A couple of different friends have met him and said what a rude, arrogant man he is. Like I say though, I could well be getting him mixed up with his brother. I've never personally met either of them.
How good was Sir Bobby Charlton as a player?
- Thread starter harms
- Start date
A couple of different friends have met him and said what a rude, arrogant man he is. Like I say though, I could well be getting him mixed up with his brother. I've never personally met either of them.
I am too young to remember Charlton play. 1 question to the old fans though, whom would you choose between him and Scholes?
He said that about Edwards. He's said it many times about Duncan.
“His death was the single biggest tragedy to happen to Manchester United and England. I felt I could compare with any player – except Duncan. He didn’t have a fault in his game.
“He was more than a great. Sometimes he seemed like a bright light in the sky.
“He was a giant. Even today, his loss is the hardest thing to bear.
“Duncan Edwards is the one person I felt inferior to. I’ve never known anyone so gifted, so strong and with such a presence.”
Without a doubt the greatest Manchester United and England footballer, nobody else really gets anywhere near him.
He is arguably England's greatest ever player. He's probably top 3 for us as well. In terms of absolute peak he can't quite keep up with Best, but Charlton did it consistently for years and always scored in the big games. He was completely 2 footed as well. You can see him in the video taking corners with both feet. That's such a rare attribute even at the highest level of football.
He is surely a top 3 central midfield player of all time.
He is surely a top 3 central midfield player of all time.
Last edited:
Figured that some of you may enjoy this. The man had scored so many incredible goals that a lot of them had to be excluded even from a 15-minutes long compilation. Such a magical player — graceful like a ballet dancer, capable of scoring absolute screamers with either foot, wonderful passer and a proper grafter to boot. And, of course, always a man for a big occasion — be it an FA Cup run in 1958 when 20 years old Charlton led United to the final a couple months after the Munich air disaster, 1966 World Cup with 2 goals in the semi-final and a man-marking job on Beckenbauer in the final or 2 goals in the 1968 European Cup final
Great video Harms.
Whats the title of the music?
He is top 1, he is United's greatest player and ambassador.
Forgive me if my memory plays tricks. I was at the United cup winners cup game 2nd leg at OT in the 63 - 64 season and as Dennis Law was not available for the game and we were 2 - 0 down from the first leg we were written off. Bobby put in a masterful performance and scored 2 goals. I think Spurs were down to 10 men due to McKay breaking his leg. Just one of many good memories, Stretford End 1960's standing up singing and world class players Charlton,Law and Georgie Best.
I don't know why people keep trying to rate players from a time when defense was an afterthought.
I mean, look at a goal like this one at the 0:54 mark:
Pretty good finish, sure, but he's also completely unmarked directly in front of goal. There's three United players just loitering in front of goal, waiting for the pass, utterly unopposed. The closest defender is like six yards away, watching idly. These things do not happen in the modern game. Literally no one is defending at all in this shot.
In the very next clip, he's strolling calmly up midfield and nobody is challenging him at all:
Just wanders up the midfield at a leisurely pace until he feels it's time to shoot. No one makes any real attempt to interfere. Any professional footballer can make that shot when they're effectively alone on the pitch. It was so much easier to score goals back then that it isn't worth rating the players based on any modern standard.
Bobby Charlton was a very good player for his time, but he played in a time when it took so much less to be an effective goalscorer. When you actually look at these clips and consider what would have happened in a modern game of football, almost none of these goals and dribbles would have been possible because any decent modern defender or midfielder would have stopped the attack with ease. Players like Bobby Charlton were just more fit than their contemporaries and had a bit of technique. I don't think they would be noteworthy at all if magically transported into today's game. It looks impressive because they played mostly against players who couldn't even have become professionals today.
I mean, look at a goal like this one at the 0:54 mark:
Pretty good finish, sure, but he's also completely unmarked directly in front of goal. There's three United players just loitering in front of goal, waiting for the pass, utterly unopposed. The closest defender is like six yards away, watching idly. These things do not happen in the modern game. Literally no one is defending at all in this shot.
In the very next clip, he's strolling calmly up midfield and nobody is challenging him at all:
Just wanders up the midfield at a leisurely pace until he feels it's time to shoot. No one makes any real attempt to interfere. Any professional footballer can make that shot when they're effectively alone on the pitch. It was so much easier to score goals back then that it isn't worth rating the players based on any modern standard.
