How would the treble winning team fare in this season?

bosnian_red said:
It is unfair to compare older teams to current day without making the necessary assumption of they would have modern diet, nutrition, training and sports science. And that there wouldn't be modern tactical adaptations to the team. The same group of players with those considerations would be competing for every trophy just like City are, but tbh not necessarily clear of City, but definitely not behind either. So they probably wouldn't win the treble as when you have 2 sides like that, they tend to split the trophies and luck determines it.

Schmeichel
Neville Stam Johnsen Irwin
Beckham Keane Scholes
Yorke Cole Giggs​

Would probably look something more like this than a flatter 442. But no reason why it wouldn't work. It'd essentially be like having a midfield of KdB, Casemiro and Kroos, which would dominate in any era.
Click to expand...
Beckham, Keane, Scholes and Giggs would be incredible in those positions. That is certainly a formidable first XI. But City's squad depth would win out over the course of a season. Also, while the first XI is well suited to a 4-3-3, the squad isn't, as sullydnl pointed out...
sullydnl said:
The main issue for them would be that if you adjust them tactically, playing a shape/system/style more suited to the current game, then you'd probably need to change the composition of the squad. For example if you're only using one CF then having the four strikers we had then is overkill, while you might be short in other areas. And there might be some positions where you'd then prefer a different profile of player because the style of football wouldn't be the same.
Click to expand...
Of course, SAF was the master of reinventing a football club, so he would of course be up to the challenge. But I don't think you could just time-travel those players into the league now and have them be as effective, despite their obvious quality.
 
Last edited:
el3mel said:
They will challenge for sure, but honestly don't think they'll be able to win it from current City. Guardiola raised the bar of the league way, way higher than how it used to be in Ferguson era.
Click to expand...
Oil money “raised” the bar. Just look at the line up City played today. And then their bench. That’s way, way higher quality across the entire big squad than United could afford at any time under SAF.
 
el3mel said:
Not arguing about the players quality, but I think the PL works in a different way now than the 90s and early 2000s both regarding tactical set up and expectations from the title winning team. You can get 90 points and fail to win the league now, that would be ridiculous in old times.
Click to expand...
Just ignoring the tactical evolution side of things which might mean the 99 side would get smashed if they don't have the time acclimatize themselves with I've always held that our 99 side had our strongest starting line up and man for man would consider it superior to the current city side, they certainly had the mentality to go with it as well so i wouldn't worry about hitting 90+ point totals if need be.

What separates the pre oil money prem with now is the insane depth afforded to them by the virtue of them well being rich.
 
"Modern diets"

It's probably age and nostalgia but what do people think today's players are eating that makes such a difference and what is "modern food?"

The big difference maker in terms of nutrition would be booze. But by '99 a lot of that had gone out of the game anyway.

The '99 team would win the league this year if they had a squad size equal to today's norm.
 
Dannn411 said:
They would have access to modern diet and training techniques. That team had 4 deadly strikers. Two all-time great central midfielders iin Scholes and Keane and two of the greatest wingers ever in Becks and Giggs. Not to talk of of the mature and assured defensive group and then Peter Schmeichel in goal. How would you think that they would struggle when our bunch of players are 4th?
Click to expand...

Well for one you’d have to change the the shape and tactics of the side to not get overrun in midfield. Obvious solution would be to have Beckham tucking inside into that right channel. 4 strikers is sort of pointless as well, we’d probably have to sell one at least to bring in more wide help.

But even disregarding all of that, the toughest part is depth compared to modern squads. We’d have a brilliant starting XI, but would struggle with any sort of injury issues
 
Marwood said:
"Modern diets"

It's probably age and nostalgia but what do people think today's players are eating that makes such a difference.

The big difference maker in terms of nutrition would be booze. But by '99 a lot of that had gone out of the game anyway.

The '99 team would win the league this year if they had a squad size equal to today's norm.
Click to expand...

It’s not about “what they are eating” as much as nutrition being a true science that is dissected to the minute detail compared to just 15 years ago, let alone almost 25. It’s miles different across any sport
 
el3mel said:
Not arguing about the players quality, but I think the PL works in a different way now than the 90s and early 2000s both regarding tactical set up and expectations from the title winning team. You can get 90 points and fail to win the league now, that would be ridiculous in old times.
Click to expand...

Squad size. Nothing more than that.

If City's only cover in the two wing positions was Blomqvist or Butt for the two CM positions would they be racking up this many points?
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
It’s not about “what they are eating” as much as nutrition being a true science that is dissected to the minute detail compared to just 15 years ago, let alone almost 25. It’s miles different across any sport
Click to expand...

I mean we've seen menu options for footballers. It's nowhere near as strict and managed as some think. It's an assumption more than anything.

And remember, it's still all down to the individual. 20 hrs a day they're not at the training ground. I know what healthy eating is, it's not complicated. Doesn't stop me inhaling a box of cereal on a Saturday morning.
 
