Modern -v- Old

All_in_Flynn

This is a topic that has caused countless arguments with friends of mine.

Im definately in the minority it seems but id like to guage other people's opinions on the subject.

The basic question is how do you think players from the 60's and 70's etc would fair today? For example, how do you think George Best do in todays Manchester United?

Whilst discussing please try and consider everything from ability to fitness.

Discuss

DazMarz

It's a very tough question to answer.

With all the professional fitness regimens that all players at top levels are undertaking nowadays and all the healthy living they do, it's hard to imagine the chain-smoking and boozing players of yesteryear being a match for them in today's game.

However, contrarily, we must look at it thus; would today's pampered and prim players have cut it in the mudbaths and high tackles of the past? How fancy would Cristiano Ronaldo's step overs have looked if his boots were caked with a stone weight of mud? Would Lionel Messi be any good if players like Claudio Gentile, Terry Butcher, Ron Harris or any of the other hatchet men of the past bore down on him and cut the legs out from under him at any opportunity?

My personal feeling of it is, the players would adapt and their class would shine, no matter what. I reckon that if Bestie, Clough, Bremner, Pele, Maradona, Cryuff etc. were in the game today, they'd be just as good, perhaps better when they started doing all the advanced training that there is today.

The class would rise to the challenge and adapt to their surroundings and would still be the superstars, whatever the era.

keane2097

If a World 11 from back in the day were transported to play against a World 11 of today the modern team would absolutely maul them.

Maybe after six months of modern training they'd approach the same level, but in a straight comparision the modern player would eat the equivalent oldie alive.

mike65

There is hardly a player from the early days of the Prem that could keep up with todays game, never mind previous eras.

JPA

These questions are impossible to answer really.
If George best was born in 1980 would he be a top player today?
Or do you mean if George Best was teleported to the modern game would he be a success?

Mr.Nice Guy

keane2097 wrote:

If a World 11 from back in the day were transported to play against a World 11 of today the modern team would absolutely maul them.

Maybe after six months of modern training they'd approach the same level, but in a straight comparision the modern player would eat the equivalent oldie alive.

Well conversely, if a modern World 11 were transported back in the day they'd be absolutely mauled as well. Literally. They might not make it to the second half in fact.

If modern skilful players like Robinho couldn't hack it in the modern Premier League then what chance would today's greats have in a league with far more physicality and with referees far more lenient?

We also have to take into account the old footballs which were a lot more difficult to play with.

everdead.ie

Dave Mackey would eat these guys alive if where using the laws of the game from back then but in todays game and with the fitness levels they have I dont think they could keep up.

stovelid

For all the talk of skillful players being battered back then, it always seems like players had more time on the ball when you look at old clips. And skillful players got murdered a lot more recently: look at some of the punishment dished out to maradona over the years.

Basically I think the general skill and aptitude of players doesn't change down the years but modern players would win every time because of fitness, diet and more sophisticated coaching.

Even when you look at players in England 20-25 years ago, top players all have a far more generic body shape now: fitter, leaner; more worked out.

keane2097

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well conversely, if a modern World 11 were transported back in the day they'd be absolutely mauled as well. Literally. They might not make it to the second half in fact.

Not sure this is true really.

The likes of Drogba and Ronaldo love to throw themselves around the place and writh in agony at fake injuries, but in reality they're fcuking beasts.

I'd put my house on it that the modern guys are bigger (muscle-wise), stronger and faster than the oldies and would outdo them in every physical respect tbh.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If modern skilful players like Robinho couldn't hack it in the modern Premier League then what chance would today's greats have in a league with far more physicality and with referees far more lenient?

Robinho scored plenty goals in his first season to show he's plenty able for the PL. In a one-off game the fact that he's got the mental strength of a cream cracker wouldn't really come into it, and that's the only reason he hasn't worked out in the PL imo.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

We also have to take into account the old footballs which were a lot more difficult to play with.

Valid point.

adamski8

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

This is a topic that has caused countless arguments with friends of mine.

Why does it keep coming up? Are your friends on the rte panel?

All_in_Flynn

Some good points made but here is my take on it.

The game has obviously evolved and at the top level the modern players are athletes.

To me its quite clear that if we were just to look at the levels of fitness then the previous era's are so far behind they wouldnt get a sniff today. This also ties in to the pace of the modern game. The pace and strength of todays players is far superior.

Where the line is a little muddy in my opinion is ability. Players like Cryuff, Best et al were doing things that nobody had seen before on the pitch. They were special in the respective era. I personally dont think they would stand out today. I know people say if you put Ronaldo or Messi etc back then, they would be kicked black and blue. But compare somebody like Ronaldo to Best. Ronaldo is physically much bigger, stronger and faster. I reckon he would eat defenders back then alive. Messi has balance like Best and would run a muck back then aswell. Obv the pitch and ball are levelers to a degree.

Now im not trying to taint the names of the greats or to do them a dis-service. They were revolutionary players who are rightly mentioned as some of the best players to play the game but only when put in perspective of their era

rossie1977

keane2097 wrote: »

Not sure this is true really.

