Depends on their mentality. Players are more talented now, they've had better coaching and gotten better exposure to the game because of increased broadcasts. The bar is also higher physically, players need to be in better shape. They also get paid better to do so at all levels.
Revisionism - Would players of yesteryear get shown up today?
- Thread starter Murder on Zidane's Floor
- Start date
I’d agree with that. As overall defensive units they typically move the ball more smoothly than the average from previous generations. However you can only expand the training envelope so far and it’s generally come at a cost of some poorer overall defending. More time spent developing on the ball = less time spent developing off it.
Yes I do think he could outdo his teacher or his teacher's teacher but not because he is smarter, but because he has more tools at his disposal. I think you misunderstood me. I think that he has more tools to apply what he wants to do. When it comes to elements like raw talent, planing, theorizing, etc ... nothing changes indeed. We are not smarter or more skilled than we were 100 years ago. But when it comes to executing those plans and theories, technology helps a lot which means the final result is better and more polished. Anybody for example could have told you that pressing and winning the ball back as close to your opponent's goal as possible is a good idea. Executing it however relies on not only coaching, but the physical abilities of players. This is what I mean by technology and scientific advancement making a big difference.
I like the way you put it in the last paragraph as I agree with it completely. It's always bizarre when fans would say things like "he is not a good defensive coach" about coaches whose teams play well up front but leave themselves exposed. The idea that the two are unrelated and don't affect each other is very strange. It's finding that balance where you reach a level that minimizes your weaknesses that is the real skill and something that the great tacticians have stood with.
That's not really it. It was how much Socrates missed the culture of Brazil and his heart just couldn't settle in Italy or adjust to the Italian style in the 80s unlike Falcao and Cerezo for instance. Remember he was a massive leader in Brazil not just in sport but in the whole Democracia movement. He dedicated his entire early life to advocating for Brazilian democracia in many forms and was very against the military dictatorship. He simply didn't settle in Italy with either the culture on the pitch or off the pitch. He just loved Brazil and his home too much to want to stay in Italy.
Incidentally here is a great passage from the book Socrates and Casagrande
Socrates and Casagrande said:
Socrates cutting the Italian ties said:
Thanks for that. I'm a huge fan of Socrates, he's quite comfortably the player I most admired ever, on top of his amazing playing style, there's all he did off-the-pitch: political activism, brains (physician, PhD in philosophy
, nearly a novelist if his life hadn't been cut short). Just so different from everyone else.I had read about him leaving Fiorentina due to those issues, but then again I don't remember it being a reliable source, hence mine "I think". I actually remember also reading he "threatened" to leave Brazil as a protest against the dictatorship, so maybe that's the only reason he even spent some months away from there.
Cheers! Its always great to see another fan of the Doctor! As the drafters know, he is my favorite player of all time and one of my favorite people of all time! Just such an inspiring life and person.Thanks for that. I'm a huge fan of Socrates, he's quite comfortably the player I most admired ever, on top of his amazing playing style, there's all he did off-the-pitch: political activism, brains (physician, PhD in philosophy
I had read about him leaving Fiorentina due to those issues, but then again I don't remember it being a reliable source, hence mine "I think". I actually remember also reading he "threatened" to leave Brazil as a protest against the dictatorship, so maybe that's the only reason he even spent some months away from there.
If Maradona or Pele or Eusebio or Best were around today they would piss all over defenses, just like when they were around.
If Modern footballer are so great then how come nobody an I mean nobody has beaten Dixie Dean's record of 60 goal in the league form 1927-28?
I know the league back then was 22 teams but still.
I know the league back then was 22 teams but still.
If a team ever got pressed in such a manic way in this day they would get destroyed. Because tactically players are soo much better. Thats why pep and klopp have tactical pressing.
Sure. The advent of hard pressing in the early '70s seems to me to be a real watershed moment in the development of the sport, and it's easy to see in that video that the Uruguayans didn't know how to deal with it. Most of the better quality football I've watched from the 70s onwards seems identifiably modern to me, and I don't think the top players from any era after that would generally have much trouble adapting to today's game. The defenders would have it tougher with more attacker-friendly refereeing and offside laws, and some of the more violent types like Gentile might seriously struggle, but the reverse is true with the attackers. The ease with which players like Maldini and Giggs adapted across their 20+ year careers is indicative to me that the game doesn't evolve that quickly any more.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.
Players have dived for decades. All the defenders I mentioned would be excellent in the modern game. They had all the attributes defenders require, they were all savvy defenders who could read the game well. Plus really players are that much better than they used to be. Having more stamina, doesn't mean you're a better player.
I had noticed this while watching footage of people like Best and also Ronaldo Luiz, but even since the time of the latter I feel like things have probably gone up several notches, so even though it's something I still wouldn't want to be too firm about, it's an important context to keep in mind, in my opinion.
Keep in mind that the nature of their pressing was partly a product of the offside rules at the time. Take a look at 0:16 of this video - all the opposition players in the Dutch half would have been offside as there was no active vs passive rule then IIRC:
That team did seem to alter their pressing tactics according to the opposition (I don't think they were so gung-ho against West Germany as Beckenbauer would have been custom-designed for evading an aggressive press). Players like Cruyff and Neeskens were tactical geniuses and visionaries, and I can't fathom why people think they wouldn't be able to keep pace with tactical developments in the modern game.
