Skills
Snitch
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 42,100
Less Racists & Sexists - at least fewer vocal ones.
I wonder this too. What would stop a team doing this all game? Seems a nightmareThe backpass rule. How the feck did people even watch football in the old days? If a team went a goal up, did they not just pass it back to the keeper for the rest of the game?
The backpass rule. How the feck did people even watch football in the old days? If a team went a goal up, did they not just pass it back to the keeper for the rest of the game?
I've watched a lot of old games just to see Law, Charlton and Best, and it's never been a problem for me. I find the games very enjoyable as there's pretty much no time wasting, dives, players feigning injury. When a goalkeeper does receive a backpass, they release the ball almost instantly. It's not like today where goalkeepers tend to dillydally on the ball.I wonder this too. What would stop a team doing this all game? Seems a nightmare
Also, games not being decided by a coin toss. The feck was that about
Thats naive to say imoPhysical fitness and diet
Less doping
Less Hooliganism
Less brutes( players who are just on the field to injure creative players)
Time wasting back passes to keeper can take 15mins from 90
I still think VAR is a positive vs the days of refs claiming they didn't see the controversial action
You had to have a front two that pressed like feck to cut off the angle back to the keeper. It wasn't that different to today.I wonder this too. What would stop a team doing this all game? Seems a nightmare
Also, games not being decided by a coin toss. The feck was that about
The boring stuff came in after Charlton, Best and Law really, the back pass rule did make a big difference at the time.I love how most teams now try to play football without the need for hoofing it.
I watch classic football and still love it, but I'm spoilt by today's game because, back then, there's so many times teams tended to constantly hoof it which would then either go straight to the opposition who then proceed to hoof it themselves, or would lead to volleyball/ping pong esque back and forth heading match, and I'm just like "your midfielder is right there, pass to him!".
I've watched a lot of old games just to see Law, Charlton and Best, and it's never been a problem for me. I find the games very enjoyable as there's pretty much no time wasting, dives, players feigning injury. When a goalkeeper does receive a backpass, they release the ball almost instantly. It's not like today where goalkeepers tend to dillydally on the ball.
I wonder if there were people back then saying, "it's not broke, don't fix it"You had to have a front two that pressed like feck to cut off the angle back to the keeper. It wasn't that different to today.
Great rule change though, I'd say it's the best we've had in the last half-century or so. Improved the product and demanded much more on the ball from the defenders and keeper.
Oh aye. A few of the managers complained at the time - Howard Wilkinson and George Graham in particular.I wonder if there were people back then saying, "it's not broke, don't fix it"
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't get to see much live football these days but when I do it's still 90% males, the majority white male.Crowds represents everybody, I think the increased interest from women in the modern game has been an important and super benefit to football.
TV and media coverage and presentation of the game is much better (although simply more and more games, pundits, podcasts, stas etc etc is not always better...)
Facilities and stadiums are better in some ways, (but many new stadia lack character, which is a big worry). Pitches are amazing now. VAR is a good addition, still settling in as a system though.
It was a social experiment on my part, that's why I worded the title they way I did. The results were not surprising, people love whinging.
It was a social experiment on my part, that's why I worded the title they way I did. The results were not surprising, people love whinging.
Yeah, it was a given that the negative one would break free, manifest.
I anticipated it as soon as I saw the mirror thread
Yeah, early mid 00s and early 90s were bad for the sport.More goals per game across the big leagues? Surely that's a good thing, no?
Better athletes in almost every position on the pitch, which has led to the game (almost) maxing out in terms of pace and power? It's considered a sign of progression in basketball and in every other team sport that allows physical contact.
The requirements for an adequate technical level and good decision-making on the ball cover every single position on the pitch. How can that be a bad thing, i honestly don't know.
Edit: I happened to rewatch the CL finals from 2000 up to 2009 recently, an era that some on here consider the "good ol' days". Most of the games are unwatchable, a testament to nullifying any sense of attacking intent, leading to super slow games where nothing happens, masked as tactical genius.
Thank God, those days are over.
It really is. It's not about being cautious, either, we all know the stakes are high. The norm was a game between two sides in which neither team wanted the ball and neither side wanted to take any sort of initiative. Even the 1999 & 2005 finals earned their place in history books because both United and Liverpool, having no other choice, did the most British thing by throwing the kitchen sink in. And that was considered naive on any other occasion. But try to watch Ancelotti vs Lippi at OT in 2005 or Hitzefeld vs Cuper in 2001 in San Siro. That was the pinnacle of the sport back then. Thanks, but no, thanks.Yeah, early mid 00s and early 90s were bad for the sport.
Compare the "interesting tactical contests" between Klopp and Guardiola to the "interesting tactical contests" between Mourinho and Benitez.
it's like a different sport.