Do a list of players who were world class in the world in 1999. It was a far better era across the board for talent.
 
Simply teletransport them in modern football, they wouldn’t do great. Them trained from being young in modern football is another matter.
 
sullydnl said:
Say you fit the '99 team into a more current shape, something like.....

Schmeichel
Beckham - Johnson - Stam - Irwin
Butt
Keane - Scholes
Solskjaer - CF - Giggs
​
It isn't perfect, but you're not that far away from something that would really work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably what you have but Giggs on the right, Irwin sort of tucked in to make a 3 man backline and give Beckham freedom and help Butt, and then instead of Yorke, since we already had Cole and Sheringham, we'd have signed a winger like Brian Laudrup earlier from Rangers or Overmars or someone like that to play on the left.
 
Really hard to say. I think there has to be some distinguishing between parachuting that side into modern football unchanged versus giving them time to actually train and understand modern developments in football from a tactical and structural point of view. Also it's important whether they're given time prior to the season or whether you're just giving them access to elite coaching, sports science etc from the season outset. Obviously if they're given an extended "pre season" they'd stand a lot better.

The game at its core is relatively simple so it's not rocket science for them to adapt, but things do move on in terms of physical development and playing styles, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise - it is plain as day when you see old matches rerun on TV. So simply dropping them in and expecting them to win the league is probably going to end badly. I doubt they'd get fecking relegated or something daft, they're still far better and more talented footballers than the vast majority of the league, and even if they were forced to adapt on the fly over the course of a season I think they'd still be a lot better than our current side. It's just the consistency of City is a problem.
 
The Beckham disrespect continues to get me. He would be a better version of De Bruyne had he played under Pep. Shame it needs that comparison.
 
FriedClams said:
Do a list of players who were world class in the world in 1999. It was a far better era across the board for talent.
Click to expand...

Was talking about this the other day.There was just a much better spread of top class players across the top European teams. There's a real lack of actual top quality players across the top level of football today.

On the topic of this Utd team, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes in midfield with Beckham or Butt as a 3, would wipe the floor with 90% of the league. Keane was like having 2 players in midfield, he'd make light work of dealing with the likes of Xhaka, Odegaard, Rodri, KDB, Joe Linton, Henderson, Fabinho etc.

Maybe on the right side up top you'd have an issue, you could put Butt in midfield and play Beckham there or you could have Blomqvist, Giggs, Yorke and Solskjaer swapping left and right.

Back 4 and keeper, they'd have it fecking easy dealing with most teams playing with only 1 up top.
 
Marwood said:
I mean we've seen menu options for footballers. It's nowhere near as strict and managed as some think. It's an assumption more than anything.

And remember, it's still all down to the individual. 20 hrs a day they're not at the training ground. I know what healthy eating is, it's not complicated. Doesn't stop me inhaling a box of cereal on a Saturday morning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, plus a surprising number of footballers still sneaky crafty fags (or these days, more often, vapes) on the side, if gossip (and photos) are to be believed, despite all the micromanagement and measurement of minute cardiovasc shifts and the rest... I'd still agree that overall top-flight fitness levels have probably increased another few percent since 2000 though, and we've seen the impact of 'fit' pressing sides against 'bigger' slides who've let their levels slip or been subject to fixture pile up fatigue..
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
I reckon the team would be set up a bit differently, more 433/4231, but Christ, the squad.

Imagine playing Beckham, Scholes and Keane in the a midfield three in today's game. Absolutely dominant in my opinion, can sub in Butt if you want too.

Beckham could be in that KDB/TAA role in the inside "half space" on the right. Less winger, tucked in, but like he did at Madrid, when we have the ball. To be honest, I can see him in the modern game at right back, like Trent perhaps.

Front three, just wow. Cole leading the line, Teddy as a #10, Dwight Yorke in any space on the front three.

feck, could play a 442 diamond. I actually think the player who misses out the most is Giggs tbh.
Click to expand...

Giggs is the one player who fits into the 4-3-3 the most though.
 
sullydnl said:
Say you fit the '99 team into a more current shape, something like.....

Schmeichel
Beckham - Johnson - Stam - Irwin
Butt
Keane - Scholes
Solskjaer - CF - Giggs
​
It isn't perfect, but you're not that far away from something that would really work.
Click to expand...
This was my thinking. Cole up top
 
Cannot wait until we have time travel locked down so we would see what would happen and then save on topics like this.
 
golden_blunder said:
Would they be as good as they were back then; or are the teams stronger across the board now?
Click to expand...

The average Premier league player is fitter and probably better coached but the average team is probably weaker. The bigger gap between the rich and poor means the difference in squad depth is huge. In the 90s and 00s, Ajax, Marseille, Dortmund and Porto all became European champions. Now they'd all have their best players poached before they could get close. Most games are less competitive now.

