Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] Who'd have won this match? England 1966 vs Hungary 1953 (Wembley Stadium)



Goldstone Rapper

Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
This week saw the 60th anniversary of the match billed as the 'Match of the Century', the game in November 1953 where England were obliterated 6-3 at Wembley by the 'Magical Magyars' of Hungary.

There have been some excellent retrospective articles written published in recent days to commemorate this historic international, for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25033749
http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=24945
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/nov/25/hungary-england-1953-alf-ramsey

No one can deny how talented the likes of Puskas, Hidegkuti, Kocsis and Czibor were, or how consistently well the Hungarians played as a team under Gusztáv Sebes. However, thirteen years on, it was a much more workmanlike England and not Hungary that would lift the World Cup. Just like Hungary had a backbone of Honved players to call upon, England had a triumvirate of West Ham players that made a telling difference to the side, plus the class of Gordon Banks and Bobby Charlton. Just as Hungary showed tactical innovation with the withdrawn centre-forward, so did England with overlapping full-backs and no recognised wingers, both which flummoxed their opponents.

So, my question is this: with the England team of 1966 and the Hungary side of 1953 at the peak of their powers, who would win a football match between the two?
 
Last edited:




Goldstone Rapper

Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
No thoughts on this? Oh well!

wcup66.jpg


hungary595.jpg
 


G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,336
Uffern
It's hard to compare players of a different era - it's even harder when about 99% of the people on here won't have seen one of the teams and about 85% won't have seen the other one either.

That Hungarian side was legendary though: they would have been tough to beat
 


Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
Probably Hungary. Hard to say though, can't compare players of different eras. Football is an entirely different sport now to then, as it's played by actual athletes nowadays.
 






Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
ees complicated said:
I'd hate to watch football In those sort of eras it's like watching League 2 football or worse.
Click to expand...

This. Would've been great at the time, but would be a painful standard to watch now. Watch any clip of football from 60s or earlier and if you watch more than 10 seconds I can GUARANTEE something HILARIOUS will happen. Plenty of it in 70s and 80s too to be fair.

Insane how far it's come. You could see a mediocre Prem player hit a 40 yard volley nowadays as good as any of Pele's best goals and not really think much of it.
 


wardy wonder land

wardy wonder land

Active member
Dec 10, 2007
763
that hungarian on the far left is a monster

are those the same size shorts as the others ?

and it looks like a size 4 ball in his hand
 


M

Marxo

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2011
4,328
Ghent, Belgium
A 'workmanlike' Germany beat them in the '54 World Cup Final and poor old Puskas and co would get to know Nobby Stiles very closely indeed.
 




Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
People were so much OLDER back in the day. Half that Hungary team looks over 50.
 


G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,336
Uffern
Marxo said:
A 'workmanlike' Germany beat them in the '54 World Cup Final and poor old Puskas and co would get to know Nobby Stiles very closely indeed.
Click to expand...

They did, but Puskas was carrying an injury for that game.

Don't think Puskas ever played against Stiles - Hungary didn't play against England for some time after those 53 games. According to Wikipedia, Man U tried to sign him in the 50s but couldn't because of FA rules - he might have got very close to Stiles

Just checked his stats: he scored 508 goals in 521 games, that's a hell of a record - particularly for someone who missed two years at his peak thanks to the Hungarian uprising.
 


Goldstone Rapper

Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
Gwylan said:
They did, but Puskas was carrying an injury for that game.

Don't think Puskas ever played against Stiles - Hungary didn't play against England for some time after those 53 games. According to Wikipedia, Man U tried to sign him in the 50s but couldn't because of FA rules - he might have got very close to Stiles

Just checked his stats: he scored 508 goals in 521 games, that's a hell of a record - particularly for someone who missed two years at his peak thanks to the Hungarian uprising.
Click to expand...

I think Manchester United played Real Madrid in the European Cup in the early 1960s. Whether Stiles and Puskas both played or not, I don't know.
 






M

Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,284
Gwylan said:
They did, but Puskas was carrying an injury for that game.

Don't think Puskas ever played against Stiles - Hungary didn't play against England for some time after those 53 games. According to Wikipedia, Man U tried to sign him in the 50s but couldn't because of FA rules - he might have got very close to Stiles

Just checked his stats: he scored 508 goals in 521 games, that's a hell of a record - particularly for someone who missed two years at his peak thanks to the Hungarian uprising.
Click to expand...


Hungary were far and away the best team in 1954 and with a fully fit Puskas ( best player in the world at that time ) they would have rolled Germany over ( they beat them 8-3 in a group game!! ) It would have been similar to Maradona limping through the 86 Final....they wouldn't have won! Even a half-fit Puskas caused Germany massive problems. He helped Hungary to a 2-0 lead in 10 minutes and even when they were trailing, he had a perfectly good goal disallowed.
He formed ( IMHO ) the best front two partnership in world football history with Alfredo Di Stefano. They devastated teams and helped Madrid to five straight European Cups.
The man was awesome.
 


M

Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,284
Mellotron said:
This. Would've been great at the time, but would be a painful standard to watch now. Watch any clip of football from 60s or earlier and if you watch more than 10 seconds I can GUARANTEE something HILARIOUS will happen. Plenty of it in 70s and 80s too to be fair.

