Is Max the best RB we've ever had?

[Yellow Green Army 237]

Russel Martin, Steen Nedergaard, Marc Edworthy all worthy of a shout but Ian Culverhouse just pips Max at the moment for me.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Culverhouse was RB for teams that finished 3rd,4th and 5th in the top division.

Admittedly he wasnt ever linked with Barcelona and Bayern Munich but it has to be him for now...

[CDMullins 436]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Yes, but that was your argument for him being our best... it's also not much of a compliment really. That's a bit like saying you're the fastest man in England at the 100meters after winning a race only four others were able to enter because a bout of food poisoning wiped all of the main competitors out.

In fact, two of the other four starts we still suffering with it and were weakened and the other two didn't originally qualify for the heat but were called in at the last minute.

But yes, you're the fastest man in England... 

I agree with ICF - average but hard working, solid but unspectacular, not particularly technical, not especially great. Better than Aarons? Perhaps a bit defensively, certainly not for pace or for going forward. 

It's not is it?

Its like being an English right back of which there is only one English right back better than you and that right back getting injured.

Quite simple really.

[paddycanary 538]

Culverhouse at this point for me too. If my memory is correct, some of his best years were employed as a kind of a sweeper under Mike Walker? He was a very solid, intelligent and consistent performer in the top flight who got the better of some excellent players at his peak. I remember being very disappointed when he was almost pushed out the door when that team was dismantled. I recall an interview where he said his "face didn't fit anymore." Didn't Ian Butterworth suffer a nasty injury around the same time out on the Broads?

Max is also a reliable & consistent performer - very impressive for his age & we almost take his class for granted at this stage. He had a few hairy moments (understandably) as he adjusted to the Prem last year but found his feet and held his own in a struggling team. It's a bit early to claim him as our best ever RB. He'd need to stay for a few more years and show a consistency of performance in the top flight. Sadly this seems unlikely here, but he may well develop into a top player. I certainly expect him to become a regular for someone in the PL, or possibly somewhere on the continent.

[AJ 1,218]

Max is incredibly reliable and consistent, from my era the only other player to come close is probably Russell Martin, although Edworthy was great he wasn't here for as long to be in contention for me. Russ was possibly better defensively but Max is hands down the best attacking right back we've had in my time watching Norwich. I don't think Max is far off being our best ever though, his rate of improvement is excellent, he's a much better player then he was 2 seasons ago

[Gibbo 131]

Culverhouse would pip Aarons in my top 2 yeah, but not by a huge amount.  Performed not only at the top level, but in the top part of the top level, with a team that finished 3rd and got into Europe.

I think Max will far surpass that in his career though - just not with Norwich.  In 10 years time, it will probably be like would you rather have Cafu or Gary Neville in your 'dream team'...

Thomas Helveg is a good shout too - obviously well past his best with us, but in his prime he was part of a team that won Serie A and the European Cup.  I suspect he's the most decorated RB we've ever had play for us.

[All the Germans 1,075]

Culverhouse for me and then Max. Mills was average and how he got an England cap (and more) is beyond me. Average player and a bit of a pr1ck too... (I also went to Sprowston a few years later and the rumour was he could barely get in the school team...).

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

46 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

Culverhouse for me and then Max. Mills was average and how he got an England cap (and more) is beyond me. Average player and a bit of a pr1ck too... (I also went to Sprowston a few years later and the rumour was he could barely get in the school team...).

The same stuff used to get peddled about Chris Sutton at Hellesdon. “Weren’t even the best player in his year..” etc. 
 

He was the only one to win the Premier League and get transferred for £10m though, so🤷‍♂️

[king canary 7,578]

Best ever right back? Just look at my profile picture...

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

Whilst I have said Culverhouse, I should just add that this isn't a fair question until Max's career has finished. 

[Gibbo 131]

57 minutes ago, king canary said:

Best ever right back? Just look at my profile picture...

Is that Keith Briggs?

[king canary 7,578]

7 minutes ago, Gibbo said:

Is that Keith Briggs?

Indeed it is!

[Gibbo 131]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Indeed it is!

There's one that slipped through our fingers... 🙂

[East Rider 548]

Actually quite liked Danny Mills when he was here. However his best days were else where.

Saw a lot of Ian Culverhouse playing for us as well and if called for a definite nominee at this time, it would be him.

However, Max Aarons has the makings of being probably the best RB we have ever had, if he stays around. Unfortunately that is not likely. 

So unless that happens, Ian Culverhouse gets my vote. 

We have had some superb RBs and LBs at this club, that's for sure.

[FatCanary 249]

I love how the poll is split roughly 70-30 and yet no one has given any justification other than nostalgia for any right back we have ever had being better than Aarons.

The answer is yes.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

3 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

I love how the poll is split roughly 70-30 and yet no one has given any justification other than nostalgia for any right back we have ever had being better than Aarons.

The answer is yes.

Apart from Culverhouse being a great player that helped take Norwich to our highest league position in history .and into Europe. which is a point that has been made several times. Other than that , you are spot on. 

[chicken 2,604]

14 hours ago, CDMullins said:

It's not is it?

Its like being an English right back of which there is only one English right back better than you and that right back getting injured.

Quite simple really.

Not really. At the time Jamie Carragher was injured and was the 2nd choice England right back. Mills wouldn't have made the plane if our first and 2nd choice were available. Also, Brown often deputised there if needed and Hargreaves could cover too. Also Phil Neville wasn't in that squad either, and he can also play right back and was picked head of Mills after 2002.

