Alot. Pep changed the game completely to a point where if you don't use some of his principles you'll become irrelevant.
How much has football changed in the last 20 years?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
I think today's athletes, in general, are better in their physique, stamina, gameplay and are better drilled and coached.
The game has certainly become much faster. Last week, I watched some full matches of Ronaldo Nazario playing for Barcelona. In the peak of his powers, I haven't anyone with his combination of mercurial speed, dribbling ability, and frightening accuracy. And while his performances were a sheer joy to watch, I was also shocked how he (and most other players of that era), had a much lower work rate compared with today's generation.
With his skill-set, he and others of yesteryears (Maradona, Ronaldinho and the likes) would still be some of the best players of this generation, but I dare say, they wouldn't be the majestic talismans with their names forever echoing in folklore if their exact replicas played today.
The game has certainly become much faster. Last week, I watched some full matches of Ronaldo Nazario playing for Barcelona. In the peak of his powers, I haven't anyone with his combination of mercurial speed, dribbling ability, and frightening accuracy. And while his performances were a sheer joy to watch, I was also shocked how he (and most other players of that era), had a much lower work rate compared with today's generation.
With his skill-set, he and others of yesteryears (Maradona, Ronaldinho and the likes) would still be some of the best players of this generation, but I dare say, they wouldn't be the majestic talismans with their names forever echoing in folklore if their exact replicas played today.
Addendum: Entertainment is an entirely different concept.
Mikhail Tal for instance, was so much more brilliant to watch, with all his imperfections, than some of the AI-driven Chessmasters of today, who are infinitesemely better than Tal ever was.
Mikhail Tal for instance, was so much more brilliant to watch, with all his imperfections, than some of the AI-driven Chessmasters of today, who are infinitesemely better than Tal ever was.
This post was very helpful, thanks a lot.
I think the biggest change is the quality of the pitches and the coaches have had to adapt to it.
Put City on some of the pitches from 20 years ago against Burnley that were muddy and bobbly it's probably a 50/50 game.
The pitches are so perfect now that the ball can be moved quickly and makes it more difficult for opposition players to impose their physicality and so it favours players with more technical ability whereas 20 years ago being bigger and stronger was much more of an asset.
Put City on some of the pitches from 20 years ago against Burnley that were muddy and bobbly it's probably a 50/50 game.
The pitches are so perfect now that the ball can be moved quickly and makes it more difficult for opposition players to impose their physicality and so it favours players with more technical ability whereas 20 years ago being bigger and stronger was much more of an asset.
Also Michael Reiziger at Ajax in the 90s. While it seems pretty slow compared to football now, Van Gaal's side of the time would very much fit in with current-day tactics. I think they were fairly unique in those specfic years though - not trendsetters or typical of European top football.
So this is a nostalgia thread then
'Member when Salah took the ball in midfield, sat 3 defenders on their arses and scored from an impossible angle against his team's biggest title rivals? I 'member. It was two fecking months ago...
'Member when Salah took the ball in midfield, sat 3 defenders on their arses and scored from an impossible angle against his team's biggest title rivals? I 'member. It was two fecking months ago...
Its simply going through another cycle of old ideas that were once forgotten
We shouldn't underestimate the impact of the change in quality of the pitches over the last 20 years which massively favours the better footballing teams. Poor surfaces are a great leveller.
In 2001 both FIFA and UEFA decided to begin a quality assurance programme for the development of artificial turf in order to come up with an industry standard for the use of it in football, and over time this has led to a hybrid of real and artificial turf and the benefits are clear. I suspect the improvement in the quality of the balls has also been a factor that favours the better teams
In 2001 both FIFA and UEFA decided to begin a quality assurance programme for the development of artificial turf in order to come up with an industry standard for the use of it in football, and over time this has led to a hybrid of real and artificial turf and the benefits are clear. I suspect the improvement in the quality of the balls has also been a factor that favours the better teams
Not to say anything negative about Van Gaal's Ajax side, but later he was right there when Klopp had his big break through with Dortmund and didn't really seem like he was up to speed then.
His positional play wasn't radical enough. Teams, even bad ones, doubled up on Ribery and Robben and that was already enough to neutralize a lot of Bayern's attacking threat. And two years later it became quite a big topic that Heynckes introduced the level of dominance we're now accustomed to, by considerably upping their pressing game, with Klopp, in one of his angry moments, accusing him of "Chinese style" corporate plagiarism.
