They would our current lot that's for sure.
How would the treble winning team fare in this season?
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
That wasn't how I understood the question
I added to the question further, given the same training/fitness methods how could that group of players do in todays modern game?
They'd come second, possibly first. They never had to face a team with 15 years of financial doping behind them. If City had an off year like this season they wouldn't bottle it like Arsenal have but they wouldn't get to a 100 point season either.
Miles off.
The intensity argument I really don't get. What's intense about todays fashion for goalkeepers and CB's exchanging 2000 passes per game or teams sitting in deep and compact. Late 90's football was way more intense.
Our CB pairing then was faster than it is now. Our CM then was faster than it is now. Neville had a better engine than AWB. Are we saying Cole was slower and ran less than Martial? Wout quicker than Yorke?
Does Antony play quicker than Beckham?
Shaw is faster and stronger than Irwin was but I'm backing Dennis for endurance.
The significant difference was a two man midfield as opposed to a three. That and squad size is the only reason the '99 team might not have won the league.
But relegation?
Watch a game from the 90s. The number of sprints, the speed the ball is played, the intensity of the runs. Its all so far below what the game is now. The margins are very fine at this level and the explosion in sports science didn't occur until well into the 2000s.
Here's some data to back it up. In the 2022 World Cup teams ran on average 10km more per game than they did in 2018. The top team, Spain, covered 125km per game in 2022 vs 109km in 2010. That's despite the fact 2010 was the coldest tournament on record and 2022 was the hottest on record.
Last edited:
Question is how many if any of the current lot would get anywhere near that team..
That Utd Wimbledon game with the cantona goal and vinny Jones in ultra hatchet man mode would be abandoned before half time now with several arrests...
I think they would fight relegation. They are a bunch of players in their late 40's you know
This is a pretty insane take. In terms of physicality today's players are light-years ahead, which should be evident to the eye if you actually watch a typical game from the 90s back. The difference is intensity is massive.
Even just between 06/07 and 12/13 the total distance run increased by 2%, the amount of high-speed running (the distance that players run at a speed over 19.8 km/h during a game) had increased by 30%, “sprints” (distance covered at a speed over 25.2 km/h) had increased by 35% and the number of sprints players performed had increased by 85%. And that's just looking at that six year period, let alone the 24 year period since '99. The game is completely different now, a team from 20 years ago would get run into the ground.
Was to young for that team but the 07/08 team wins the league easily. Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez up front.. Scholes Carrick Hargreaves behind.. sigh. Such a shame it only lasted like a season and a half.
I saw the study you mentioned. Sprints have increased. Didn't the same study also find players now walk more than they did back then? You've also assumed that since 2012 the curve has continued to go upwards. Not necessarily the case.
But either way have a go at answering the comparisons in my post?
Let's take just one?
A CM of '99 Keane/Scholes vs Casemiro/Eriksen now. Which is more physical, more intense?
I loved that team and it was fantastic without a doubt but anyone saying they win the league 'easily' is deluded. They didn't win their actual league easily. Like, it went to the final day against a team managed by Avram fecking Grant.
Okay fair enough it wouldn't be easy, but Arsenal have challenged this season and theyre not a great team. And tbf to Chelsea, they did make the CL final and took us to penalties. They were a strong team. We finished that season points wise at around where City will finish this season.
Man for man though, De Bruyne aside, that 07/08 was much better than City.
Of the myriad of qualities Scholes was rightly lauded for, I don't remember the quantity and intensity of his sprinting being one of them.
Also, it's quite limited to compare the Treble-winning midfield solely to United's current midfield. United's current team are not really representative of the dynamism found in the league, as ETH famously pointed out by making them run 14 km in training. Plus, Eriksen and Casemiro are in their 30s, whereas Keane and Scholes were in their physical peak in 98/99.
Yes, the game became more about high-intensity bursts, even while players were also running more, playing more and training more. That's exactly the point.
As for the comparison you mention, you're comparing Keane/Scholes to a midfield pairing of two 31 years olds not exactly known for its own intensity relative to the rest of the current league.
