Revisionism - Would players of yesteryear get shown up today?

[MancunianAngels]

Tactics are great but without meaning to sound like that drunken idiot in the pub, football is quite a simple game that many managers overcomplicate.

A 442 of past players in their prime.

Van Der Sar/Schmeichel/ as a keeper
Neville at right back
Bruce and Pallister or Rio and Vidic at centre back.
Irwin/Evra left back

Beckham/Sharpe RW
any 2 of Robson/Ince/Butt/Scholes/Keane in CM. Heck, even the likes of Fletcher would dominate the occasional big game
Giggs at LW

Any two of Ole/Ruud/Cantona/Hughes/Cole/Yorke etc

Any variation of that 11 would absolutely wipe the floor with anyone in this league bar City/Spurs and possibly most in Europe aside from the obvious.

A lot of these players would be more adaptable aswell.

Leicester City won the League in 2016 ffs. Leicester City!! A manager who was considered old and past it in 2004 won the world's best league (TM) only 2 years ago. He managed for 9 months to get the best out of his squad. It wasn't even that difficult for them in the end.

Paul Pogba was considered one of the worlds best in 2016. Yet, he can only play in one position in a 433? Lol... He's clearly a great player but he needs to up his game.

Health/fitness is an interesting point.
Pre 99, all cup (including League Cup) games would go to a replay and pre 93, there was 2nd replays in the Fa Cup. For all the investment in fitness/nutritionists many clubs complain about exhaustion in February when there's less games than ever in a season (unless you're in the Europs League qualifying rounds). Squads are also bigger so players are rested more frequently.

I'll ask a different question. How well would this current United team do against the side of 04-05 or even that of 90 - 93 (before we won the League for the first time in 20+ years).

 

[Hansa]

But then you would have to contextualise that against modern football and the reason players can go hard for so long in the way that they do. Give old teams squads of 20-odd interchangeable players and the output is going to change, equally, strip today's teams down to 14 players and see how long they entertain all the dynamic pressing for in a season.

If you haven't seen it, take a look at the '66 world cup. The pace and aggression throughout the tournament is not what people seem to associate with the football played 50+ years ago. It's very easy to cherry-pick awful games from any era. There was walking football in both South Africa and Brazil during the last two World Cups. Extreme climate will always force players to slow down to a relative crawl. Altitude does the same, and you can watch any S.A qualifier in Bolivia for evidence of that.

You're not wrong, of course, but the technical and physical level is still quite a bit better today. Just take a typical situation from a match: 30 years ago, if you put pressure on the centre backs, they would in most cases boot the ball out for a throw in or hoof it aimlessly upfield. Today, they are far more likely to shake off the attacker and move upfield with the ball at their feet (or find a team-mate if necessary).

Football of old was great for its time. But the sport evolves. In 2050, we might be watching another brand of football altogether.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

I agree with the OP. Great players of the past would still be great players in this era by the level of the average player has risen.

 

[Red_toad]

United of yesteryear 11

Big Pete
Neville, Pallister, McGrath, Irwin
Best, Robbo, Moses, Charlton
Cantona, Law
​

That 11 would be more than a match for anyone in the league. Some because they were a sublime talent and intelligence on the pitch, others as they've the attributes to succeed in this era of the game.

 

[PepG]

Raw talent hasn't changed, training and technique has.

So if you take a young Van Basten and train him with today's coaches, methods and facilities, he's world class.

Go back in time, abduct prime Van Basten and bring him to 2018 to drop into a modern game, and he's probably not as good.

Spot on! The supertars of the past in their prime would struggle in the modern game, their younger selfs would flourish and probably reach greater heights! Can you imagine how many goals would score today Gerd Muller if he for example somehow changed place and time with Thomas Muller lol ?!

 

[Fortitude]

You're not wrong, of course, but the technical and physical level is still quite a bit better today. Just take a typical situation from a match: 30 years ago, if you put pressure on the centre backs, they would in most cases boot the ball out for a throw in or hoof it aimlessly upfield. Today, they are far more likely to shake off the attacker and move upfield with the ball at their feet (or find a team-mate if necessary).