Since 99, there's been trebles in Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Its definitely getting easier for the big clubs to do.
 
Just as well. They were the true mentality monsters with leaders all over the pitch with some of the hardest working players I've seen play the game. Had they trained and prepared as well as top level teams do nowadays they would have won the treble more comfortably than they did in 1999.
 
They'd smash it playing the same old 442.

Theyd always have 2 men up top forcing the defence and CDM to cover them.

David Beckham could put a ball anywhere on a pitch any time in any situation. He'd 1-2 with Neville or Scholes around the attacking fullbacks or he'd drop crosses in from deep.

Giggs would cut in and dribble through defences or cut out wide and cross the ball.

Yorke and Cole where always mobile, Yorke would often drop deep to find the ball.

Scholes and Keane would sit deep as a pair in the defensive phase and either could make runs late during the attacking phase.

The defence was physical, organised, fast and accurate with the ball. People forget Irwin was a deadball specialist and both Neville and Irwin delivered accurate crosses regularly.

The team was well disciplined, well organised and passed the ball fast. None of these shit backward passes and sideways crap waiting for a man to move into space. When the likes of Scholes and Beckham are going yo supply you - you move into space all the time.
 
The interesting part about this question for me is not if they could change their style of play to fit the current meta (As in 4-3-3, wingers cutting in shooting spam) but if with a good enough exponent 4-4-2, 0r 4-4-1-1 with wingers playing like wingers rather than strikers can be a viable tactic again.

I think it will eventually return with tweaks and more of an emphasis on controlling possession and territory, and it would not be before time time for me, I am beyond bored with the generic left footed winger on the right cutting in and shooting repetition, undeniably effective though it is.

Giggs was still playing in 2014 against guys who are still playing now, and was still one of the fittest players in the league, I think the difference in fitness is a little overstated.
 
They would give man city a great title race. Comfortably 2nd and would definitely push city and possibly win as the rest of the league is muck ,Man city though i reckon would toy with them in a match. Rest of the league would struggle massively against them.
 
Ted Lasso said:
The Beckham disrespect continues to get me. He would be a better version of De Bruyne had he played under Pep. Shame it needs that comparison.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he was voted the second best player in the world that season.
 
People on here talking as if 442 doesn't work in the modern era. The trend has been to defend in a 442. Simeone has also proven that the 442 isn't dead.

I don't see why that team wouldn't be able to attack in a 4411 or 433 shape too.

Just off the top of my head - Scholes as CAM is an upgrade over Bruno. Yorke/Cole/Giggs/Solskjaer/Sheringham are also an upgrade over what we currently have as a front 3 IMHO. A double pivot of Keane and Beckham would be extremely solid and tidy in possession, too, with Becks going wide to deliver early crosses and/or for the RW/RF to cut inside.
 
Bobski said:
The interesting part about this question for me is not if they could change their style of play to fit the current meta (As in 4-3-3, wingers cutting in shooting spam) but if with a good enough exponent 4-4-2, 0r 4-4-1-1 with wingers playing like wingers rather than strikers can be a viable tactic again.

I think it will eventually return with tweaks and more of an emphasis on controlling possession and territory, and it would not be before time time for me, I am beyond bored with the generic left footed winger on the right cutting in and shooting repetition, undeniably effective though it is.

Giggs was still playing in 2014 against guys who are still playing now, and was still one of the fittest players in the league, I think the difference in fitness is a little overstated.
Click to expand...
Yes! I miss 442 too, 2 wingers hugging the touch line getting crosses in
 
A sports reporter asked Michael Jordan if he thought the 90’s Bulls team could beat Lebron's Lakers.

Jordan: Yeah, I think so.
Reporter: By how much?
Jordan: Two, maybe three points.
Reporter: Why such a close game?
Jordan: Well, most of us are almost 60 now.
 
If they were transported here from 1999 I think they'd struggle to stay up.

If they'd had a lifetime of modern training they would be second. They were stacked full of talent but I don't think they could cope with the financially doped teams aka City.
 
11101 said:
If they were transported here from 1999 I think they'd struggle to stay up.

If they'd had a lifetime of modern training they would be second. They were stacked full of talent but I don't think they could cope with the financially doped teams aka City.
Click to expand...
Struggle to stay up? Really?
 
golden_blunder said:
Struggle to stay up? Really?
Click to expand...

The pace and intensity has increased drastically in 25 years. Nobody using 1990s sports science and training would be able to keep up with a current PL team no matter how good they are.
 
11101 said:
The pace and intensity has increased drastically in 25 years. Nobody using 1990s sports science and training would be able to keep up with a current PL team no matter how good they are.
Click to expand...
And you don’t think that group of winners could adapt?
 
With Fergies mind games week in week out and a fully fit first 11 every matchday?

10 points clear.
That was a team of winners lead by the best manager in the world.

Stupid question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.