The likes of Drogba and Ronaldo love to throw themselves around the place and writh in agony at fake injuries, but in reality they're fcuking beasts.

the last word i would use to describe ronaldo is a beast, seriously now

norman hunter or tommy smith would send him into row z the first time he tried a stepover, they could tackle from behind, go in two footed etc, they would have destroyed him

All_in_Flynn

adamski8 wrote: »

Why does it keep coming up? Are your friends on the rte panel?

Drunkness, passion, stubborness and stupidity.

A mixture of those generally.

Mr.Nice Guy

keane2097 wrote: »

Not sure this is true really.

The likes of Drogba and Ronaldo love to throw themselves around the place and writh in agony at fake injuries, but in reality they're fcuking beasts.

I'd put my house on it that the modern guys are bigger (muscle-wise), stronger and faster than the oldies and would outdo them in every physical respect tbh.

They might be more well built but I don't think we should confuse that with toughness.

Take a guy like Bert Trautmann. Breaks his neck in the cup final and finishes the fecking game. You'd never see the likes of Schmeichel or VDS doing that imo. I think this was a different culture and era of football when men were uncompromising and taking and dishing out tackles was seen as the norm. Today I think the majority of players are athletically strong but generally too pampered and soft to hack it back then. Obviously there are exceptions to this and I think some could deal with the physicality but I feel the likes of Drogba, Ronaldo, Robinho etc. would be brutalised within the first 45 minutes. It took a lot of courage for the likes of Best and Pele to show their skill in this era and even the veterans of this age attest to that.

keane2097 wrote:

Robinho scored plenty goals in his first season to show he's plenty able for the PL. In a one-off game the fact that he's got the mental strength of a cream cracker wouldn't really come into it, and that's the only reason he hasn't worked out in the PL imo.

Most of his goals came from home games though against sides content to allow City have the ball. When he found himself in away games against players hassling and pressing him he struggled big time. Even the former City assistant manager recently doubted his physical toughness:

Brazilian star Robinho was never up to the demands of the Premier League, according to former Manchester City boss Mark Hughes' assistant Mark Bowen.

Robinho, 26, arrived at Eastlands for a record British transfer fee of £32.4m in 2008 but faded after a bright start.

"He took a lot of stick, but he did massively underperform, especially away from home," said Bowen.

"I just thought that, physically, he wasn't really up to the challenges of the Premier League."

Robinho left Manchester City in January, rejoining his first club Santos on loan for six months, and Bowen, who left Eastlands along with sacked former manager Mark Hughes in December, believes he will prosper in a more familiar environment.

"There is no doubting that if and when he went to another league, or back to Brazil, it would be a different style of football and it would suit him better," said Bowen.

"We always felt he could possibly blossom and get used to the Premier League but he wasn't really up to the week in week out challenges."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/football/teams/m/man_city/8505602.stm

As I said if skilful players like him can't do it in this day and age then what chance have they got against the likes of Chopper Harris, Billy Bremner, etc.? It would not end well in my view. :pac:

All_in_Flynn

rossie1977 wrote: »

the last word i would use to describe ronaldo is a beast, seriously now

norman hunter or tommy smith would send him into row z the first time he tried a stepover, they could tackle from behind, go in two footed etc, they would have destroyed him

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/07/article-1260173048024-077D35E5000005DC-384244_636x541.jpg

Tank

rossie1977

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/07/article-1260173048024-077D35E5000005DC-384244_636x541.jpg

Tank

he weighs less than 12 stone ffs

keane2097

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They might be more well built but I don't think we should confuse that with toughness.

Take a guy like Bert Trautmann. Breaks his neck in the cup final and finishes the fecking game. You'd never see the likes of Schmeichel or VDS doing that imo. I think this was a different culture and era of football when men were uncompromising and taking and dishing out tackles was seen as the norm. Today I think the majority of players are athletically strong but generally too pampered and soft to hack it back then. Obviously there are exceptions to this and I think some could deal with the physicality but I feel the likes of Drogba, Ronaldo, Robinho etc. would be brutalised within the first 45 minutes. It took a lot of courage for the likes of Best and Pele to show their skill in this era and even the veterans of this age attest to that.



Most of his goals came from home games though against sides content to allow City have the ball. When he found himself in away games against players hassling and pressing him he struggled big time. Even the former City assistant manager recently doubted his physical toughness:



As I said if skilful players like him can't do it in this day and age then what chance have they got against the likes of Chopper Harris, Billy Bremner, etc.? It would not end well in my view. :pac:

This is an entirely hypothetical argument which will ultimately boil down to the perceived importance of toughness and how much more of it you think one group has over the other.

I personally don't rate it very highly and I don't think modern players are as lacking as you do.

All_in_Flynn

So he is not a tank because he weighs less that 12 stone?

Do you think he would be physically stronger than players of era's gone by?

He is 12 stone of muscle and lifts the equivalent of 20 tonnes per weight training session. He is the definition of a tank. 6'2 and built like a brick shed

JPA

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

He is the definition of a tank.

A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities

.



Defensive? Really?

All_in_Flynn

JPA wrote: »

.



Defensive? Really?

lol. Point taken. Its off topic aswell so I'll drop it.

RandolphEsq

JPA wrote: »

.



Defensive? Really?

Har har

http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7927844961/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/04/18/Norman_Hunter.jpg

In comparison to Ronaldo. Ronaldo shrugs off defenders when running with the ball and climbing for headers