Bobby Charlton was a very good player for his time, but he played in a time when it took so much less to be an effective goalscorer. When you actually look at these clips and consider what would have happened in a modern game of football, almost none of these goals and dribbles would have been possible because any decent modern defender or midfielder would have stopped the attack with ease. Players like Bobby Charlton were just more fit than their contemporaries and had a bit of technique. I don't think they would be noteworthy at all if magically transported into today's game. It looks impressive because they played mostly against players who couldn't even have become professionals today.
Last edited:
Defenders were given free licence to damage opponents unlike today when someone falls over his own feet and gets a free kick. Also pitches and the ball were nowhere near what we have today, try playing with a 1950s/60s casey ball.
Don't mean to be rude to you, but Charlton is the best English player of all time, bar literally none; he's one of the best players to ever play the game. There's at least a tier between he and Scholes, no matter how good anyone thinks Scholes was. Not a slight on Scholes; Charlton's English equal, let alone superior hasn't played a professional game of football yet.
They could comfortably co-habit in the same all-time United xi, however.
Denis Law said the pitches were quagmire and that they could only chip the ball to each other. Despite that you see clips of him dribbling on those pitches!
Scholes was a fantastic player but different to Chalton for me there is not a lot to choose beteween the 2 taking in their different qualities.
One of the best midfielders ever and the greatest Man Utd player.
He had everything, world class player, won everything with us and the country and on the top of that he is a class act person. We were lucky to have him at the club as a player and after that in the decision making board. The best image for our club.
I don't know why people keep trying to rate players from a time when defense was an afterthought.
I mean, look at a goal like this one at the 0:54 mark:
Pretty good finish, sure, but he's also completely unmarked directly in front of goal. There's three United players just loitering in front of goal, waiting for the pass, utterly unopposed. The closest defender is like six yards away, watching idly. These things do not happen in the modern game. Literally no one is defending at all in this shot.
In the very next clip, he's strolling calmly up midfield and nobody is challenging him at all:
Just wanders up the midfield at a leisurely pace until he feels it's time to shoot. No one makes any real attempt to interfere. Any professional footballer can make that shot when they're effectively alone on the pitch. It was so much easier to score goals back then that it isn't worth rating the players based on any modern standard.
Bobby Charlton was a very good player for his time, but he played in a time when it took so much less to be an effective goalscorer. When you actually look at these clips and consider what would have happened in a modern game of football, almost none of these goals and dribbles would have been possible because any decent modern defender or midfielder would have stopped the attack with ease. Players like Bobby Charlton were just more fit than their contemporaries and had a bit of technique. I don't think they would be noteworthy at all if magically transported into today's game. It looks impressive because they played mostly against players who couldn't even have become professionals today.
Works both ways. Pitches back then were like farmer's fields and the balls were like solid blocks. Close control was near impossible and defenders could hack you down however they pleased. Even as recently as the 1980s, see the clip from Gary Lineker about how they relaid the pitch before the 1986 Argentina game and the turf patches hadn't settled and kept sliding under their feet. And that was a World Cup semi final. If you play on a modern stadium pitch it's like astro turf it's so smooth.
There was definitely more variation in standard back then but the best players then would still be the best players today.
Before I even clicked on this thread I was about to post in here that @harms had dropped another YouTube vid on this. 
Got your videos on bell notification.
Got your videos on bell notification.
No offense taken. As said I don't remember Charlton play, however I do remember some magnificent players playing in my time. Its very difficult to communicate how ridiculously good certain players of the past were.
A- Adjectives such as World class mean little. Maradona was WC same as Charlton, Gullit, Zidane, Scholes, Gerrard, Pirlo and Seedorf. Some might even say Pogba is WC as well however the gap between Pogba and Maradona is ridiculously big.
B- Stats are useless as well. That's because they don't take in account technology (slippers, ball etc), tactics and rules. These days everything around football is built around protecting the attacking minded player and to make him look better. That's fair enough as my generation had seen players like Van Basten and Ronaldo get ruined by injuries but it does have a punishing effect on previous generations players
C- Videos showing entire games are rare and often highlight special games. Similarly to youtube clips they will only show the best side of players.
D- Bias is something to take in account. For example Carragher is possibly the only pundit in football who think that Gerrard was better then Scholes. That mentality is reflected by most Liverpool fans as opposed to the rest. United fans have a bias towards Maguire simply because he's English, he's our player and was signed by a former legend of ours. I got Italian friends of mine who can't stop laughing at us for spending 80m on such average defender.
