing this and it is a bit of a kick in the teeth for Den and the others who have worked hard to try and get a feature going for people on here to enjoy reading.

Before we started with this poll, some of us discussed the possible problems. The obvious one was the fact that a lot of the younger members hadn't seen some of the older players, in fact some had never heard of them. That was going to be difficult for us and indeed them.

The only way around this was to ask members that HAD seen them play, to give a short breakdown of those players.

Now, up to press, I think it's worked well. Indeed FLB, if it hadn't been for your post on Crompton, he wouldn't have been voted in.

If Newton, Eckersley don't get selected, it's probably down as much to the failing of those that did see them as to anything else.

Crompton being selected shows that the majority of people on here, are indeed open minded. There are quite a few who have voted for Bill Eckersley who have never seen him play and I suspect he wont be the last.

Jim - I think the main problem with getting Keith Newton selected, is the fact that he was primarily a right back. That hampered his selection from day one.

So no - it's not a kick in the teeth, Most folks are very open minded, it's only a few who struggle to accept anyone who they personally have never seen.

[dave birch]

But shouldn't it be based on what the player has acheived.

I doubt that too many board members considered the opposition when choosing a player, or even considered the change in the pattern of play.

How, after 40 years do you describe Eckersley? Memories are great, but they don't catch every moment and every passing year something gets lost.

If I had to sum up Eckersley, it would have to be "they shall not pass". Now that doesn't mean foul them as a last resort, it never came to that. Bill was always between the ball and his own goal, he was always there.

Leather ball, no undersoil heating, ice, snow. If Bill were around now, with all the expertise at hand, the training, the care that's given, he'd be playing Barcelona or Milan or even Arsenal and be worth a lot more than we got for the Duffmeister.

432 games for the Rovers says it all.

[den]

Interesting points Dave. The era that Bill played in could also restrict his appeal. In those days, as someone else pointed out earlier, full backs tended to stay back. Because the winger waited on the half way line, the full back couldn't get froward. [you might tell me differently with Bill, I don't know, I didn't see him].

So there's an argument for Le Saux? An all-round player who has far more to his game - or would 'eck have been better given the opportunity of modern coaching.

[Manchester Blue]

So no - it's not a kick in the teeth, Most folks are very open minded, it's only a few who struggle to accept anyone who they personally have never seen.

Spot on that Den and very good of you to post that point. Inevitably people will go off personal experiences first and foremost but most are prepared to listen to the opnions of others. Some of the comments from some members because of the number of votes Le Saux has got are out of order.

The difference as i've said with this position is that because of how good Le Saux was then someone would have to make a hell of a case for a player that as you say Den many haven't heard of. I enjoyed reading the opnions of the posters who have seen him but despite that I still voted for Le Saux. That shouldn't be seen as a kick in the teeth as it's not but it's my opnion based upon what i've seen and read.

I haven't said I would never vote for a player i've not seen and neither have most people but they have said that they would give more credence to their own experiences. It's unfair to slag off posters for doing that as it's only natural and does not in anyway make the poll a joke.

I firmly believe that come the end of this poll you will have a fair mix of players from a number of era's.

[dave birch]

Indeed the era that Bill played in could restrict him, But I could also be saying , imagine Le Saux playing in Bill's time?

With the training in the 90's Bill would have been a tremendous back, even better than he was. Remember, Le Saux was a product of his time, just as Bill was of his.

We should all remember that the game has made advances with the changes in coaching, tactics and the general approach to the way the game is played.

That should always be in the back of our minds and take that into consideration before we vote.

Edited September 27, 2004 by dave birch