How good was Duncan Edwards?

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,789
As time goes by it is obvious that, due to advancement in understanding and medicine, and through a process of being able to learn from our predecessor, that we become physically more efficient.

It seems as if Duncan Edwards was one of the best during his time, but in todays generation he may not have been the best in the world.
Pretty much this.

Likewise I feel like a number of players in this era could look one of the worlds best back then. The game has become incredibly tactical and calculated now that it stifles each others ability to express themselves.

Players are generally fitter and faster now than they used to be. It’s very hard to compare different generations.
 

red woppit

Full Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
2,229
Location
Buchebi
Supports
Northampton Town
One of the most noticeable things from players like Edwards and Charlton is their ability to strike the ball hard and accurately with both feet, something that many players in today's game cannot do. Eriksen is one of the few players nowadays who has that ability.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
9,871
No they're not, and your point is way of the mark.

Natural talent is natural talent and the players you mention had it in spades.

With the scientific approach to today's game, plus all the nutrition and analysis these players absolutely would thrive in the modern game.

Of course there were different priorities in the game back then so not all players from that era could translate that to the modern game, but based on what little evidence we have and first hand testimony of his ability, Edwards would have made it to the top in any generation, as would the other players you mentioned.
I didnt say that though. I said if you could pick them as they were from their era to play nowadays they would lose everytime.
I know they were great players, I even said Robbo was my favourite of all time.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
Another full game of his suddenly reappeared in existence, England was facing Brazil, the upcoming World Cup's favorites, in 1956.

 

Red71

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
471
Another full game of his suddenly reappeared in existence, England was facing Brazil, the upcoming World Cup's favorites, in 1956.

Thanks for sharing, that was excellent to watch. His radar was a bit off with his passing (in places) and shooting was a bit wayward but you can see from video what a presence he was in, the national team no less, at late 19/early 20…he had that quality of being able to retrieve balls you think are past him (as with Casemiro now) and was robust and no nonsense in the tackle. He also looked pretty rapid for a man of his size which is always an advantage.

I particularly enjoyed the part where he goes past a Brazilian who then has a nibble at him from behind. Edwards slams on the brakes and drops an elbow in to his guts to mark his card, a sort of “You do not take liberties with me son!” type of move. That’s the sort of character you want in a United player…winner!
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
It’s weird that people trip over the old players vs new players balance point.

Humans haven’t evolved in the last 100 years. Had Edwards popped out now he’d have been tall and fast and two footed and strong. He’d have graduated an academy and done his thing. He might have become a centre mid or a full back or a centre half. But he’d have been a successful footballer.

Similarly, Zidane or Ibra would have happily smashed players around in the bygone era. Nobody needed a Messi or Silva or Xavi back then and the refereeing would have ended their careers. But that’s rules based. Modern day referees in the 60’s would have seen those players shine. It’s not a player/talent discussion.
 

Red Rash

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Messages
2,115
Unfortunately we never really got to find out how good he could be due to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding his death.

Lots of really good quotes about him being a huge talent from the likes of Sir Bobby but being realistic when talented people die young their talents are normally elevated a bit.

Definitely think he could have been a great player but unfortunately we never got to see him reach his peak.
 

Red71

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
471
Unfortunately we never really got to find out how good he could be due to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding his death.

Lots of really good quotes about him being a huge talent from the likes of Sir Bobby but being realistic when talented people die young their talents are normally elevated a bit.

Definitely think he could have been a great player but unfortunately we never got to see him reach his peak.
Sadly that’s true. A small handful of grainy black and white videos can’t really do justice to a player considered by peers, colleagues and opponents to be a true great. There can be no substitute for watching him live in technicolor over the course of a season or more but we’re lucky that the little vignettes or occasional videos pop up all the same…
 

Luffy

Gomu Gomu
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
1,813
Location
Mauritius
I don't know if it has been said, but Edwards became one of the first two United players in 1957, to be nominated for the Ballon D'or (in its 2nd year). He ranked joint third with Raymond Kopa, behind Di Stefano (who was the runaway winner) and Billy Wright.

Also, once Sir Bobby Charlton said of Edwards, 'he was the only player that made me feel inferior'. All of this courtesy of buying MUFC magazines in the 90s, back when I didn't have internet.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
It’s weird that people trip over the old players vs new players balance point.

Humans haven’t evolved in the last 100 years. Had Edwards popped out now he’d have been tall and fast and two footed and strong. He’d have graduated an academy and done his thing. He might have become a centre mid or a full back or a centre half. But he’d have been a successful footballer.

Similarly, Zidane or Ibra would have happily smashed players around in the bygone era. Nobody needed a Messi or Silva or Xavi back then and the refereeing would have ended their careers. But that’s rules based. Modern day referees in the 60’s would have seen those players shine. It’s not a player/talent discussion.
Stature might not have changed but nobody can argue that people are more athletic now. Nutrition, health and science has come on a long way.

No olympic records from that time still stand etc. I agree though that if he was born in the modern era he'd still be a great athlete.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
9,127
Stature might not have changed but nobody can argue that people are more athletic now. Nutrition, health and science has come on a long way.

No olympic records from that time still stand etc. I agree though that if he was born in the modern era he'd still be a great athlete.
The different isn't that big though (the 100 meter distance record of Jesse Owens for example is 0.4 seconds slower than bolt and then factor in the shoes and the fact he ran on dirt etc etc, plus probably a much less strenuous training regimen) and a large part of it seems to be peds, in fact some of the weight lifting records still stand to this day and im sure they were juiced out of their mind.

