Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
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 Just as Hungary showed tactical innovation with the withdrawn centre-forward, so did England with overlapping full-backs and no recognised wingers, both which flummoxed their opponents.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?
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 Just as Hungary showed tactical innovation with the withdrawn centre-forward, so did England with overlapping full-backs and no recognised wingers, both which flummoxed their opponents.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: