Best ever squad?

[herbolive]

Supporter for 50 years, I reckon this our best ever squad. And maybe best Manager, Even above 'Team of 80s' and Wright/Bright era. Thoughts?

 

[Badger11]

No it's the worst, they are all terrible, expensive and have poor attitudes so no point other clubs looking at them. 😀

 

[PatrickA]

Supporter for 50 years, I reckon this our best ever squad. And maybe best Manager, Even above 'Team of 80s' and Wright/Bright era. Thoughts?

I've been a supporter for a similar length of time and there's no doubt that we currently have a very good set of players and an excellent manager.
If left to develop with further additions, there is the potential to equal or surpass Coppell's team.
However, that's a big 'if' and we're not there yet in my view.
The Coppell team finished third in the league and was minutes away from winning a cup final.
It had a spine of Martyn, Thorn, Young, Gray, Thomas, Wright and Bright.
That's a fearsome combination of ability, physicality and competitive spirit.
In my opinion the current team is not yet at thjs level.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

No question, it's the best ever squad.

We have had some good players in the past, like Wright, Zaha, Jansen, Lombardo, Curcic, Taylor, but you can't really compare the team of the '80s or even the Coppell side because the standard of football was lower back then.

 

[JHB]

It’s all relative to the era teams played in. However, the team that finished third in the league is surely the best. Outstanding spine and our best two strikers.

Good as this first eleven is we will finish around mid table again. There is also a big drop from the starting eleven to the squad players. Mid table in itself is very successful for our club but it isn’t third in the league.

 

[silvertop]

1st half of the season you would not have thought so.

Second half definitely yes.

At the risk of breaking out of my shackles of small club mentality and into full blown hubris when compared to Coppell's 3rd place I believe we are definitely top 3 right now.

Next few games will test that I guess.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It’s all relative to the era teams played in. However, the team that finished third in the league is surely the best. Outstanding spine and our best two strikers.

Good as this first eleven is we will finish around mid table again. There is also a big drop from the starting eleven to the squad players. Mid table in itself is very successful for our club but it isn’t third in the league.

In a game between the current team and the '91 side, the current one would win.
If you are talking about achievement, the Coppell side managed a cup final, third place and the ZDS Cup.

Had we begun the season with fit players, I suspect the current team could have been top 6. It is as good as anyone on its day, bar the big 3. If we win the Cup, then all doubt will be ended.

 

[BromleyMonkey]

I don’t think this is our best squad, we’re still in that position where if we’ve got two or three of our best players out we’re buggered. Exactly the same as 91 really. So maybe on a par with, but not better. But me personally I’ll always swing towards 91 being a better team because they actually finished 3rd. It’s all ifs and buts what we could’ve done this season if we hadn’t had such a slow start but I very much doubt we would’ve finished 3rd

 

[pssguy]

I don’t think this is our best squad, we’re still in that position where if we’ve got two or three of our best players out we’re buggered. Exactly the same as 91 really. So maybe on a par with, but not better. But me personally I’ll always swing towards 91 being a better team because they actually finished 3rd. It’s all ifs and buts what we could’ve done this season if we hadn’t had such a slow start but I very much doubt we would’ve finished 3rd

The game has changed. Back in the day, there was a lot less running around - when did Rogers or Hughes ever track back - and injuries were much less prevalent. Nowadays, you are going to have spells where 4+ players are out with injury, illness or suspension and when we are in that situation the likes of Clyne and Kamada (though he had an OK game) are starting, Clubs like Brighton, Fulham and Bournemouth have deeper squads even if they do not have as many star players as us.

 

[Eagleman13]

I don’t think this is our best squad, we’re still in that position where if we’ve got two or three of our best players out we’re buggered. Exactly the same as 91 really. So maybe on a par with, but not better. But me personally I’ll always swing towards 91 being a better team because they actually finished 3rd. It’s all ifs and buts what we could’ve done this season if we hadn’t had such a slow start but I very much doubt we would’ve finished 3rd

Like you, i too, think the '91 squad was better . . .

Coppell: How Italian meals and a bar in Cheam helped Palace win at Wembley - News - Crystal Palace F.C.

www.cpfc.co.uk

 

[BromleyMonkey]

The game has changed. Back in the day, there was a lot less running around - when did Rogers or Hughes ever track back - and injuries were much less prevalent. Nowadays, you are going to have spells where 4+ players are out with injury, illness or suspension and when we are in that situation the likes of Clyne and Kamada (though he had an OK game) are starting, Clubs like Brighton, Fulham and Bournemouth have deeper squads even if they do not have as many star players as us.