Thus I fount that the most effective way to communicate how good a player was is to compare that former player with a player the audience can relate to and that both parties rate highly.
I don't know why people keep trying to rate players from a time when defense was an afterthought.
I mean, look at a goal like this one at the 0:54 mark:
Pretty good finish, sure, but he's also completely unmarked directly in front of goal. There's three United players just loitering in front of goal, waiting for the pass, utterly unopposed. The closest defender is like six yards away, watching idly. These things do not happen in the modern game. Literally no one is defending at all in this shot.
In the very next clip, he's strolling calmly up midfield and nobody is challenging him at all:
Just wanders up the midfield at a leisurely pace until he feels it's time to shoot. No one makes any real attempt to interfere. Any professional footballer can make that shot when they're effectively alone on the pitch. It was so much easier to score goals back then that it isn't worth rating the players based on any modern standard.
Bobby Charlton was a very good player for his time, but he played in a time when it took so much less to be an effective goalscorer. When you actually look at these clips and consider what would have happened in a modern game of football, almost none of these goals and dribbles would have been possible because any decent modern defender or midfielder would have stopped the attack with ease. Players like Bobby Charlton were just more fit than their contemporaries and had a bit of technique. I don't think they would be noteworthy at all if magically transported into today's game. It looks impressive because they played mostly against players who couldn't even have become professionals today.
that's why I hate the term greatest of all time, football keep evolving/changing (different rules, better ball, pitch, boots, technology. diet etc.). how do you compare with each era, based on what ? greatest of his time. for sure yes. greatest of all time ? unless there is a time machine for prime bobby charlton to time travel to play against all the great players of past, present and future. it's all guesswork.
Well I have watched both play, both live and on TV. They were different types of player. Bobby Charlton was initially a winger who then played more centrally. But he was much more of an attacker than Scholes.
Charlton was incredibly talented and extremely well balanced and completely two footed with a brilliant shot.
Most of us know all about Scholes and he was also a wonderful footballer. But in my view, not quite as good as Charlton.
thanks mate
Before I even clicked on this thread I was about to post in here that @harms had dropped another YouTube vid on this.
Got your videos on bell notification.
By the way my channel is mostly filled with all-touch compilations that includes every action of a player, be it a good one or a bad one. If you're into this kind of thing, of course.
Half a step to his left, dip the right shoulder and... wham!! pick that out of the net, nine times out of ten.
What a player, some great memories at OT and Wembley and further afield, goals of the finest order. However the most important memories of his playing days for me was the sight of Bobby Charlton, chasing back in defence in Tommy Doc's struggling team in the mid 70's, he was here there everywhere, shoring up the defence, stabilising the midfield and still able to crack in one or two belters!
Today's squad should be made to watch this mans contribution to the cause, especially in the mid 70's, he may not be the greatest ever United player, but he comes dam close to it and he is definitely 'Mr Manchester United'.
Hang in there Sir Bob!
What a player, some great memories at OT and Wembley and further afield, goals of the finest order. However the most important memories of his playing days for me was the sight of Bobby Charlton, chasing back in defence in Tommy Doc's struggling team in the mid 70's, he was here there everywhere, shoring up the defence, stabilising the midfield and still able to crack in one or two belters!
Today's squad should be made to watch this mans contribution to the cause, especially in the mid 70's, he may not be the greatest ever United player, but he comes dam close to it and he is definitely 'Mr Manchester United'.
Hang in there Sir Bob!
As @Buster15 said, very different players, especially if we compare the peak versions which for Scholes was (in my opinion, at least) the one of a deep-lying playmaker. Charlton was always very involved in the final third — be it as a winger, as an occasional forward or as a central midfielder, which is understandable, considering that he's one of the most productive players ever, both in terms of goals and assists.
What Scholes was better at was his passing — Charlton was capable of making any pass imaginable, but he was way less consistent than Scholes at it, the latter would have 9 out of 10 diagonals reach the target, while Charlton played like a slightly more accurate version of Bruno (always forward, always threatening). But overall, as much as I adore Scholes, he was certainly at least a notch below Charlton, who would win you game after game with his goals & assists (including the big ones — a brace in the European Cup final, a brace in the World Cup semi-final etc.) while often assuming a more of a supporting role towards the likes of Best and Law.
Good assessment which I fully agree with.