As you said it yourself, he'd have been a superb athlete no matter the era.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
No olympic records from that time still stand etc. I agree though that if he was born in the modern era he'd still be a great athlete.
It has little to nothing to do with people improving, it’s the sporting equipment mostly.
 

Rob Bowman

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
3,542
Location
Lost American
Best thing you can do with players from different eras is compare them with their peers.

For the last 15 years Ronaldo and Messi have stood as THE best players. No one is arguing their greatness. We compare them to their peers and they stand out.

Duncan was that good and he never reach his peak. We lost Duncan at age 21 and everyone in England much less United drooled over his ability and composure. Can you imagine if he was allowed to grow into his abilities and power.

With today's diet and fitness regimes Duncan would have been a monster.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
Made a proper compilation since so much new footage had appeared lately.

 

Drizzle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,350
Made a proper compilation since so much new footage had appeared lately.

Thank you for this.

Obviously the overall technical levels were much lower then than in modern football, but you can see how composed he was in the tackle, and how easily he'd distribute the ball, how tough he was when driving with the ball. Fascinating. Imagine what he could have been, growing into his mid/late twenties alongside the Busby Babes.
 

Rayman96

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
1,327
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Also supports Rangers
Read loads about him but this is the first footage ive seen.
He does look very strong and fast, That clip of him running along the 18yard box showed balance , athleticism and speed to burn.
 
Last edited:

shamans

Thinks you can get an STD from flirting.
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
18,226
Location
Constantly at the STD clinic.
It’s weird that people trip over the old players vs new players balance point.

Humans haven’t evolved in the last 100 years. Had Edwards popped out now he’d have been tall and fast and two footed and strong. He’d have graduated an academy and done his thing. He might have become a centre mid or a full back or a centre half. But he’d have been a successful footballer.

Similarly, Zidane or Ibra would have happily smashed players around in the bygone era. Nobody needed a Messi or Silva or Xavi back then and the refereeing would have ended their careers. But that’s rules based. Modern day referees in the 60’s would have seen those players shine. It’s not a player/talent discussion.
I think the argument is you had a much smaller pool of players to chose from. Less people played to go professional and clubs didn’t have the resources to scout talent from across the globe.

it’s less likely now to be someone with the natural talent to be a world class player and go unnoticed vs years gone by.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
9,127
I think the argument is you had a much smaller pool of players to chose from. Less people played to go professional and clubs didn’t have the resources to scout talent from across the globe.

it’s less likely now to be someone with the natural talent to be a world class player and go unnoticed vs years gone by.
For England in specific the pool might have been actually larger back then due to the post WW2 baby boom and all.

In fact most of the population boom has been in Africa and third world countries in Asia with Europe and some South American countries actually going backwards in that regard.

(I'm ignoring the argument of financial incentive to be a footballer back then comparing to now for the sake of argument)
 

shamans

Thinks you can get an STD from flirting.
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
18,226
Location
Constantly at the STD clinic.
For England in specific the pool might have been actually larger back then due to the post WW2 baby boom and all.

In fact most of the population boom has been in Africa and third world countries in Asia with Europe and some South American countries actually going backwards in that regard.

(I'm ignoring the argument of financial incentive to be a footballer back then comparing to now for the sake of argument)
Even then the world was not as connected. It wasn't as easy for talent to make it to the top. I'm just providing another point of view. I myself don't think the question of whether or not older footabllers were actually good can be answered.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
9,127
Even then the world was not as connected. It wasn't as easy for talent to make it to the top. I'm just providing another point of view. I myself don't think the question of whether or not older footabllers were actually good can be answered.
A fair assumption but even then I just wanted to illustrate that some of the reasoning for why they're inferior is not sound at all.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,245
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
I think the argument is you had a much smaller pool of players to chose from. Less people played to go professional and clubs didn’t have the resources to scout talent from across the globe.

it’s less likely now to be someone with the natural talent to be a world class player and go unnoticed vs years gone by.
The talent pool was certainly more regional so there were less players globally available as you couldn't scout them (or afford them!).

But there were more players locally. Academies started in the 1930's so there were still 4-5 teams of players to choose from. In addition, more people played non-league football in the past so the numbers in the UK were actually higher in the 1930's-1960's in comparison to numbers today.

The quality of non-league teams was very high as a consequence.

It changed significantly in the 1960's and 1970's when kids found other things to do with their time rather than play football twice on a weekend.
 

shamans

Thinks you can get an STD from flirting.
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
18,226
Location
Constantly at the STD clinic.
It's frankly impossible to determine how good players were in those days, other than to say that they were good compared to other players at the time. Back then, football was so basic, life was so different, and most players were downright awful, so anyone with a bit of natural talent stood out. I once made a post about some of Charlton's goals and pointed out how comically inept the surrounding players were. Often, the opposition barely participated. There was one where he calmly strolls up the entire midfield with the ball and takes a shot and scores from a fair distance, and opposition players barely pay attention to him. There was another one where three United players are inside the opposition's goal area and no defenders are anywhere nearby, so he scores an impressive-looking volley. But if you look at the game as a whole, it's clear that it took very little to stand out compared to today, so it's largely pointless to judge players from that time. The best we can say is that Edwards was noticeably better than his peers, but odds are that if he had travelled through time and arrived anywhere after 1990, he might not be good enough to make a living as a footballer at all. It's like reviewing the first automobile. It'll be utter garbage compared to the worst cars today.
Those Charlton examples to me just displays he was better than I even thought. Belting the ball like that