Houllier is another who wouldn't have lasted half a season in modern football.
It's 2024 and people are still complaining about VAR. *shrug emoji*It was a social experiment on my part, that's why I worded the title they way I did. The results were not surprising, people love whinging.
Is this trolling?More goals per game across the big leagues? Surely that's a good thing, no?
Better athletes in almost every position on the pitch, which has led to the game (almost) maxing out in terms of pace and power? It's considered a sign of progression in basketball and in every other team sport that allows physical contact.
The requirements for an adequate technical level and good decision-making on the ball cover every single position on the pitch. How can that be a bad thing, i honestly don't know.
Edit: I happened to rewatch the CL finals from 2000 up to 2009 recently, an era that some on here consider the "good ol' days". Most of the games are unwatchable, a testament to nullifying any sense of attacking intent, leading to super slow games where nothing happens, masked as tactical genius.
Thank God, those days are over.
No, it's not. I mentioned that these games are supposed to be tight affairs. These are still games in which teams showed intent to do something with the ball. Games, in which one team was on top for a period of time and then the other team made a tweak and took control of the proceedings. Some older finals (the ones with Atlético spring to mind) are perfectly poised battles between possession and transition-based teams. It's much better than the" -You take the ball. -No, you can have it. Please, i'm more than happy to oblige you. -Thank you, but i must insist. " affairs of the previous era.Is this trolling?
The last four CL finals have produced a total of four goals. Borefest.
The last four winning teams have produced ... wait for it..
2020 Bayern - 2 shots on target
2021 Chelsea - 2 shots on target
2022 R Madrid - 1 shot on target
2023 Man City - 4 shots on target
The excitement and skill is amazing.
Have you got a link to those games?It really is. It's not about being cautious, either, we all know the stakes are high. The norm was a game between two sides in which neither team wanted the ball and neither side wanted to take any sort of initiative. Even the 1999 & 2005 finals earned their place in history books because both United and Liverpool, having no other choice, did the most British thing by throwing the kitchen sink in. And that was considered naive on any other occasion. But try to watch Ancelotti vs Lippi at OT in 2005 or Hitzefeld vs Cuper in 2001 in San Siro. That was the pinnacle of the sport back then. Thanks, but no, thanks.
VAR would simply be fixed if they had to play the communication between the officials in the ground/live on TV.There is less focus on individual referees because of VAR and that is a good thing for me.
While VAR isn't perfect, the blame is shared on a team rather than one particular person.
I sent you a PM because i don't know if we're allowed to post these links.Have you got a link to those games?
Yeah. I'd prefer to watch the 2001 or 2003 final over any of those fairly forgettable games.Is this trolling?
The last four CL finals have produced a total of four goals. Borefest.
The last four winning teams have produced ... wait for it..
2020 Bayern - 2 shots on target
2021 Chelsea - 2 shots on target
2022 R Madrid - 1 shot on target
2023 Man City - 4 shots on target
The excitement and skill is amazing.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Are today's players better football players, or simply better athletes? I think the latter. I actually think there was as much technical ability in previous years.. you needed to avoid (and deal with..) real, tough, harsh, late tackling and that was expected.. plus the quality of the pitches which were at times, absolutely dreadful..lol.The base technical level of everyone is higher.
I reckon the best players of yesteryear stood out so much in part because of their talent but also the lack of talent of everyone else.
Players don't stand out as much now because everybody else can play to a very high level.
Makes it easier to robotise the game (which is for the what's worse thread)
So you pick two random boring games - rather than the last 4 boring finals. Football as a whole is now boring.Yeah. I'd prefer to watch the 2001 or 2003 final over any of those fairly forgettable games.
Those were the matches the original post referenced as being underwhelming compared to today’s finals. To be honest I enjoyed both games at the time - the two strongest defensive units in Europe going head-to-head in both years. The additional narrative in 2001 that it was likely the last bite of the cherry for both teams, having already been runners-up in the competition in the preceding two seasons.So you pick two random boring games - rather than the last 4 boring finals. Football as a whole is now boring.
Even the fitness point - maybe they have more supposedly better technical training and have a better diet but fit ? 118 Premier League players are currently out injured - 118!!!
I don't think this has made football better to watch though. I think it's the oppositeHigher level. I know people like to say that we had so many great [x] years ago but the level and consistency is so much higher now. Even teams from the bottom are training and managed so much more. Everyone is incredibly fit, every team has countless ways in which they’ve improved. From diet, base technique and passing, defending as a unit, tactics. You name it.
Which in turn means that players who belong to the very top have it even harder to stand out. Just compare the spaces in which the modern winger or midfielder needs to operate to just 20 years ago.