Left back

[TROOPER]

Ultimately it is all about opinions, and if the majority of people who vote are of the opinion that Le saux was the greatest then we have to accept that verdict. I've seen Le Saux play, but not Eckersley, but still voted for Eckersley. A greatest team has surely got to contain a balance of the old & the new.

Not wishing to pre-empt anything, but if you think the debate over the left back slot has been interesting just wait while we get to the centre halves!

The fact that people voice such strong opinions is a great way to enlighten supporters about the rich footballing tradition that is Blackburn Rovers.

[jim mk2]

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.

Conversely, in that era EVERY team had two wingers. Eckersley was brilliant at defending and did not venture forward because full backs of that era were not expected to. Newton was an excellent defender too but also supported the attack in the modern manner.

My gripe with Le Saux is that he is not really a full back but a wing back. How many orthodox right wingers did Le Saux play against? Not many that I can think of, which gave him more scope to go forward like the converted winger he was. I repeat what I said before: I do not think Le Saux, for all his attacking qualities, was a particularly good defender.

What should have been decided before the start of this exercise was the formation of the all-time XI. A contemporary 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 might contain a completely different set of players to an old-fashioned 2-3-5 containing traditional full backs, wing halves, inside forwards and two wingers.

[den]

Jim, I said in the first post on this topic that the formation would be 4-4-2. That goes even more against Le Saux, then!

[MCMC1875]

Could the club build an archive of film footage of Ewood greats to be shown in Blues Bar at a certain time each week.

I would be particularly interested in any clips of Eckersley.

[den]

Could the club build an archive of film footage of Ewood greats to be shown in Blues Bar at a certain time each week.

I would be particularly interested in any clips of Eckersley.

Great idea.

I actually emailed radio rovers and asked them if that could be done on the big screen, before each home game. Everton do it.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't recieve a reply.

[MCMC1875]

Could the club build an archive of film footage of Ewood greats to be shown in Blues Bar at a certain time each week.

I would be particularly interested in any clips of Eckersley.

   

Great idea.

I actually emailed radio rovers and asked them if that could be done on the big screen, before each home game. Everton do it.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't recieve a reply.

The interest would be massive. Clayton, Douglas, etc and it would be great to see the old Ewood packed tothe rafters.

[jim mk2]

Jim, I said in the first post on this topic that the formation would be 4-4-2. That goes even more against Le Saux, then!

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance.

I give in.

[American]

I would agree with what you were saying about it being fair, Den, if people weren't out and out saying that it is stupid to vote for someone you haven't seen.

I agree with those who say it is a farce, but then again, most of these lists are. An example would be greatest American athletes of the last century. Near the top of the list should have been Washington Redskins' quarterback/cornerback/punter, Sammy Baugh (American Football). He was the best QB in the league, as a defensive back, he led the league in interceptions and he holds the highest punting average in the history of the NFL, yet he wasn't even considered for the top 100 in most lists. I'd like to see any of the modern players on that list do all of that.

[den]

Jim, I said in the first post on this topic that the formation would be 4-4-2. That goes even more against Le Saux, then!

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance.

I give in.

Douglas right wing, Clayton midfield, McEvoy striker, what's the problem Jim?

They've as much chance as anyone else.

As the positions are announced, if you want any player included, just say so.

[jim mk2]

Jim, I said in the first post on this topic that the formation would be 4-4-2. That goes even more against Le Saux, then!

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance.

I give in.

Douglas right wing, Clayton midfield, McEvoy striker, what's the problem Jim?

They've as much chance as anyone else.

As the positions are announced, if you want any player included, just say so.

Arrgghh! You're talking about a different era.

Douglas was a beautiful winger who could beat any full back in the world: can you imagine him "tracking back" (in modern parlance) to defend on the right side of a 4-4-2?

Clayton was a classic wing half who linked up with the inside right and right winger and probably wouldn't know what midfield means. McEvoy, Vernon and Dobing, like all good inside forwards, were made in heaven. Striker is too ugly a word for players like them.

[CAPT KAYOS]

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.

Jim do you not read what keeps being said.