But even with that, if you dropped Keane/Scholes from '99 into a game against a Casemiro/Eriksen midfield today with literally zero acclimitization then they would still get run over. Because you're massively underestimating the degree to which midfielders now run, sprint, press, cover more ground and get less space than midfielders from the 90's. The average PL game is more physically demanding now than any of the games Keane/Scholes were playing in 24 years ago, bolstered as it is by two decades of sports science and increased professionalism. Casemiro/Eriksen are used to playing under that sort of intensity multiple times a week, Keane/Scholes weren't.
Obviously they would adapt if given the same conditions, but that's not what you seem to be talking about.
Scholes wasn't lauded for it no but in '99 he was quicker and got about the pitch better than Eriksen does now yes?
Go beyond the midfield if you like.
Stam/Johnsen then vs Varane/Martinez now. Who is quicker, more physical pair?
Giggs vs Rashford? Anything in it? Does Rashford work harder than Giggs did then?
Cole/Solskjaer vs Martial? Who's more intense physically?
Beckham vs Antony?
Blomqvist vs Sancho?
Clearly Bruno works harder thany No.10 we had back then though.
Last edited:
Right so more sprinting but also more walking and that was in 2012. I'd argue there's even more walking involved now than 10 years ago with the keepers and CB's having so much more of the ball. Also a lot more stoppages with the refs being so whistle happy and players constant faking injury.
When you say the 90's, we're talking about '99 here. There's a big difference from the beginning of that decade to the end of it. A massive shift away from the stereotypical drinking culture happened for one.
But if you think today's Casemiro/Eriksen would run over prime Scholes/Keane I don't know what to say. Polar opposite opinions on that.
You're going beyond rational science to believe a human is automatically fitter/stronger/faster just because 25 years have passed. Knowledge and evolution just doesn't work that fast.
Last edited:
I'm not sure Scholes did get about the pitch quicker in 99. But assuming that he did, what exactly would that prove? Scholes was 24. Eriksson is 31 and has a serious heart condition.
And the question is whether or not the league as a whole has become more physically intense. Which the stats prove and can clearly be seen every single week. The majority of teams attempt some sort of pressing system - that simply wasn't the case in 1999. Comparing the 99 team to the current side that has literally been punished by their Manager for not running enough is unlikely to yield any great insights about the physical demands of the league as whole.
Seriously if the numbers don't convince, there's not much to say.
But just watch some games from that season. Look at how much more time they have on the ball, how much more space they have to play. For example, yes, without any preparation, Stam or Johnsen would struggle if they were pressed as hard as modern centre-backs routinely are. Sure, if you coached Stam from a young age using all the modern methods, he would be a top 3 CB in the world today as well because he had immense talent. But if you just drop him in to the modern game, he'd be fecked.
A lot of players from the 99 team played into the 10's
Gary Neville to 2011
Phil Neville to 2013
Nicky Butt to 2010
Giggs to 2014
Beckham to 2013
Scholes to 2013
As noted above the physical intensity increased from the mid 00's, and those guys were part of that already, coped with it comfortably even in their later years. Giggs and Scholes in paticular were still 2 of the best players in the league late into their 30's. The physical adaptation would be the easy part, especially if there were brought back in their physical prime.
Gary Neville to 2011
Phil Neville to 2013
Nicky Butt to 2010
Giggs to 2014
Beckham to 2013
Scholes to 2013
As noted above the physical intensity increased from the mid 00's, and those guys were part of that already, coped with it comfortably even in their later years. Giggs and Scholes in paticular were still 2 of the best players in the league late into their 30's. The physical adaptation would be the easy part, especially if there were brought back in their physical prime.
Can you show me the stats from '99?
I'm drawing that comparison because these United players look on track to finish 4th in the league. 4th while apparently being less physically intense than the rest of the league, not having a striker, not having a wide man who can provide an assist, fullbacks who can't cross, midfielders who can't move with the ball. That's some going in a level of football that's supposed to be so advanced.