Football of old was great for its time. But the sport evolves. In 2050, we might be watching another brand of football altogether.

30 years ago sweepers and proper ball-playing CB's were prevalent in football. The likes of Scirea, Baresi, Koeman and a whole host of others would make a mockery of their equivalent ball-playing CB's of modern football. So you can't use this blanket statement theory to generalise an entire era, when, it was infact more tactically diverse and idiosyncratic than what we have these days.

Playing out from the back is actually a very, very old concept. Sport doesn't evolve linearly - there hasn't been a single player since Best who could dribble better in the manner he did than himself, nor Cruyff nor Drazic - these are players who were plying their trade in the 60's and 70's.... There hasn't been a more elegant deep-lying player than Beckenbauer or one who could shoot with his left foot like Puskas. It took 30something years for a player to emerge who could be directly compared to Maradona and it will probably take another 30 for one to come along that can be compared to Messi. The list of things I can mention could fill up pages, but the list isn't important, the question is why, and the answer is that humans don't evolve much over such short timespans except in linear activities, like, running in straight lines, or jumping higher, or having a little bit more stamina. On the technical side the legendary players remain legendary because barely a handful every few decades can get anywhere near to even replicating them let alone surpassing them.

Each generation wants to claim that the wheel has been reinvented, but nothing really changes, or should I say, the ceiling of human evolution doesn't move as fast as people would like to think.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He was never going to say “no, they would be shit” was he?

No, but I think he believes what he says there.

 

[Red_toad]

I think defenders from previous eras would have a harder time in the modern game, due to refs being much stricter with fouls and physicality in the modern game.

Conversely I think attacking players would at least be as effective, for a similar reason. Although with the defensive side of the game being far more tactical these days I can see that offsetting it somewhat, but I still think there would be a net positive in favor of the attackers.

Peak Pallister, McGrath and Stam would all walk into the current United team! I can think of many who'd not make it as a top professional footballer today, but those with the right attributes and natural skill would be just as good, if not even higher rated in today's game.

 

[Theonas]

30 years ago sweepers and proper ball-playing CB's were prevalent in football. The likes of Scirea, Baresi, Koeman and a whole host of others would make a mockery of their equivalent ball-playing CB's of modern football. So you can't use this blanket statement theory to generalise an entire era, when, it was infact more tactically diverse and idiosyncratic than what we have these days.

Playing out from the back is actually a very, very old concept. Sport doesn't evolve linearly - there hasn't been a single player since Best who could dribble better in the manner he did than himself, nor Cruyff nor Drazic - these are players who were plying their trade in the 60's and 70's.... There hasn't been a more elegant deep-lying player than Beckenbauer or one who could shoot with his left foot like Puskas. It took 30something years for a player to emerge who could be directly compared to Maradona and it will probably take another 30 for one to come along that can be compared to Messi. The list of things I can mention could fill up pages, but the list isn't important, the question is why, and the answer is that humans don't evolve much over such short timespans except in linear activities, like, running in straight lines, or jumping higher, or having a little bit more stamina. On the technical side the legendary players remain legendary because barely a handful every few decades can get anywhere near to even replicating them let alone surpassing them.

Each generation wants to claim that the wheel has been reinvented, but nothing really changes, or should I say, the ceiling of human evolution doesn't move as fast as people would like to think.

I agree with most of this especially the part about humans not evolving much except in linear activities. This is however not mutually exclusive with the theory that players from yesteryear would do well today. It is also not mutually exclusive with the theory that tactics are becoming a bigger part of the game. I am not saying either of those things necessarily true as for that to be proven, we would need an extensive amount of data. But the physical demands and technological improvement simply change the playing field too much for any reliable comparison to be made. Raw talent is obviously the same and will always be so. Best is as good a dribbler as anyone the talent someone like Beckenbauer or Cruyff had will always make them potential greats in any era. The tactical ideas and theories are the same also because we are not smarter today or more sophisticated. But the execution of those tactics and potential of that talent as well as new possibilities that technology opens in terms of what can be done tactically and technically is a different matter. Plenty might have had Guardiola's ideas and theories and plenty might have been smarter than him but that does not mean they had the tools or ingredients will create a similar team. Just like there might have been many Messis without necessarily evolving into one.

