To be fair, it's easy to be critical of older football when the club you support has no history. Just playing. I scrually agree with OP.
Football in the olden days (pre-1990's) was crap, discuss.
- Thread starter Kentonio
- Start date
It's not just that conditions have improved. It is more about genuine inherent evolution of the game. (These two are connected, of course.) You can see steady improvement in basic sports such as athletics or swimming, and that applies even more to team sports that involve fine and complex skills and organizational patterns. All games improve that way - players and teams seek competitive edge, and baseline gets higher: more speed and intensity require more skill and vice versa.
Now, there is an argument that former greats would be as good if they had the benefit of improved playing and training conditions. That superior talent would equally shine in such favorable context. That is a reasonable argument. However, consider the fact that significantly more people are playing the game today, than in supposed 'golden days'. And if the amount of talent in population is relatively constant, logical conclusion is that significantly more great players are around today than before, even excluding the notion of inherent evolution of the game.
For me, this is evidently true when you look at the game, and I find quasi-nostalgic blabbering stupid and obnoxious.
Now, there is an argument that former greats would be as good if they had the benefit of improved playing and training conditions. That superior talent would equally shine in such favorable context. That is a reasonable argument. However, consider the fact that significantly more people are playing the game today, than in supposed 'golden days'. And if the amount of talent in population is relatively constant, logical conclusion is that significantly more great players are around today than before, even excluding the notion of inherent evolution of the game.
For me, this is evidently true when you look at the game, and I find quasi-nostalgic blabbering stupid and obnoxious.
That would be true if the amount of talent in population remains the same and most importantly, said talent goes into football and doesn't flame out at youth level for whatever reasons. Then there's the ability and potential for a country to produce world class talent. I mean, it's not by chance that most of the greatest players of all time came from 6-7 countries
I mean, sure, Iceland, Senegal, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Ivory Coast, Albania, USA, Australia are better than ever now. But what about Italy, England, Netherlands, Germany, Brazil? Are they producing more and better players now than they were doing 10-20-30 years ago?
4-4-2 is what I want us to play and United never played the longball-stuff. We didn't win much but watching Coppell, Hill, Robson, Whiteside aso aso was most of the time a joy. Atleast to me
The same should be true for all human activities? Why then didn't we saw a steady improvement in art, for example? There were periods when the amount and quality of artists was clearly superior to that of the later years - take Renaissance and Mannerism, for example - or today, when the art is stagnating.
Better now - you can't kick talented players off the pitch, pitches are good all year, more thought in fixture planning (think United in 92, or, before my time, Leeds playing a title decider 2 days after the FA Cup final).
Worse now - the quality of football in international tournaments as the number of qualifiers constantly expands and increased homogeneity of styles.
Worse now - the quality of football in international tournaments as the number of qualifiers constantly expands and increased homogeneity of styles.
You could say the same for great composers. But their skills, like artists, come primarily from their imagination, eyes, & ears. That's not something you can teach or coach too easily. Improving a human's physical capabilities, as we all know, is far more easy, especially with scientific advances readily available to give a helping hand. Maybe all these budding artists have cottoned on to the fact that all their paintings are worthless until they die, so they've taken up footie instead.
Because sport is a competitive activity based on physical skills, while art is an immensely complex and ambiguous human endeavour that is not only highly subjective, but involves even stuff like irrationality and metaphysics?
Anyway, to say art as a whole was objectively better at certain time is rather disingenious.
I agree with the general theme of the thread. It is proven that athletes generally and footballers as well will only get better over time and the whole standard will go up.
And no, it doesn't mean that Phil Jones is better than Pele. It means that the baseline professional footballer and average professional footballer are now better than the baseline and average professional footballer of the old days.
The only mistake the OP makes is assuming that Pele or other legends wouldn't be as good now. When you are talking about the very top footballers, these guys are outliers in their generation so it is difficult to prove that if you were to pick them up and put them in some era in the future, they would follow the general statistical trend.
And no, it doesn't mean that Phil Jones is better than Pele. It means that the baseline professional footballer and average professional footballer are now better than the baseline and average professional footballer of the old days.
The only mistake the OP makes is assuming that Pele or other legends wouldn't be as good now. When you are talking about the very top footballers, these guys are outliers in their generation so it is difficult to prove that if you were to pick them up and put them in some era in the future, they would follow the general statistical trend.
Nope. There are quite clearly more productive and important periods - Renaissance, avantgarde etc., where the artists created new ideas and movements - and the crises, when the old ideas and problems were already solved and the new one weren't yet invented.
That is very simplistic and uninformed opinion, to put it mildly. Anyway, the point was that sport is not art.
Oh, the irony of using this particular advert!
Does OP realize that Stanley Matthews:
- Played top level football till he was 50.
- Used to run with lead lined shoes, so that he felt better switching to football boots.
- Never smoked all his life.
- Had a strict diet regime.
What a car crash of an OP. It's like arguing Picasso and Michelangelo were shit because we currently have better canvas, better paints and technology assistance.
Exhibit B - Fitness, my ass. Modern footballers are pansies. The diving and simulation that goes on now will have been laughed out of the ground in those days. It was a rougher sport.
Simplistic - yes, but it's impossible to explain it in a few sentences. There are enough books written about it by people way smarter than me though, and it's the opinion that the periods of art history can not be evaluated is, actually, uninformed. There are crises, there are breakthroughs, and the art isn't always of the same quality. If you want to know more you can begin with The Story of Art by Ernst Gombrich, for example, it's one of the easiest to read overviews of art history which talks about this problem (albeit, too, quite simplistically).