So where would the '99 team finish with more talent all round, two goal scoring strikers at the top of their game and as I'm asking, arguably physically better.
Liked I've asked others, go through the two teams and compare. Who are the better athletes? Who played with more intensity. It's a no brainer really.
You haven't got the numbers. They didn't exist in '99 nor I'd argue would they tell the full story.
Stam would be fecked? In '99 he was stronger and faster than any CB we currently have and he was very capable on the ball.
What kind of space age technology/methods do you guys think are available to todays players that can supercede genetics and natural talent in such a short period of time?
I've made the same point before. If the game became so advanced beyond '99 how did players from that era cope so well in the 10's whilst being way past their prime.
Makes no sense.
Last edited:
It is a constant issue when we have these cross generation discussions, the idea that these guys existed in this one moment, the lack of general perspective.
Johan Cruyff played against Bryan Robson who played with Giggs who played with De Gea.
If you watch games like the FA cup semi final against Arsenal, the cup game against Liverpool, or the Juve games in 99 the intensity is immense-it's just blistering 4-4-2 attacks. With better training and modern fitness those players could easily maintain that level today.
What people are looking at is the base quality of the players and if that could hold up in today's game. Someone in this thread said Keane would struggle with the pace of this league
Surprised more people haven't mentioned the one area that would stand out in the modern game and that's Schmeichal's passing. Stam, Johnsen, Irwin and Neville were all competent at passing the ball; Johnsen often played in midfield, Irwin's first touch/technique was fantastic and Stam could carry the ball out of defence really well. Big Pete? I'm not sure he could be trained to play out form the back. That and how to fit in Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke are the two biggest issues i feel.
What a statisical shower of absoltue shite you are presenting here.
So they ran under 1k further per player? What on earth does that prove in terms of intensity? That is about 100m further every 10minutes, 10metres a minute and it isnt even running its movement. Not lest forget you are talking about the world cup, which is hardly the same as the premiership, certainly not in the 90s.
Hate statistics but this post wins the award for proving what absolute nonsense most statistics are.
I think it is you needs to watch a game from the 90s, the intensity and tempo of a premiership game the last few seasons is far slower than it was in the 90s, the premiership game has become far more possesion based and playing from the back. The only area that is more intense is in terms of a high press.
How the Wenger Fergies sides would do now in this league we really dotn know and of course fitness and nutrition has moved forward from then, but please the speed and intensity those two sides played at was with far more intensity than most top sides now, only Liverpool at times a couple of seasons back showed that kind of intensity.
For me personally, its technically and tactically where the game and players are so different from the two sides overall, not intensity wise. Think you are mixing up players work with the high press without the ball with the intensity of the tempo and game the poster was talking about
Can only assume the people doubting the 99 side did not watch them live. Even in an old school 442 they would beat this current City team to the league.
Would love to see a prime Teddy Sheringham in this current United team playing as the number 9. Suited perfectly to this "modern" game everyone is talking about.
Would love to see a prime Teddy Sheringham in this current United team playing as the number 9. Suited perfectly to this "modern" game everyone is talking about.
The physical intensity has definitely increased, don't think we should be harsh on people pointing that out, just don't think it is a huge problem to get up to speed with. Playing out from the back with Schmeichel who makes De Gea look like Zidane with his feet and a back 4 unused to that style would be the issue.
I think the back 4 could be trained to do it with enough time because the quality of those players was very good on a technical level, with Neville probably being the weakest. Agree about Schmeichel though, sadly.
I think it would win the league, adjusting for modern fitness and binning the Europa.
They probably wouldn’t win all 3 but they also wouldn’t pussy out if they went 1-0 down. Both the 94 and 99 team’s could out play or out fight the opposition. This team can’t do either tbh
The first truly uncontroversial statement in this thread. This is at least beyond doubt.
The 1999 team would stream roll the opposition, just as they did that year.
Of course, we'd need Fergie to be in charge.
The amount of repositioning when you don't have the ball is far more intense now, you are constantly moving more. Also because teams are more organised now the amount of space and pressure you are under is more often higher now, you do not get the number of teams that park the bus like they used to, so its tougher.