Like another poster said, raw qualities like talent, intelligence, creaitivity, etc ... are the same and always will be. Execution and extracting the most out of talent and ideas is a different matter.

 

[gibers]

The standard of football is higher bit attacking players all benefit heavy now than they did i the past

aka Attacking players are better off today than in the last 50 years.

Will make a thread about it.

 

[Raees]

Players are far better athletes and sports science is miles ahead nowadays.

George Best could turn up to games drunk and comfortably be the best player on the park. Wouldn’t happen anymore.

Vidal? Also once Bestie got a little older but still quite young he couldn't be drunk or great at the same time

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Raw talent hasn't changed, training and technique has.

So if you take a young Van Basten and train him with today's coaches, methods and facilities, he's world class.

Go back in time, abduct prime Van Basten and bring him to 2018 to drop into a modern game, and he's probably not as good.

Wut? You know in his prime he was in defence friendly Serie A and still managed to shine. The quality of defence he faced was probably higher than anything we have currently. He was a beast before and will be a beast now.

Van Basten, Gullit and Gerd Muller will still give defence nightmares.
Matthaus and Neeskens will still run game from the middle.


It's probably in defence where there will be drawbacks. Most old school defenders will probably find the flexible front trio/false 9 style game with fast and nimble dribblers as wide forwards a bit hard to handle.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

And with almost everything televised these days it is a lot easier for people to nitpick a player's flaws.

 

[gibers]

And with almost everything televised these days it is a lot easier for people to nitpick a player's flaws.

100%

Even in the 90s 2000s Zidane would trap a ball and we would hear about it non stop.

The standard has increased but I think attackers are better off in this era than any era in the last 50 years.

 

[Fortitude]

I agree with most of this especially the part about humans not evolving much except in linear activities. This is however not mutually exclusive with the theory that players from yesteryear would do well today. It is also not mutually exclusive with the theory that tactics are becoming a bigger part of the game. I am not saying either of those things necessarily true as for that to be proven, we would need an extensive amount of data. But the physical demands and technological improvement simply change the playing field too much for any reliable comparison to be made. Raw talent is obviously the same and will always be so. Best is as good a dribbler as anyone the talent someone like Beckenbauer or Cruyff had will always make them potential greats in any era. The tactical ideas and theories are the same also because we are not smarter today or more sophisticated. But the execution of those tactics and potential of that talent as well as new possibilities that technology opens in terms of what can be done tactically and technically is a different matter. Plenty might have had Guardiola's ideas and theories and plenty might have been smarter than him but that does not mean they had the tools or ingredients will create a similar team. Just like there might have been many Messis without necessarily evolving into one.

Like another poster said, raw qualities like talent, intelligence, creaitivity, etc ... are the same and always will be. Execution and extracting the most out of talent and ideas is a different matter.

Do you think Guardiola could outdo his teacher's teacher? The man from which literally everything else stems? Do you think within him seeing the modifications applied by a student, he wouldn't come up with counter measures instantaneously? A lot of what we see now is a result of the innovations of the late 60's and 70's. Cruyff pointed out every flaw in everything he saw, such was his eye for the game, and a bit of hard-pressing is not going to fluster tacticians of yesteryear. Like I said previously, a lot of that stuff can be negated by simply not entertaining it in the first place. You can't exercise a vast difference in athleticism if your facing a side that is comfortable in its own construct and doesn't break rank out of fear. I've yet to see a modern team negate such a set-up without a lot of luck and exasperation, and that's not even playing masters of that kind of football.

Imo, football runs parallel, not progressively - one thing is sacrificed to make another more complete. When that is no longer the case, this vaunted evolution will have occurred, but for now human limitation prevents that.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

I have to disagree. The reason why, is there is very little space and time on the ball today. Take a look at the highlights of the WC final between "The finest team in history" and Italy in 1970. You'll piss yourself laughing from the lack of pressing. Walking - yes, walking - unchallenged with the ball happened regularly.