Just one minor point. We have to take into account the pitches they were playing on. In Bobby Charlton case, after the first month or so, there was very little grass. Mainly mud and sand.
That was not the case for Paul Scholes. And yes he was a fabulous passer of a football.
As Jack Charlton used to say about Sir Alf Ramsey, the only manager to have won the WC for England, his tactics were often - win the ball and give it to Bobby...
Oh, certainly. Better pitch, better balls, better boots — and the tactics themselves have certainly adapted to focus more of keeping the possession instead of trying to directly set up a goal with every other pass, which works out in Scholes' favour a bit.
As usual, spot on. And I too remember those Tommy Docherty days even when Charlton was at the end of his career. Immensely hard working.
You are actually right, sorry for that. He said for Di Stefano that he was the greatest player he saw.
Yes, he was 36 or 37 (not sure) years old running about like a twenty year old, that one strip of hair flying away in the wind, putting in the yards on muddy pitches avoiding thigh high tackles, cracking the ball 60/70 yards with ease (not as long as some these days but you have to remember the conditions).
Here was a World Cup winner, European Cup winner, FA Cup winner and First Division Champion toiling away for his club, his only club everywhere on the pitch, trying to save them from relegation, of course he couldn't, but the effort and commitment was outstanding.
The best compliment I can give Bobby is he looks like a modern player, playing in olden times. If you could teleport him forward 50 years he'd walk into our team now IMO.
What's your channel name please?
Thanks for your feedback
I remember a training video Charlton and a young Giggs did back in the day. What impressed me was how Charlton could still keep up with Giggs without making himself look silly. I mean the age gap between the two was tremendous and while Charlton was still fit for a man of his age his training was nowhere near to that of an active football player let alone someone as talented or as pacey as an 18 year old something Giggs
I remember saying to myself if this guy could do all that at his age then imagine what he could do in his prime
A fantastic footballer who could glide past players with his famous body swerve and didn't favour any foot so could not be closed down on the edge of the box as the video showed. I cannot think of an easy comparison to another attacking midfielder and certainly a different type of player to Scholes who I rate very highly but I have to say Charlton is on another level to me.
I've checked his height out at 5 foot 7 inches because I met him at OT a couple of times and remember being surprised how small he was ( I'm 6-2 ) because when you watched him play his stature appeared to make him look quite tall - what a gentleman he is and there's no arrogance or cockiness about him.
I think he was a better player having the likes of Stiles and Crerand alongside him in midfield doing the dirty work and Stiles often said his job was to win the ball and give it to Bobby - I would say his comments about Duncan Edwards were very complimentary but what a partnership they would have formed for club and country for over 100 England games each. Edwards could have played in any position on the pitch but IMO would have become a sweeper type of player capable of breaking forward if necessary but definitely not taking Charlton's position in the team - Edwards was a powerhouse with touch and probably would have got the captaincy above Bobby but not the place in the team.
World Class player without a doubt and total loyalty to Man Utd !
I've checked his height out at 5 foot 7 inches because I met him at OT a couple of times and remember being surprised how small he was ( I'm 6-2 ) because when you watched him play his stature appeared to make him look quite tall - what a gentleman he is and there's no arrogance or cockiness about him.
I think he was a better player having the likes of Stiles and Crerand alongside him in midfield doing the dirty work and Stiles often said his job was to win the ball and give it to Bobby - I would say his comments about Duncan Edwards were very complimentary but what a partnership they would have formed for club and country for over 100 England games each. Edwards could have played in any position on the pitch but IMO would have become a sweeper type of player capable of breaking forward if necessary but definitely not taking Charlton's position in the team - Edwards was a powerhouse with touch and probably would have got the captaincy above Bobby but not the place in the team.
World Class player without a doubt and total loyalty to Man Utd !
https://www.youtube.com/c/HarmsFootball/videos
The one with the video from the OP, for some reason I assumed that it's obvious but it actually wasn't. Aside from a few big compilations — like the one on Charlton, most of those are all-action compilations of one player from a single game, all mistakes included. There are other channels with more or less similar theme by other redcafe members:
@Joga Bonito
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE85pt8FG3KziK7VYL4cqbQ
@Šjor Bepo
https://www.youtube.com/user/pepina74
Wow thanks
The best midfielder of his generation and probably tied with Scholes as the most technically gifted English footballer ever.
Now that's very interesting because one of the most important goals he scored for United was a header.
One of the things I remember him saying about himself "I could score the odd goal from a distance"