Past players...do their exploits still count?

[cantona94]

I wanted an overseas perspective on this...considering there are great English players of the past who I think would wipe the pitch with some of teh current English players.

Anyway, I stated that Archie Stark was probably the best American player ever and my American compatriots in true American ignorance stated that i was stupid and not very knowledgeable. Their logic was that since Stark played during the 1920s and the game has changed over the years, that you cannot compare one's exploits during the past to a player of today....therefore Stark was nowhere near as good as Landon Donovan in comparison.

But then, by that logic, that means that Di Stefano and Puskas, Fontaine, and others are not worthy of remembering doesn't it...or rather it's saying these individuals on immense talent wouldn't even belong on the pitch of today.

Surely people on your side of the pond do not think of Cliff Bastin or goodness, Dixie Dean in this vein...do they?

Am I the idiot? Do you feel that the players of today are that much better than the greats of the past? Am i truly that out of touch? Please let me know your thoughts...thanks.

[michaec]

I would say that comparing players from vastly different eras is a fairly useless undertaking. With the changes you mention, fitness, systems, pitches, equipment etc., the game has moved on leaps and bounds (not necessarily all for the better!) and to take one of your examples, comparing Cliff Bastin and Robert Pires at Arsenal, becomes meaningless. I'm content in the knowledge that they were both great left-sided midfielders for us and leave it at that.

[Harry Boulton]

There was a topic like this started not so long ago in which I became embroiled in a heated debate about this.


My take on it is this. Past players desrve to be apprciated because their exploits made the game into what it is today. But, as players, both technically and physically, todays are probably better in my opinion. They are by far uperior athletes and this sometimes over shadows their technical skill and brilliance.



However, I do believe that the players of yester-year have a certain romance to them that is sadly lacking in todays game.......

[RichardL]

There was a topic like this started not so long ago in which I became embroiled in a heated debate about this.


My take on it is this. Past players desrve to be apprciated because their exploits made the game into what it is today. But, as players, both technically and physically, todays are probably better in my opinion. They are by far uperior athletes and this sometimes over shadows their technical skill and brilliance.



However, I do believe that the players of yester-year have a certain romance to them that is sadly lacking in todays game.......

I think you also need to consider that players in the past were less fit because they didn't have the same sort of fitness regime. Suggesting players from the past couldn't play now because they wouldn't be fit enough kind of ignores the fact that if the likes of Gerrard played in the 1960s then they'd drink a few beers after training and have the odd cigarette as well, and consequently be less fit. It's not as if players now all just naturally better athletes than in the past.

[Harry Boulton]

No, I know. That's true but also irrelavant in the context of the argument. Side-by-side, toe to toe players in the modern game would mostly outplay and, if need be, out run players from the past. Certainly Ronaldinho and Ronaldo are capable of doing things that Puskas couldn't do. This is probably likely to be because they have better balls, and better boots, but that's by the by. Bjorn Borg was a great tennis player, but Roger Federer could play him off the park in todays game?

As a result of better technology, diet, fitness regimes and improved techniques, modern day players are better than those of 30 years ago. Obviously there are some who could still do it today. Maradona, Best, Beckenbauer, and Moore would still be outstanding talents today but the likes of Gerd Muller, Dixie Dean and Hurst would probably struggle because they based their game on power, and in todays game there are stronger and faster players.

[Alan_V]

Yeah they count. They were still great in their time. They would probably be great what ever era they played in. What made them great is the desire and determination to be the best. That wouldn't change.

I'm not one to dwell on the past. I prefer the present, loking forward. But it's always cool to look back and remember the great ones. They were a class above, and should always be rememberd that way.

[PsychedelicCeltic]

I think you also need to consider that players in the past were less fit because they didn't have the same sort of fitness regime. Suggesting players from the past couldn't play now because they wouldn't be fit enough kind of ignores the fact that if the likes of Gerrard played in the 1960s then they'd drink a few beers after training and have the odd cigarette as well, and consequently be less fit. It's not as if players now all just naturally better athletes than in the past.
Furthermore it ignores the maximum wage that was in effect until the 1960s. People before then were less fit because they often had to work jobs outside football - Arsenal captain Joe Mercer famously didn't even train with the club, as he was a grocer in Liverpool during the week, trained with his former club Liverpool (imagine that today!), and took the train down to London on Friday evenings. This wasn't that uncommon, though he was among the most famous and extreme examples, considering he had to go halfway across the country to play for his club.

It's about how good you were compared to your contemperaries. That's it.

[RichardL]

No, I know. That's true but also irrelavant in the context of the argument. Side-by-side, toe to toe players in the modern game would mostly outplay and, if need be, out run players from the past. Certainly Ronaldinho and Ronaldo are capable of doing things that Puskas couldn't do. This is probably likely to be because they have better balls, and better boots, but that's by the by. Bjorn Borg was a great tennis player, but Roger Federer could play him off the park in todays game?

As a result of better technology, diet, fitness regimes and improved techniques, modern day players are better than those of 30 years ago. Obviously there are some who could still do it today. Maradona, Best, Beckenbauer, and Moore would still be outstanding talents today but the likes of Gerd Muller, Dixie Dean and Hurst would probably struggle because they based their game on power, and in todays game there are stronger and faster players.
but that's the whole point - if those past players with their talents were to have played in today's game then they'd have had the benefit of today's fitness regimes etc. To suggest that today's players are inherently better talented than those of the past is absurd - and claiming Cristiano Ronaldo is better than Puskas isn't really helping your credibility. Your comparing a player whose every trick and stepover in his professional career had been filmed from various angles to one who was probably only filmed a handful of times each season.

[Tima]

Furthermore it ignores the maximum wage that was in effect until the 1960s. People before then were less fit because they often had to work jobs outside football - Arsenal captain Joe Mercer famously didn't even train with the club, as he was a grocer in Liverpool during the week, trained with his former club Liverpool (imagine that today!), and took the train down to London on Friday evenings. This wasn't that uncommon, though he was among the most famous and extreme examples, considering he had to go halfway across the country to play for his club.

It's about how good you were compared to your contemperaries. That's it.


Just to nit pick he was an Everton player not Liverpool but I agree with your point.

And as for C Ronaldo being able to do things with a ball Puskas couldn't :eek:
Puskas invented half the moves seen today.

[Matt Clark]

Odd phrase in the title - of course they still "count", unless someone has annulled the history books without telling me and all trophies won in the past have been unawarded to their winners. I know Sky are waging an eternal campaign to have everyone believe 1993 was the moment of creation for all things football, but they're surely not there just yet?