Also there is no point comparing our players now to then, when our players now struggle, you are not proving anything.
They’d win the PL this season easily, and one other cup.
The level of fitness and discipline required in the modern game is higher, but the level of physicality is less. The 99 team (if plucked and dropped into the league today) would probably have rings run around them. However if you took a top team and dropped them into the PL in 99 they probably wouldn’t be able to play the kind of game they’re allowed to now. It’s one of those arguments that never goes anywhere, but that 99 team had bags of character and fight, something which modern teams severely lack.
Our current players are 4th in the league, might finish 3rd and have won a cup. I'm hardly comparing the '99 lot to a team getting relegated.
I take your points but equally I could say football in '99 was much more end to end because keepers launched it more, less sideways and backwards passing. Less stoppages in play back then, tackling was more physical, more aerial challenges. It's easy to pick the odd difference here and there and come to a sweeping conclusion.
I'm afraid that's all just rose tinted glasses. Players now run further, do more sprints, and run with more intensity.
If you think 1km per player is nothing I think it's best we end this discussion here.
Always laugh at threads like these. You get people making out like players in the 90’s and 00’s would struggle so much with modern day football because of some extra running and sprints. Presumably they were all fat out of shape alcoholics: No mention of actual footballing ability. All about sprints and runs…
I mean the third best team in the PL this season regularly start matches with players like Jacob Murphy, Joelinton and Sean Longstaff in their midfield and we’re supposed to believe that David Beckham, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes would struggle against these players because they run a bit more. @Marwood and @jesperjaap hitting the nail on the head with their posts.
I can only think the United fans saying games were less intense back in the day are under 20. Some of those United arsenal meetings were played at 100 miles an hour with breathtaking counters and attacks.
I also don’t know why in threads like these people pretend that everyone plays like Man City.
Someone was saying how you’re given much less space now and some repositioning off the ball. We played Aston Villa a few weeks back and I may have never seen a match where we were given such gigantic amounts of space before. We had so much time and space to pick the ball up and find space and passes frequently.
For some reason Man City and Liverpool etc pressing high up, squeezing the pitch etc means that everyone else is doing it…. This Manchester United team have managed to finish in the top four teams of England in 2 out of the 3 last years. This same Manchester United team who are incapable of implementing a structural press and run less than most of their opponents. But yeah Keane, Scholes, Beckham, Giggs etc would be struggling all over the place…
I mean the third best team in the PL this season regularly start matches with players like Jacob Murphy, Joelinton and Sean Longstaff in their midfield and we’re supposed to believe that David Beckham, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes would struggle against these players because they run a bit more. @Marwood and @jesperjaap hitting the nail on the head with their posts.
I can only think the United fans saying games were less intense back in the day are under 20. Some of those United arsenal meetings were played at 100 miles an hour with breathtaking counters and attacks.
I also don’t know why in threads like these people pretend that everyone plays like Man City.
Someone was saying how you’re given much less space now and some repositioning off the ball. We played Aston Villa a few weeks back and I may have never seen a match where we were given such gigantic amounts of space before. We had so much time and space to pick the ball up and find space and passes frequently.
For some reason Man City and Liverpool etc pressing high up, squeezing the pitch etc means that everyone else is doing it…. This Manchester United team have managed to finish in the top four teams of England in 2 out of the 3 last years. This same Manchester United team who are incapable of implementing a structural press and run less than most of their opponents. But yeah Keane, Scholes, Beckham, Giggs etc would be struggling all over the place…
I think the OP needs to be more strictly defined (which I think it was on the first page). The game has clearly evolved from a sports science, tactical and squad management perspective since 1999.
Obviously, all other things being equal, the 99 team would beat the current United team and most PL teams throughout history. It had a first XI packed with players who were amongst the finest in the country. If they were given time and money to:
- Adjust to the increased physical demands of the league
- Adapt to the league’s almost ubiquitous three-man midfields
- Improve the squad to compete with rotation potential of the likes of City