Yet only four years later the Dutch were pressing like lunatics:

 

[Arruda]

Socrates was a smoker and heavy drinker. I think he quickly left Europe because they didn't let him miss training when hungover, etc, whereas in Brazil he was free to do however he wanted. I don't think that sort of thing would cut it today.

Then again, how fecking good was he, that despite that kind of attitude he was one of the best players of his generation...

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Socrates was a smoker and heavy drinker. I think he quickly left Europe because they didn't let him miss training when hungover, etc, whereas in Brazil he was free to do however he wanted. I don't think that sort of thing would cut it today.

Then again, how fecking good was he, that despite that kind of attitude he was one of the best players of his generation...

Most English players drank heavily well into the 90s. Ferguson had to get rid of the likes of McGrath and Robson because of the boozing culture at United. Really it was the arrival of Wenger in the PL that really saw major diet changes and the end of the drinking culture. He had players like Merson and Adams in his squad when he arrived. There was still the dentist's chair incident before Euro 96 though.

 

[Arruda]

Most English players drank heavily well into the 90s. Ferguson had to get rid of the likes of McGrath and Robson because of the boozing culture at United. Really it was the arrival of Wenger in the PL that really saw major diet changes and the end of the drinking culture. He had players like Merson and Adams in his squad when he arrived. There was still the dentist's chair incident before Euro 96 though.

Yeah, I suppose it was kind of a level playing field then. Most of those players would have to be a lot more "professional" these days to play at the same level I guess. Talent can only go so far. Even someone like Ronaldinho quickly lost relevance, much possibly due to his lifestyle.

 

[Hansa]

30 years ago sweepers and proper ball-playing CB's were prevalent in football. The likes of Scirea, Baresi, Koeman and a whole host of others would make a mockery of their equivalent ball-playing CB's of modern football. So you can't use this blanket statement theory to generalise an entire era, when, it was infact more tactically diverse and idiosyncratic than what we have these days.

I can't recall getting into an argument about tactical diversity. You're knocking down open doors. Cantona predicted back in the day that we'd play pretty much the same kind of football in a couple of decades, and he wasn't far off. Yes, even Fergie toyed with the idea of using Robson as a sweeper. But there aren't that many around these days. Again, football has evolved, and using an outright sweeper would be a risky business. Same with the good ol' libero. Usually devoid of defensive responsibilities.

Again, I can only use my own 30+ years of watching football as anecdotal evidence, and my initial answer was a direct reply to the claim that the lack of dribbling/passing were down to a lack of technique in today's players. Never said anything about great players of yesteryear not becoming great players today. Of course they would. But football is a much quicker game today, and it usually requires even better skills than before, because if you give the ball away often, you might not get it back for a while.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Yeah, I suppose it was kind of a level playing field then. Most of those players would have to be a lot more "professional" these days to play at the same level I guess. Talent can only go so far. Even someone like Ronaldinho quickly lost relevance, much possibly due to his lifestyle.

Definitely, you have to be in exceptional condition these days. I doubt Ronaldinho was hitting it anywhere near as hard as they did in the 70s and 80s but he got left behind completely.

 

[RooneyLegend]

You're not wrong, of course, but the technical and physical level is still quite a bit better today. Just take a typical situation from a match: 30 years ago, if you put pressure on the centre backs, they would in most cases boot the ball out for a throw in or hoof it aimlessly upfield. Today, they are far more likely to shake off the attacker and move upfield with the ball at their feet (or find a team-mate if necessary).

Football of old was great for its time. But the sport evolves. In 2050, we might be watching another brand of football altogether.

Baresi and McGrath hoofing the ball up? You can find plenty examples of players who do that very same thing today.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Socrates was a smoker and heavy drinker. I think he quickly left Europe because they didn't let him miss training when hungover, etc, whereas in Brazil he was free to do however he wanted. I don't think that sort of thing would cut it today.

Then again, how fecking good was he, that despite that kind of attitude he was one of the best players of his generation...

King was playing games in the modern era without actually training.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Technically it hasn't improved, but tactically and in terms if the conditions to play football it's at its peak.