Yeah, Van Gaal's thinking about football has changed quite a lot over the years. I don't really know what systems he played with Barcelona, Bayern, or AZ, or the first time he was Dutch national coach. But the way he had the Netherlands play in Brazil or United afterwards had absolutely nothing to do with how Ajax played in the 90s.
That's not a bad thing of course - in fact, it's good that his ideas about football have kept developing. (Although whether they developed in a good direction is another question.
It worked in Brazil and works now for the Dutch nationall team though.) But yeah, when referring to that 90s Ajax side, I didn't mean it as a reference to Van Gaal's entire coaching career - just that specific bit of it.A dinosaur like Heynckes being able to assimilate and outdo the new tactical sensation so quickly was highly amusing to me at the time.
Death of the number 10 is certainly a big change, very few, if any teams play with one at the highest level anymore.
Classical number 10s are pushed wide or into central midfield these days.
Classical number 10s are pushed wide or into central midfield these days.
It's not really fair to call Heynckes a dinosaur. Yes he was old, but he won titles through 4 decades and proved to be able to adapt to changes over time. Bit similar to SAF in that regard, and I don't think you considered SAF a dinosaur in the 2010s?
Aye. They were unique then and would be unique now. Cruyff used a similar shape which Guardiola also tried later on, but they never got the defensive balance that Van Gaal achieved with Ajax in the 1990s. It was the perfect system to exploit the talents and synergies of a similarly minded group of players. Circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated as assembling such a squad will take hundreds of millions, but recruitment on that scale is likely to be more scattergun and without the cohesion that was developed by a group of kids in their early 20s playing together for a few years.
I wasn't intending to be derogatory to Heynckes. Just meaning it in terms of the old veteran at the end of his career being able to keep up tactically and beat the new big name.
The way the goalkeeper is involved within the game has changed the last 20years.
It's definitely not as much fun to watch. A version of football where Cantona and Bergkamp don't really fit is a poorer game.
The passing between the back 4 and goalkeeper is the biggest change over the last 20 years. I know everyone talks of more positional discipline and systems but its that increased passing from the back that creates that. It's actually probably quite difficlut for a team to become scattered or disjointed when there's so much sideways and backwards passing.
It kind of naturally holds everyone in place.
The passing between the back 4 and goalkeeper is the biggest change over the last 20 years. I know everyone talks of more positional discipline and systems but its that increased passing from the back that creates that. It's actually probably quite difficlut for a team to become scattered or disjointed when there's so much sideways and backwards passing.
It kind of naturally holds everyone in place.
I think technical devices (VAR, cameras,...) changed the game as well. Players know they are being watched all the time and everywhere where they are.
Tackles are judged in a different way, handball, offside,...
It makes it more correct, but doesn't it kill the game partly?
Tackles are judged in a different way, handball, offside,...
It makes it more correct, but doesn't it kill the game partly?
Why wouldn't they fit?
Because nobody really uses a 10 anymore and they were the archetypal number 10's.
Where would Bergkamp fit in Liverpool or City's team today?
I suppose we're an exception with Bruno but he probably covers twice the ground Cantona did. Even then I think most would prefer us to play a midfield three.
I'm not saying it's impossible to find a spot for such player but you'd have to shoehorn them in to some extent.
Which I think is a massive shame and
a big change in the game.
Well in 20 years Winning Eleven has changed it's name twice, to Pro Evolution Soccer and later (now) eFootball.
Liverpool who have regularly started Firmino? City who currently like to play Gundogan-KDB-Foden-Bernardo-Mahrez?
Messi? Neymar? Thomas Muller? Dybala? Benzema?
Agree with the wider point, although Bergkamp often played in the middle of a front three for Ajax and Holland in the early-to-mid 90s, so would likely do the same in a 4-3-3 today.
Yep, any world-class number 10 of yesteryear would fit in City’s team, they’re essentially playing 3-4 number 10s at times like Brazil 1970.
We do not really see any pause at the highest level anymore, so players must be phenomenally drilled and able to execute correctly at lighting speed under constant pressure. On the other hand, we are seeing more spectacular collapses, which probably hints there being less indvidual ability to interpret the flow of the game once plan A and plan B go awry.