You hear this a lot, but has it changed for the better? There’s a lot of tippy tappy pass pass pass, slow paced, low intensity stuff these days. I’ll swing it round the other way and say would some of todays sides be able to cope with the power, physicality and shear pace up front that our 91 side had?

 

[JHB]

You hear this a lot, but has it changed for the better? There’s a lot of tippy tappy pass pass pass, slow paced, low intensity stuff these days. I’ll swing it round the other way and say would some of todays sides be able to cope with the power, physically and shear pace up front that our 91 side had?

This is the point Gary Neville made after the Manchester derby. Basically saying players are over coached and it has made the game sterile

 

[Talvlad]

I'm too new to Palace to know if this is the best side ever, but it's been a real privilege to watch the team grow this season. We've gone from being frankly pretty crap (I'm thinking West Ham/Leicester at home) to, on current form, being able to take on anyone in the Prem and I think that's an amazing position to be in.

Special shout out to Sarr, who has had arguably the hardest job this season of playing in Michael's position. He carries a threat with his pace, covers back, makes goal line clearances and is generally a handful for the opposition. I was going to write, if he improves his finishing he could be good enough for a Top 6 team, but he plays for Palace, and we're almost up there anyways (too much?)

 

[Davepalace707]

Was the 91 the best team rather than squad? Not sure the depth was any better than now. It lost a few of its best players and was relegated.

 

[Talvlad]

This is the point Gary Neville made after the Manchester derby. Basically saying players are over coached and it has made the game sterile

It was an odd derby: Man U is just a mess of a club and team and Man City players just don't seem too bothered by it all.

Hopefully, they won't put much effort in this weekend either

 

[eaglesdare]

I started following palace when Ian dowie was manager. It's definitely the best team that I have witnessed.

It's just the better we do the more chance our players get poached. If we were ever going to win a cup now is the bloody time!

 

[ASCPFC]

You hear this a lot, but has it changed for the better? There’s a lot of tippy tappy pass pass pass, slow paced, low intensity stuff these days. I’ll swing it round the other way and say would some of todays sides be able to cope with the power, physically and shear pace up front that our 91 side had?

And no one plays two up front anymore. Barely ever, anywhere in the world has there been a strike partnership as good as Wright and Bright. Sutton and Shearer spring to mind but that's about it. Wright and Bright or Sutton and Shearer against Van Dyke or Maguire - laughable really.

 

[Pete53]

I think this current side would probably beat most of our previous stand out teams. But as someone pointed out , it's really only fair to compare like with like from the same era. In that case it would have to be the team that finished 3rd in the old Division One in 1991.

 

[Casual]

I loved Wright and Bright, was brought up watching them. But one of the best in the world?
Come on mate.
Similar era Ronaldo/Romario, klinsman/voller, shearer/sheringham, Lineker/beardsley, battistutta/Crespo, Baggio/schillatchi , shevchenko/insaghi
I loved Brighty as a player, but don’t think he got an England cap and Ian Wright was mustard, but never the main man for England.
Great for us. But not world level.

And no one plays two up front anymore. Barely ever, anywhere in the world has there been a strike partnership as good as Wright and Bright. Sutton and Shearer spring to mind but that's about it. Wright and Bright or Sutton and Shearer against Van Dyke or Maguire - laughable really.

 

[ASCPFC]

I loved Wright and Bright, was brought up watching them. But one of the best in the world?
Come on mate.
Similar era Ronaldo/Romario, klinsman/voller, shearer/sheringham, Lineker/beardsley, battistutta/Crespo, Baggio/schillatchi , shevchenko/insaghi
I loved Brighty as a player, but don’t think he got an England cap and Ian Wright was mustard, but never the main man for England.
Great for us. But not world level.

I'm unconvinced by some of those. From what I saw Wright and Bright would score at any level. Wright should have played more for England - which has been discussed many a time. Reminds me of Greavsie.
Some of those there played in slow leagues for big teams - yet Bright and Wright played for Palace where there was barely a playmaker. They're not Ronaldo or Messi but together, that was something.