Because defences have got much better at stopping strikers scoring.
Tongue in cheek response, I don't think standards have changed at all.
Interesting video, why the hell doesn't somebody try to press like 0:16 in the video
It's because of the offside rule.
That press would be bypassed easily by players today. The difference in technique and composure between those Uruguayans and the modern players is made very obvious by that video.
Aren't you the guy who brought up Jaap Stam in the Van Persie thread?
In 50 years the genetically modified, pharmaceutically enhanced footballers will make Messi and Ronaldo look fat and sluggish by comparison. It's the same in any field really. Doctors today can cure more illnesses than those from 50 years ago because they have better medicine and technology at their disposal. Doesn't discredit those that were at the top of their discipline in that particular era.
Surely it's easier for the top players to score shedloads these days - there's barely any offside rule, violent tackling has been curtailed & there's more opportunity for a bit of flat track bullying because 2/3 of the League is crap.
Because forwards are no longer allowed to suplex goalies into the net.
I think Dixie's & George Camsell (?) mega scoring seasons followed the original relaxation of the offside rule - I have a suspicion teams didn't really know what they were doing defensively in the immediate aftermath of the change.
Good point. The difference between 1950s and 1980s football was in all likelihood far, far greater than the 80s compared to today. Goes for most traditional sports, I guess. Nowadays, we're probably talking more about which small adjustments the 24-hour athlete may do to improve their on-field performances.
The next step? Any new changes to the rules will obviously tweak things a little bit, but it wouldn't surprise me if football in general becomes even more fitness-based, and a little bit less open to players of various shapes and sizes. The "fatties" are already long gone. Maybe the smaller, Mata-like players will slowly fade away at the very top as well. As a result of the physical demands, players might not have the required fitness level to break through before their mid-20s, ending up with shorter careers at the very top.
Can't agree with that. Look at the past 10 years, forget the rest. We've gone from the Rio's, Nesta's, Terry's and Vidic's of the world all the way down to the Pique's and Ramos' of the world. How come with all that you've stated true classic defenders that can defend like T.Silva and Chiellini have flourished.
Even in the NBA you'll still get get players with a genuine defensive game around. Kobe could shut down almost anyone he chose to on any given day for example, while some players haven't an idea how to do it.
The current United team.. Bobby Charlton, Best and Law would still walk into the side IMO.
The 90's sides, well I think you'd have to say very few players from our current side would even get into those sides and therefore it just proves that once you get past the 60's/70's period, where the quality increasingly becomes more uniform.. its very silly to just assume football is constantly following a linear progression.
In every walk of life, even in an area such as government we are at an all time low (see British and US government), in history we had dark ages, and we had great civilisations where the older the layers you dig, the more impressive the monoliths so this modern mindset of constant progress, it is just plain silly.. like overall, one would hope there is a theme of evolution, but at closer inspection, it is more a case of one step back, then two step forwards and overall there is progress but you do have declines followed by a greater peak than the last one.
In sports, you see declines happen all the time.. see Tennis currently, which is far weaker than it was from say 08-12 and an ageing Federer is demolishing the weak competition. Why is that sport not following a linear progression but football is? why is cricket suffering from not having as many great fast bowlers as it used to in the 90's.. why does snooker not have players as great as Hendry or Ronnie coming through?
I would say that certain great players from the past, have the transferrable skills, physique and mindset to thrive in the modern game, with modern coaching and others were great for their time but would not get anywhere in the modern game. Overall you would hope that the general standard of the game is better than what it was in say the 60's but you wouldn't be able to argue IMO that at the very highest level .. today's Barca is better than say Milan of the late 80's, or Bayern/Ajax of the 70's or Barca under Pep. There has been a decline in the quality of Barca even though they remain a strong team, it is evident they're not the force they once were.
They have an ageing Iniesta still at the heart of their midfield. Are you saying to me that a Bobby Charlton in his prime in 1966, wouldn't be a match for him in his own physical prime and with half a season of games under his belt.
If you look at the training Brazil used to undergo before world cups, even in the late 50s you'd be pretty impressed with how methodological they were with their training. But where the modern game has an advantage is that across all levels, fitness etc is taken seriously but at the highest level, only marginal gains can be made from say the previous generation of great teams who also trained their arses off.
If City had their best XI out and played Brazil 1970.. who would win? I'd back Brazil, even taking the time gap into account. End of the day, a relatively fit, but superior footballing side, with great mentality and tactical organisation will win the super fit side but lacks the other things at the same level.
I am sure Cup upsets shouldn't be possible, because surely a big modern day club with best fitness coaches, facilities.. they should be unbeatable against a lower league side with nowhere near the same access to fitness coaches, but somehow these part-time teams can sometimes pull off the upset and despite being much inferior footballers. So why is it impossible to think George Best wouldn't be able to tear Luke Shaw a new asshole?