It's also worth considering that Mills was 25 at the time. He wasn't selected for Euro 2004 or the 2006 world cup. This old Guardian article sums it up rather nicely if you ask me:


https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/may/26/worldcupfootball2002.sport1

So yup, process of illumination he really wasn't picked over anyone to be in the world cup squad, at least, not top level full backs. He was 3rd or 4th choice at best. Not to mention, in 2004 they took Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Carragher and didn't take Brown. So by less than two years later, he was 5th choice at best.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you get picked not because you are a great player, but because of the lack of other options. And that is exactly what everyone knew back in 2002. 

[CDMullins 436]

23 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not really. At the time Jamie Carragher was injured and was the 2nd choice England right back. Mills wouldn't have made the plane if our first and 2nd choice were available. Also, Brown often deputised there if needed and Hargreaves could cover too. Also Phil Neville wasn't in that squad either, and he can also play right back and was picked head of Mills after 2002.

It's also worth considering that Mills was 25 at the time. He wasn't selected for Euro 2004 or the 2006 world cup. This old Guardian article sums it up rather nicely if you ask me:


https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/may/26/worldcupfootball2002.sport1

So yup, process of illumination he really wasn't picked over anyone to be in the world cup squad, at least, not top level full backs. He was 3rd or 4th choice at best. Not to mention, in 2004 they took Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Carragher and didn't take Brown. So by less than two years later, he was 5th choice at best.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you get picked not because you are a great player, but because of the lack of other options. And that is exactly what everyone knew back in 2002. 

Jesus man,

What are you actually going on about?

It was decided he was better than Wes Brown, Wes Brown was in the squad and able to play.

It was decided he was a better option than playing Hargreaves there.

Jamie Carragher had semi retired at this point.

Completely irrelevant who played years before or after.

For WC 2002, he was England's 2nd best RB, which is an incredible achievement.

I'm sure whatever field you work in, you'd be pretty proud to be the 2nd best in the country at it.

Edited May 31, 2021 by CDMullins

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

Max catches the eye because of the system we play and we would be at a loss without him. However, even on this forum people seem to think we could replace him fairly easily?

A great player offensively but still work to be done defensively before he would be our best ever. At his peak Russell Martin was better and arguably created more than Max's end product. Culverhouse was excellent too.

[FatCanary 249]

3 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Apart from Culverhouse being a great player that helped take Norwich to our highest league position in history .and into Europe. which is a point that has been made several times. Other than that , you are spot on. 

Thats just revisionism of a poorer standard of football based on nostalgia though. Our current team would be fitter, faster, more intelligent tactically across the board and would murder the team Culverhouse was in.

To disagree is to ignore progress and evolution in football and essentially be a Philistine in my view.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its between Max and Mel Machin for me.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

38 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its between Max and Mel Machin for me.

Machin’s  save against Villa in 75 edges it for me . 

[C.I.D 302]

In the modern era (i.e. the birth of the Prem League when football was first invented 🤣) Max is good shout for our best right-back.

You could make arguments for a good number of others though .......Culverhouse,Machin,Phil Kelly,John Ryan.............all very effective RBs in their day.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

18 hours ago, Yellow Green Army said:

Russel Martin, Steen Nedergaard, Marc Edworthy all worthy of a shout but Ian Culverhouse just pips Max at the moment for me.

I agree with this........

[FatCanary 249]

To be fair this whole debate is a completely unwinnable war owing to the fact that you have to also debate the era Culverhouse was playing in versus the era Aarons is. Then it just comes down to so many semantics on the pace and athleticism in the modern game and whether you understand the evolution of football, both as a mental and physical undertaking.

Ian Culverhouse was probably a better right back in his era than Max Aarons is currently in this (yet Aarons may go on to achieve more without us)

But I think if you can't see how football is way more intense in terms of pace and physicality than it was then (and I'm not referring lamely to challenges, more the athleticism of the athletes, for that is what they are, now) then there's not very much point in me trying to explain why Aarons is a physically and mentally superior athlete to Ian Culverhouse when you remove the sepia tinted goggles of yesteryear.

[Bluefloyd 58]

'You'll never beat the Kenton' 

[FatCanary 249]

4 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

To be fair this whole debate is a completely unwinnable war owing to the fact that you have to also debate the era Culverhouse was playing in versus the era Aarons is. Then it just comes down to so many semantics on the pace and athleticism in the modern game and whether you understand the evolution of football, both as a mental and physical undertaking.

Ian Culverhouse was probably a better right back in his era than Max Aarons is currently in this (yet Aarons may go on to achieve more without us)

But I think if you can't see how football is way more intense in terms of pace and physicality than it was then (and I'm not referring lamely to challenges, more the athleticism of the athletes, for that is what they are, now) then there's not very much point in me trying to explain why Aarons is a physically and mentally superior athlete to Ian Culverhouse when you remove the sepia tinted goggles of yesteryear.

Anyway if we are saying Best RB WE have ever had do we mean overall career achievements or just at Norwich? Do we mean success of the teams they played in or their individual successes and comparative abilities?

[Gibbo 131]

It is an impossible comparison in many ways - so much is situational...  Max will never get the chance to be part of a Norwich team that challenges for the top 4 in the prem, due to how much more football is dictated by money now. 

Personally I do think you have to take the clubs relative stature and achievements into account though, regardless of whether the overall standard now is better than it was 20 years ago.  We're not going to say that Ivan Toney is better than Pele are we, even though Toney would likely be more effective in the modern game than a 1970's Pele.

Maybe all you can really do is say that he's one of the best, amongst a group of 2-3 others.  

 

[Don’t be Krul 398]

What about Jon Otsemobor? Can't believe he doesn't even get a mention 🤣

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Unless my mind is playing tricks on me.  I seem to remember our fullbacks getting forward a fair bit in the era of Bowen and Culverhouse.  Bowen especially liked to get forward and was really effective at it too.