I don't, it's a stupid and wrong point fueled entirely by nostalgia and with no actual basis in reality
To clarify I’d say that such players fit into the modern game but would need some accommodation into the prevailing in vogue tactical shapes. Most typical 10s have adapted into slightly different roles depending on where they are on the spectrum between an 8 and a 9.5. Most of the more attacking 9.5s are playing through the middle of a 433 or, if they have the dynamism, in a wide forward / inside-left/right role. Most of the more midfield type 10s are playing as the 8s in stacked 433 teams where they can get away with a less natural defensive game.
Yeah I don't see in that City group you mentioned there where Cantona or Bergkamp narurally fit. There isn't a No.10 in those lineups. You wouldn't want either playing wide like Forden or Mahrez. I don't think you'd want either in a midfield slot either. Don't think they have the off the ball work rate for that today. So they'd have to change to fit in.
Messi as he is today wluld be closest of all the names you've mentioned to how Bergkamp and Cantona played and look at the stick he's currently getting for workrate, making it hard for the manager etc.
Yeah I think that's where they would have to play today, which I don't think is ideal. You're losing a big part of their game if they play up top.
It's just a chat about football, maybe relax a little?
There isn't a single player from the 90s that could play today without significant adapation. Just like there are no players from the 50s that could have played in the 90s, etc.
That's natural. City play Kevin De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, Foden and Graelish. What do you think they would have been 20 years ago?
The hole in the 4-2-3-1 maybe? It seems the most used way to accommodate typical attacking 10s a la Roberto Baggio these days. The 80s gen typical 10s, say Platini or Matthaus, would need 4-3-1-2 or even a 4-1-2-1-2 diamond… much more difficult accommodation, today… Platini would only fit in a la Pirlo, possibly… Matthaus would operate as a mezzala a la Nedved, I reckon.
You are so competent to make proper comparison with PL players, for sure… which I know less and not so well.
I don’t get this either, both would be perfect for Liverpool/City/Chelsea as the lone striker, all the managers of these teams prefer number 6 ft 10/9 hybrids who can drop deep link up play provide a final pass, be physical and also score the odd goal. Firmino and Havertz play this role for Chelsea and Liverpool and City are chasing Kane to do the same thing for them.
Bergkamp and Cantona would have had to up their work rate but they actually fit perfectly for a lot of modern day sides as the number 9 in the 4-3-3 or even 3-4-3 that Chelsea play.
Agreed.
The only types imo would find it really hard in the current football are pure defender and pure poacher.
The total football is actually all about making the 11 players the most hybrid possible, all players can attack and can defend. #10 or attacking midfielders themselves are already a hybrid type by nature.
I wouldn't worry about their stamina or workrate either. If they play now they'll have the modern sportive science methods and diets applied to them too. It's not like us human suddenly become much fitter, stronger, faster in the last 20 years.
Total football started in Holland It was in the early seventies.
Ajax (with Cruyff, Neeskens,...) and the national team led by Rinus Michiels
Pep played Aguero and wanted Kane or Ronaldo. Proper high scoring out and out strikers. He's making do(annoyingly well) without for now.
That's not what Bergkamp, Cantona or Zola were. They could have a go and they'd be more suited there than in a midfield three( there's no chance Cantona in particular could play in a midfield three) but really you're jamming them in. You wouldn't be getting the best of them. It's like us playing Bruno as the false 9 or highest attacker.
The role they played best has largely gone.
No Kane Aguero and Ronaldo aren’t similar players, Kane was the player with the most assists last season, he is far more than just out and out striker. Pep was actually benching Aguero till he bought into his ethos, Kane was the first target and not current day Ronaldo for him for that reason, Kane presses, score goals, drops deep into the number 10 position, while also being a physical presence.
Bergkamp and Cantona were much more similar to that sort of player, they’re both 6ft, strong technically gifted while also being able to play make and both have had seasons where they’re prolific particularly in their earlier years, Zola is different due to his lack of physicality and height he would probably be a wide forward/10 hybrid in modern day times.
You don't really get a midfielder who does everything anymore, they all have specific roles Dm or am etc.
I mean there's not that much of a difference to the way Zola was asked to play for a big chunk of his career in Italy and someone like Hazard...
I don’t think there’s a big difference between the old 9.5 or 10 in a two-man strike partnership and a modern false 9 in a front three. It’s basically the same gig but with two outlets bursting through instead of one. Bergkamp often played that role when he arguably hit his peak earlier in his career. Totti made the transition from 10 to false 9 during his own career and probably also hit his highest level in that role.