Everybody (or most) can readily understand your frustration but I don't remember you putting up this argument so vehemently for the RB slot.

Personally I agree with you in terms of the 'old players' in that all round they would appear to be better footballers than the 'modern day' player but I think most have given good reasons as to why they have chosen they way they have.

I said on my post earlier your own vote will mainly be biased to who you have seen play rather than who you read about and dependent on how you see a player and what he should do.

At the end of the day it is after all just opinions.

[mick]

jim, you are spot on. never mind formations let's not forget to look at all the technical advancements that have made modern footballers "great".

nowadays they play with a ball that is comfortable to kick and head. can't see le saux sticking his noggin in on a cold and wet day in lancashire in the middle of december. those laces hurt.

ah, but how would i know that? the answer is i don't. but just imagine what a few of the players that jim mentioned could have done in the modern game. bend it like vernon has a nice ring to it.

oops i've got a kick. better limp off so that one of the three subs can come on and i can be better for the next game. what's bryan douglas doing standing out there on the wing when he can hardly walk? on that day, at upton park, he showed what it took, to every lad, to be a professional footballer.

not living in the past but if you are going to compare then let's introduce all the factors.

[den]

Jim, I said in the first post on this topic that the formation would be 4-4-2. That goes even more against Le Saux, then!

Apologies. In that case, former England captain and wing half Ronnie Clayton, legendary winger Bryan Douglas and great inside forwards such as Roy Vernon, Peter Dobing and Andy McEvoy have no chance.

I give in.

Douglas right wing, Clayton midfield, McEvoy striker, what's the problem Jim?

They've as much chance as anyone else.

As the positions are announced, if you want any player included, just say so.

Arrgghh! You're talking about a different era.

Douglas was a beautiful winger who could beat any full back in the world: can you imagine him "tracking back" (in modern parlance) to defend on the right side of a 4-4-2?

Clayton was a classic wing half who linked up with the inside right and right winger and probably wouldn't know what midfield means. McEvoy, Vernon and Dobing, like all good inside forwards, were made in heaven. Striker is too ugly a word for players like them.

OK Jim, I've been thinking about what you're saying.

Although the original formation was intended to be 4-4-2, I'm prepared to go to 3-5-2. That shouldn't be a problem, it's still a very modern formation, and could give us chance to select from some of rovers undoubted midfield talent from the past and present.

That would mean us electing just one more defender - central defender.

I'm putting myself up for the high jump here. , but at the expense of a centre half, we are going to be able to fit in far more of the crowd pleasers - players that fans admire.

Any objections anyone?

[jim mk2]

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.

Jim do you not read what keeps being said.

If you can be bothered to read back you will realise that I have kept saying Newton was so good that he should be selected at left back.

[92er]

Jim-don't forget that Duggie played inside-forward for around half his career in the first team.

I much prefer 4-4-2 to 3-5-2.

[thenodrog]

If you can be bothered to read back you will realise that I have kept saying Newton was so good that he should be selected at left back.

Newton was so good that he could easily have been selected at BOTH right back and left back!

[Al]

Graham Le Saux beating Bill Eckersley is an absolute disgrace and apoor reflection of the members of this board if they cannot appreciate p[layers who they have not seen.

Le saux let the club down on many occasions and does not deserve mention.

Yeah but maybe why you did not vote for Johnny Forbes Al!

Anyway I should think that 50 votes (at this point in time) over 40 years after he finished playing is one hell of a compliment to the man, and one that he would prob be overjoyed with. I doubt Le saux will receive as many votes 40 odd years from now.

Sorry for not replying earlier but when I made that post I was on holiday using a very expensive internet cafe. I was down to the last two minutes of my last euro coin and the wife was dragging me away (hence the poor spelling).

To answer your question I did not vote for John Forbes because nobody presented a case for him and all that I knew about him was that he used to have a sports shop in Blackburn. Probably the same reason that nobody else did either.

Le Saux on the other hand disgraced us in Moscow, left under a cloud and I remember when playing for England after he left was being presented to Jack Straw. Jack asked him 'Do you miss Blackburn?' The reply was 'Certainly not the football'. I would certainly not want the little snide in any all time greats that I was associated with, ability or no ability.