The 90's sides, well I think you'd have to say very few players from our current side would even get into those sides and therefore it just proves that once you get past the 60's/70's period, where the quality increasingly becomes more uniform.. its very silly to just assume football is constantly following a linear progression.
In every walk of life, even in an area such as government we are at an all time low (see British and US government), in history we had dark ages, and we had great civilisations where the older the layers you dig, the more impressive the monoliths so this modern mindset of constant progress, it is just plain silly.. like overall, one would hope there is a theme of evolution, but at closer inspection, it is more a case of one step back, then two step forwards and overall there is progress but you do have declines followed by a greater peak than the last one.
In sports, you see declines happen all the time.. see Tennis currently, which is far weaker than it was from say 08-12 and an ageing Federer is demolishing the weak competition. Why is that sport not following a linear progression but football is? why is cricket suffering from not having as many great fast bowlers as it used to in the 90's.. why does snooker not have players as great as Hendry or Ronnie coming through?
I would say that certain great players from the past, have the transferrable skills, physique and mindset to thrive in the modern game, with modern coaching and others were great for their time but would not get anywhere in the modern game. Overall you would hope that the general standard of the game is better than what it was in say the 60's but you wouldn't be able to argue IMO that at the very highest level .. today's Barca is better than say Milan of the late 80's, or Bayern/Ajax of the 70's or Barca under Pep. There has been a decline in the quality of Barca even though they remain a strong team, it is evident they're not the force they once were.
They have an ageing Iniesta still at the heart of their midfield. Are you saying to me that a Bobby Charlton in his prime in 1966, wouldn't be a match for him in his own physical prime and with half a season of games under his belt.
If you look at the training Brazil used to undergo before world cups, even in the late 50s you'd be pretty impressed with how methodological they were with their training. But where the modern game has an advantage is that across all levels, fitness etc is taken seriously but at the highest level, only marginal gains can be made from say the previous generation of great teams who also trained their arses off.
If City had their best XI out and played Brazil 1970.. who would win? I'd back Brazil, even taking the time gap into account. End of the day, a relatively fit, but superior footballing side, with great mentality and tactical organisation will win the super fit side but lacks the other things at the same level.
I am sure Cup upsets shouldn't be possible, because surely a big modern day club with best fitness coaches, facilities.. they should be unbeatable against a lower league side with nowhere near the same access to fitness coaches, but somehow these part-time teams can sometimes pull off the upset and despite being much inferior footballers. So why is it impossible to think George Best wouldn't be able to tear Luke Shaw a new asshole?
Camsell done it in division 2. Did anyone even come close to Dean in division 1 around those years?
Have you seen our team being pressed and what happens to the players technique? The reason that Pep's team is so successful is because practically no team in the league can handle being pressed by them.That press would be bypassed easily by players today. The difference in technique and composure between those Uruguayans and the modern players is made very obvious by that video.
Aren't you the guy who brought up Jaap Stam in the Van Persie thread?
I think you really have to look at this kind of debate from a national perspective as individual footballing nations don't move in lockstep. Especially regarding the contention that players today are technically and tactically better, something that relates to long understood fundamentals and not physicality. I personally think a lot of the improvements from now compared to the 80s\ 90s have been clustered in a fairly small amount of elite clubs with massive resources and the few countries that actually seem to have a competent FA like Spain and Germany.
England as a league has benefited a great deal from tv money, but i've never really heard it said from any British friends that their grass roots setups are producing a better quality of technician\tactician than ever. Their national teams are definitely not technical compared to when they had Gazza, Waddle, Barnes, Beardsley, Shearer etc. The Scots don't have technicians like Mcstay, Strachan, Robertson, Dalglish or McAllister anymore.
Certainly not many football historians from Eastern Europe will tell you things have improved in anything other than a better average fitness level. Technically in fact, most countries in the region have actually regressed from where we were at 20 years ago imo. A lot of this has to do with failing to rebuild effective grass roots systems when the old commie ones crumbled. Russian football in particular has hit crisis point over the past decade, and is in need of a complete overhaul.
England as a league has benefited a great deal from tv money, but i've never really heard it said from any British friends that their grass roots setups are producing a better quality of technician\tactician than ever. Their national teams are definitely not technical compared to when they had Gazza, Waddle, Barnes, Beardsley, Shearer etc. The Scots don't have technicians like Mcstay, Strachan, Robertson, Dalglish or McAllister anymore.
Certainly not many football historians from Eastern Europe will tell you things have improved in anything other than a better average fitness level. Technically in fact, most countries in the region have actually regressed from where we were at 20 years ago imo. A lot of this has to do with failing to rebuild effective grass roots systems when the old commie ones crumbled. Russian football in particular has hit crisis point over the past decade, and is in need of a complete overhaul.
think you might like this,
http://www.free-elements.com/Laravel/scorersBySeason/2/40
other years from here
http://www.free-elements.com/Laravel/seasonIndex/2
Video in op could be United in several games this season
Good players in any era adapt to their environment.
Imagine Best in today’s game with the protection that players get, on todays pitches, diets, conditioning etc
Good players in any era adapt to their environment.
Imagine Best in today’s game with the protection that players get, on todays pitches, diets, conditioning etc
Agreed - fitness is massively higher now.