Insane how far it's come. You could see a mediocre Prem player hit a 40 yard volley nowadays as good as any of Pele's best goals and not really think much of it.
Click to expand...


Feel this is too harsh on former players. You seem to be implying that present-day footballers are more skillful. I can show you plenty of PL players who are painfully one-footed. Plenty can't head the ball properly and first touch leaves something to be desired. All for an average salary of £1.25 million per year.
What has changed is the athleticism of the players. Now they can keep going for 120 minutes. In the 50's and 60's, players would run out of steam after 80 minutes. The pitches were heavy and energy sapping, kit was heavier and the balls retained moisture and got heavier and heavier during a game.
In the 50's and 60's players had more confidence in beating a man. Dribbling was a feature of the game, beating two or three men in a run. Strikers were better finishers in one on ones with the keeper. There was an emphasis on staying on your feet and dribbling round him rather than going over at the slightest opportunity. Football was far more attack-minded and therefore more entertaining. Teams played with 5 forwards. It was gung-ho.
Different skill-sets have now developed in football. Players now cross the ball off-balance ( perfected by Mr.Beckham ). they don't try to beat a man, they just push the ball wide and cross it blind, falling over. This accounts for masses of overhit balls as the crosser isn't picking anyone out. The game has got flashier, with flicks and tricks all over the place but it doesn't make it better. It doesn't make these players more skillful than those from previous eras.
The ball is now lighter and moves a lot more. Kit is refined and lightweight and most pitches are like billiard tables. Modern technology makes modern players look better but they still make just as many mistakes.
Some of the best players of all-time came from the 50's and 60's and are legends of the game....Puskas, Di Stefano, Schiaffino, Edwards, Finney, Matthews, Eusebio, Law, Pele, Garrincha, Best, Baxter, Moore, Charlton, Banks, Yashin, Mazzola, Beckenbauer, Kopa, Greaves, Charles.....and on and on and on.
I've loved football from the moment I started watching and playing ( 60's ) and can see merits in all different era's. What I don't like is how lazy players have become. How they now seem content to take the easy option all the time and cheat the opposition rather than try to use their own skill to be creative. It is cheating the fans and cheating the game.
I watched some of those players mentioned above and they were bloody good. They would have walked into any side in any era. Class is permanent and it crosses generations. Take any England team from the 50's and 60's and it would beat the present team comfortably.
This isn't a rose-tinted rant just an observation on some rather ' throwaway ' comments.
 


Mellotron

Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,841
Brighton
Mo Gosfield said:
Feel this is too harsh on former players. You seem to be implying that present-day footballers are more skillful. I can show you plenty of PL players who are painfully one-footed. Plenty can't head the ball properly and first touch leaves something to be desired. All for an average salary of £1.25 million per year.
What has changed is the athleticism of the players. Now they can keep going for 120 minutes. In the 50's and 60's, players would run out of steam after 80 minutes. The pitches were heavy and energy sapping, kit was heavier and the balls retained moisture and got heavier and heavier during a game.
In the 50's and 60's players had more confidence in beating a man. Dribbling was a feature of the game, beating two or three men in a run. Strikers were better finishers in one on ones with the keeper. There was an emphasis on staying on your feet and dribbling round him rather than going over at the slightest opportunity. Football was far more attack-minded and therefore more entertaining. Teams played with 5 forwards. It was gung-ho.
Different skill-sets have now developed in football. Players now cross the ball off-balance ( perfected by Mr.Beckham ). they don't try to beat a man, they just push the ball wide and cross it blind, falling over. This accounts for masses of overhit balls as the crosser isn't picking anyone out. The game has got flashier, with flicks and tricks all over the place but it doesn't make it better. It doesn't make these players more skillful than those from previous eras.
The ball is now lighter and moves a lot more. Kit is refined and lightweight and most pitches are like billiard tables. Modern technology makes modern players look better but they still make just as many mistakes.
Some of the best players of all-time came from the 50's and 60's and are legends of the game....Puskas, Di Stefano, Schiaffino, Edwards, Finney, Matthews, Eusebio, Law, Pele, Garrincha, Best, Baxter, Moore, Charlton, Banks, Yashin, Mazzola, Beckenbauer, Kopa, Greaves, Charles.....and on and on and on.
I've loved football from the moment I started watching and playing ( 60's ) and can see merits in all different era's. What I don't like is how lazy players have become. How they now seem content to take the easy option all the time and cheat the opposition rather than try to use their own skill to be creative. It is cheating the fans and cheating the game.
I watched some of those players mentioned above and they were bloody good. They would have walked into any side in any era. Class is permanent and it crosses generations. Take any England team from the 50's and 60's and it would beat the present team comfortably.
This isn't a rose-tinted rant just an observation on some rather ' throwaway ' comments.
Click to expand...

Sorry but they really wouldn't. Look back at some of that old footage, the defending was HILARIOUSLY AWFUL. None of Chopper Harris etc would've gotten anywhere near Messi, he'd be lightyears ahead of them.

It's a different sport now, as evidenced by the fact you will see MEDIOCRE Prem players scoring unbelievable goals nowadays, and no one thinks anything of it.

The 50s team would be HUMILIATED by the current side. I don't think you realise just how much quicker the game is now, and the levels of technique are miles ahead. Watch 50s football, the standard compares to around League One/Two nowadays I would say.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here