 

[Hansa]

Yet only four years later the Dutch were pressing like lunatics:

Great video that

And I hope you noticed how utterly inept and unprepared the defenders were. It seems like they were used to walking the ball out of defence unchallenged.

 

[Arruda]

King was playing games in the modern era without actually training.

Ledley King?

I don't think it's impossible at all, just that you would probably be at a lower level than you hypothetically could. So when looking at great players of the past, I think they would only achieve that level today if they were more professional.

 

[Hansa]

Baresi and McGrath hoofing the ball up? You can find plenty examples of players who do that very same thing today.

"In most cases". Wouldn't you agree that the average defender is more skilful technically today? Not fair to pick out Baresi and McGrath as typical examples of centre backs of the 80s.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Ledley King?

I don't think it's impossible at all, just that you would probably be at a lower level than you hypothetically could.

Yes, reportedly didn't train cause he had no cartilage in his knee so it was bone on bone yet quite an impressive defender.

 

[Eriku]

The mental/psychological side of the game is something that interests me, because there's a fair bit of stuff going on with this that I'm not sure is often considered. Nowadays for example, you have something that I brought up in another thread, and it's social media, and the possibility of a player at any point basically becoming an internet phenomenon if he makes a mistake, or if he even does anything that is a bit outside the norm. I wasn't on here at the time, but I did read over the classic threads on here a while back, and found the amusing Ashley Cole team photo thread and what people had done with that. Stuff like that goes to show how easily something can go viral, along with other examples like Phil Jones' facial expressions, Zaza's penalty miss at the Euros, etc. I was actually struggling to just find a video of the latter that hadn't been edited and made into some sort of dance video.

I feel like this sort of stuff could be a very big deal in the thinking (even if only subconsciously) of modern day footballers. It's something that could really get in the way of just expressing and being spontaneous on the pitch, and is something that players from previous generations didn't have to put up with. It's another big thing to think about I think when thinking of how players would turn out if they'd been raised in this generation, because it could have a serious impact on their willingness to take risks. That being said, if you were to just pluck someone from the 80s, say, and put him in a team just for a one-off game against another team, it could be surprising how much more willing these players would be to take on their man, although there would obviously be the fitness issue to consider, as well as any adaptations that would have to be made in terms of speed of decision-making, players closing down, etc.

Di Maria highlighted this recently by stating how much of a toll online mockery and the like takes on him mentally. It’s easy to mock him for going to a psychologist to get help dealing with memes, but it’s absolutely a fair point. One wonders which great players would never have made the grade had they come up in the modern age and its hyper-scrutiny.

 

[Eriku]

He was never going to say “no, they would be shit” was he?

I was at a pub where Brian McClair was answering questions and stuff on the day of the Liverpool match this autumn, and there weren’t cameras and reporters, and he clearly said what he felt. I put the question to him about former greats and how they’d do today, and he was equally confident about great players being great today.

To prove that he didn’t care about being diplomatic I can tell you that he stated that Fellaini was «pish», and not good enough, and that Rooney didn’t take care of himself at all and would’ve lasted longer if he was more professional in that sense.

 

[RooneyLegend]

"In most cases". Wouldn't you agree that the average defender is more skilful technically today? Not fair to pick out Baresi and McGrath as typical examples of centre backs of the 80s.

Some are, some aren't. On the flip-side most of these defenders know nothing about actually defending. Koeman, Passarella, Scirea could all handle a ball while others couldn't as is the same case today. It's all about what the coaches prefer. Pep signs defenders that are really good on the ball so that they can pass it out, while he wouldn't be trying the same if he had Smalling and Chiellini at the back. There is plenty of hoofing being done by modern defences, we've even seen it at our team this season. Burnley defenders probably haven't completed a pass this season, shawcross and Zouma etc etc.

 

[LARulz]

Raw talent hasn't changed, training and technique has.

So if you take a young Van Basten and train him with today's coaches, methods and facilities, he's world class.

Go back in time, abduct prime Van Basten and bring him to 2018 to drop into a modern game, and he's probably not as good.

