Possibly because it’s not comparing like with like.
Anyone who thinks those big wins you mention were comparable in ANY way with the wins over Inter or St Etienne, would be a bit mad frankly.
But if I asked people who are old enough to remember them, to compare the AWAY performances of Shanks’ teams with those Reds teams that followed, I’m pretty sure a big majority would judge in favour of what followed.
Believe me, speaking about Shankly in anything other than glowing terms doesn’t come naturally or easily to me, I love the man. But it’s the way I remember it.
That succession of games against City at Maine Rd in the late 70’s/early80’s finished 4-0, 4-1, 3-0, 5-0, and 4-0. You can only achieve that by being attack minded, and I would maintain that you can’t play counter attacking footie when you’ve always got possession of the ball, which we invariably did. Not that there’s anything wrong with counter attacking footie when it’s played properly. This current team certainly does not play it properly.
The 79 team only conceded 16 goals, not cos the defence was so great, in fact many said if that team had a weakness it was in defence. We conceded so few cos the other team never had the ball long enough to threaten us. I’m always going to be bullish in defence of this team because I believe it to be, not just the beat LFC team ever, but the best English club side ever. And taking it even further, there are possibly only the great Milan, and the first Ajax sides that I would rate higher on a European scale. It was certainly imo a better team than the current R.Madrid side which is inconsistent and lacks guts.
It wasn't just attacking football we played back then, it was QUALITY attacking football.
So many other away games during this period that were superb too imo, 5’s scored at Norwich, Stoke, Everton, W.Brom, W.Ham, Chelsea, and Sheff Wed. 6 scored at Coventry and 7 at Derby. It would be pointless mentioning the 4’s cos there were too many, and the 3’s would go on forever.
Such scores away from home were much scarcer in ALL of Shankly’s championship winning teams.
When Rushie came on to the scene, I accept we utilized his pace by playing more long passes, (not the same as long balls), but this alone doesn’t constitute an actual counter attacking strategy.
And what’s this “I didn’t do it to attract headlines” nonsense either. I never said you did. Apologies if it came across that way though I don’t see how you could have thought that from what I said.
I daresay it made the home page because it was good, as your stuff tends to be.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with you though.
I accept the golden age of attacking football was back in the halcyon days of 2 – 3 – 5 formations. Huge numbers of goals both scored and conceded, and I couldn’t believe what I thought I heard on the telly the other night during that great Spurs/City replay. I think the commentator said one of the teams involved was relegated in a season when they scored more goals than anyone else, which is incredible. I was only half listening at the time so perhaps I imagined it.
I suppose we are both guilty of generalising, and could each point to individual scores to undermine the others points, but even allowing for this, I’m still struggling to accept Shankly’s teams were more attacking generally speaking, than the successful teams of Paisley, Fagan or Dalglish which followed, though I think Kenny did become more pragmatic after losing the cup final to Wimbledon.
We beg to differ!
P.S. You are probably right about that Norwich game you mentioned. So great I can't remember it, even though I must have been there.