I am sure that Bill would be well satisfied with his 50 odd votes but if you don't believe that Le Saux will command many votes in the future why vote for him now?

[dave birch]

Perhaps we should be looking at the contribution the player made to the team, and the recognition he got by way of caps etc.

In the days of 2-3-5, the pressure on the fullbacks was enormous, play was more open, get a couple of pacy wingers running against you and you really earned your money (all 20 quid).

Whilst I voted for Eckersley, (I'm not running down the others that played in that position, as polls such as this have a certain degree of subjectivity about them), did any of the others put in as much over as many games?

Le Saux, for instance got more caps than Ecks, but got them in a time when they played more internationals.

Just a little more food for thought.

[billy]

l understood were voting for the greatest ever left back, here we have eckersley, played from 1949 to 1960, against an era of speedy attacking wingers, held he's own against any of them, then le saux, called a full back but marked no one, in he's foward attacking support role, and he didnt show much of eckersleys loyalty to the team either.

[jim mk2]

l understood were voting for the greatest ever left back, here we have eckersley, played from 1949 to 1960, against an era of speedy attacking wingers, held he's own against any of them, then le saux, called a full back but marked no one, in he's foward attacking support role, and he didnt show much of eckersleys loyalty to the team either.

Quite so. No true Rovers fan would vote for Le Saux. I demand a recount.

[CAPT KAYOS]

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.

Jim do you not read what keeps being said.

If you can be bothered to read back you will realise that I have kept saying Newton was so good that he should be selected at left back.

I don't need to read back as I can remember mostly what you have said, and as mentioned I cannot remember you demanding Newton for the RB position as much - even though he was primarily a right back.

As good as he was, for me you didn't make his case for the LB until it was too late.

I voted for Eckersley as personally I feel he deserved it more than Newton and he was afterall a LB.

As you have so rightly said, the situation will arise with Douglas/Clayton/Shearer etc - so its up to the likes of yourself who where fortunate to see some of these players to stand up and make yourself heard sooner rather than later.

There is a mis-understanding I feel in what is termed as 'greatest' which has already been mentioned will happen in any opinion survey such as this.

[thenodrog]

All this loyalty stuff regarding players pre 1963 doesn't wash with me. Clubs held control of the players registration and the maximum wage was in place so no player would have been better off for moving to another team in this country.

I rem the great Tom Finney the mention of whose very name causes nob-enders eyes to go all misty, (the player whose tremendous ability above all connected him the most with one club loyalty) admitting to a TV interviewer that when he was at Preston on £25 per week he asked the Preston Chairman if he could go to Italy where one of the eytie giants had offered to pay him £10000 per annum!. The cahirman said 'No Tom you cant go we need you here'.

And that was that! The good old days eh?

[billy]

thenodrog so all pre 1963 loyalty doesn't wash with you eh? how about since 1963? like our championship winning side?

[den]

The results of the vote for the Left Back position finished as this:

Graeme Le Saux 73 votes [48%]

Bill Eckersley 56 votes[36%]

Keith Newton 11 votes[7%]

Therefore Le Saux joins Brad Friedel and Bob Crompton in the greatest ever team.

Full result, left back:

Who should go into this team as rovers greatest ever left back?

Graeme Le Saux [ 73 ] [48.03%]

Dave Whelan [ 2 ] [1.32%]

John Bailey [ 4 ] [2.63%]

Bill Eckersley [ 56 ] [36.84%]

Mick Rathbone [ 3 ] [1.97%]

Billy Wilson [ 1 ] [0.66%]

Keith Newton. [ 11 ] [7.24%]

Mickey Gray [ 1 ] [0.66%]

Walter Crook [ 0 ] [0.00%]

Chris Sulley [ 0 ] [0.00%]

Johnny Forbes [ 0 ] [0.00%]

Arthur Cowell [ 0 ] [0.00%]

Fergie Suter [ 1 ] [0.66%]

Total Votes: 152