This but I would add:

Tactics I think have become far more important too. Teams and players now know almost everything about the opposition without leaving their living room. I kind of therefore feel that great players of 'way back when' would still be great but find it tougher. I can imagine that in the 50s, 60s people knew about the top players, saw a couple games and based tactics on that mostly

 

[SCP]

On the flip-side most of these defenders know nothing about actually defending.

That's just a myth spreaded around, reality is in the last 30 years all the rules, be it finishing the backpass rule, offside rules, switching from man marking to zonal marking, stricter rules for tackling, much better pitches, nutritionists, sport science, recovery of players, all those factors combined made everything harder for individual defenders.

And if you think it's only in football, try to see a NBA match from the 80's or 90's and everyone says the same, there was much better defenders. No, what they didn't faced was zonal defending, thugs like Bill Laimbeer and the Detroit Pistons wouldn't finish a game by today's standards.

 

[giorno]

"In most cases". Wouldn't you agree that the average defender is more skilful technically today? Not fair to pick out Baresi and McGrath as typical examples of centre backs of the 80s.

The really big difference was that defenders nowadays are expected to play the ball, whereas in past eras, they were expected to hoof it up, even if they were good. Tassotti for example, when he was at lazio he was known for being a rough, hard, "hit something, ask questions later", "just punt it into row Z" type of defender, yet when a journalist asked a teammate of his who was the most technically gifted player on the team, "Tassotti. You should see him in training! He humiliates everyone, nutmegs, backheels, everything! He's amazing" "But he never does that in games!" "because coach would kill him if he tries!"

Modern defenders also quite simply don't know how to mark their man, because they're aren't even taught to do it as kids.

btw, about the technical level, you realize you made my point rather than counter it

 

[Keeps It tidy]

The really big difference was that defenders nowadays are expected to play the ball, whereas in past eras, they were expected to hoof it up, even if they were good. Tassotti for example, when he was at lazio he was known for being a rough, hard, "hit something, ask questions later", "just punt it into row Z" type of defender, yet when a journalist asked a teammate of his who was the most technically gifted player on the team, "Tassotti. You should see him in training! He humiliates everyone, nutmegs, backheels, everything! He's amazing" "But he never does that in games!" "because coach would kill him if he tries!"

Modern defenders also quite simply don't know how to mark their man, because they're aren't even taught to do it as kids.

btw, about the technical level, you realize you made my point rather than counter it

Who still uses man marking systems?

 

[bebeanderson]

Who still uses man marking systems?

He said mark their man, not man marking system. It's still a much needed skill, that has been eroding, according to Chiellini and others.

 

[giorno]

Who still uses man marking systems?

No, i mean situational man marking. Defenders are still expected to man-mark a striker in the box for example, but very few are actually good at it

 

[SCP]

He said mark their man, not man marking system. It's still a much needed skill, that has been eroding, according to Chiellini and others.

And just because Chiellini says it suddenly is true.

 

[montpelier]

I think teams as a whole are much better prepared & fitter these days. The variation in quality of individual players is probably much the same. English league is probably stronger than it was - money is a big pull, it's more cosmopolitan.

And have you seen Phil Jones, Mignolet, Granit Xhaka... all currently playing for top teams & regular choices at international level.

Utd don't look a better team now than 93/94 or 1999 to me. In fact, take out DDG, Pogba & Sanchez & I'd suggest the current lot are individually inferior footy players to most of their equivalent predecessors.

 

[KingEric7]

Peak Pallister, McGrath and Stam would all walk into the current United team! I can think of many who'd not make it as a top professional footballer today, but those with the right attributes and natural skill would be just as good, if not even higher rated in today's game.

These players were from before my time really despite the username, but I'd say it's difficult to predict how past defenders would be able to navigate the amount of diving in today's game, and that the further back you go, the more unclear it becomes. Defenders do sometimes take advantage of this by just dropping to the ground instead of clearing it out of a tight situation, but really you have to be so careful against forwards, wingers, etc today. If former great defenders had to put up with this and had to constantly keep in mind the possibility of a dive or 'going down easily', it could've completely done a number on their level of consistency and confidence, and playing in that state of anxiety and hesitation could've even leaked into areas of their game that would strike most people as being unrelated (ability with the ball).