Last edited:
I agree very much with the point on styles at international level. From reading about the game from the older generation you get a sense that in big tournaments you got to see a huge contrast in teams. Some were deep rooted in counter football, defensive, total football or the passing game.The great Hungary team of the 50's had a unique style and wouldn't bend for any team. Now everyone players more or less very similar to one another, the key difference now being the quality of players.
Well, you misunderstood me again. There's a difference between simplified and simplistic. For example, Gombrich was an author that was good at simplifying things, while not being simplistic. Now, the popular narrative about ebbs and tides in history of the Western art, that you mention, is just one of the many possible narratives and perspectives about an immensely complex phenomenon. Sport, on the other hand, is a result based, competitive game, based on physical activity. Big difference.
Last edited:
This was only 94 and shows how much softer the game has become. Vinnie Jones nearly kills Cantona who jumps straight back up completely unfazed by it. Jones only got a yellow for it
No one has responded to the point that Matthews was more disciplined than Rooney has ever been. Yet Rooney has managed to carve out a pretty lengthy career at the top level in the modern game despite having an awful lifestyle. Surely it should have been impossible for him as he was unfitter than most greats from previous eras. It affected him of course from reaching his potential but it would have affected him from reaching his potential in most eras.. look at the way Rooney moves to a Puskas who lost weight and joined Madrid.. World of difference in terms of technical ability and nimbleness on the ball. I'mOh, the irony of using this particular advert!
Does OP realize that Stanley Matthews:
- Played top level football till he was 50.
- Used to run with lead lined shoes, so that he felt better switching to football boots.
- Never smoked all his life.
- Had a strict diet regime.
Just goes to show that even in the modern game, if you're good enough talent wise you can overcome physical limitations and still be a great player for a number of years and therefore this notion that the likes of Pele who were very fit would struggle to keep up with the pace of the modern game is misguided.
Some players I agree would look out of place in modern era but likewise some modern players would look out of place in the tougher playing conditions of yesteryear.
ever since probably the early 00's Footballers became such pussies, money really overtook the game and egos took off. Now bang average players command huge wages.
OP from a chelsea fan - I bet you were tempted to title the thread "Football in the olden days (pre-2003) was crap, discuss".
You know in another 20 or 30 years from now someone will post that football nowadays was crap because by then the pitches, tactics, fitness, nutrition, lifestyle, sports science, kits, boots and even the rules of the game will all have evolved and in most cases vastly improved.
You can't judge something from the past by the standards of today without taking into account the resources and knowledge available at the time. I doubt there were many people going to games in the 70s and 80s thinking "man this is shit compared to what it will be in the next century - feck it I think I might stop going for 40 years till the pitches improve".
You know in another 20 or 30 years from now someone will post that football nowadays was crap because by then the pitches, tactics, fitness, nutrition, lifestyle, sports science, kits, boots and even the rules of the game will all have evolved and in most cases vastly improved.
You can't judge something from the past by the standards of today without taking into account the resources and knowledge available at the time. I doubt there were many people going to games in the 70s and 80s thinking "man this is shit compared to what it will be in the next century - feck it I think I might stop going for 40 years till the pitches improve".
Wish they'd bring back a bit of this. Not to that extent but I'd much rather see that than diving.This was only 94 and shows how much softer the game has become. Vinnie Jones nearly kills Cantona who jumps straight back up completely unfazed by it. Jones only got a yellow for it
Well football will improve over the next 30 years.
Of course, thats the point - but it won't mean that football today is crap, just because its not as "good" in comparison.
Conclusion: Liverpool won things when football was crap
Rubbish thread. Cruyff won player of the year in holland(with the likes of Gullit, Van Bastern and Rijkaard around) in '84, n his old age. We regularly see defenders look like they're not try8ing to stop a player even today. Football from a technical standpoint hasnt improved at all.
Whats strange is people seem to appreciate poor football nowadays. I mean, a team can't string 5 passes together but the opposition gets praised for their pressing instead of the team being battered for being poor on the ball.
Liverpool won quite a lot, so I agree.
Yes the op does realize these things. Does the poster realize that the only reason these facts are common knowledge is because of how incredibly rare they were at a time when players would even smoke on the training pitch and at half time during matches?Oh, the irony of using this particular advert!
Does OP realize that Stanley Matthews:
- Played top level football till he was 50.
- Used to run with lead lined shoes, so that he felt better switching to football boots.
- Never smoked all his life.
- Had a strict diet regime.
That is a great book. Definitely worth a read
This is as ridiculous as anything in the OP.
Alcohol was the pain killer back in the day.
Sure. Not disputing that. Fitness is better nowadays, but how many of current stars do you think will be able to handle the physical game played then? Fitness is more than just stamina.Yes the op does realize these things. Does the poster realize that the only reason these facts are common knowledge is because of how incredibly rare they were at a time when players would even smoke on the training pitch and at half time during matches?
Yeah but now we have computers that do it better and in 3D! and voice enhancing machines that make even the shrillist voice only slightly unbearable
All of them.
I'm not in the camp that believes that kicking the crap out of each other counts as 'fitness'. Was Vinnie Jones a better athlete than C Ronaldo?
I was talking about character. Not diving to gain an advantage. Not rolling around the grass in exaggeration etc.
They only do that because refs reward them for it.
Was Charlton a better athlete than Riquelme? Yes. And Riquelme was quite successful in post-90 football, by the way.
I'd love to see George Best playing today on the carpets of pitches and with the modern light balls, if he could get his lifestyle in check, I reckon he'd embarass the best of defences.