Is football in terminal decline?

[comme]

For a number of years now I have wondered whether the game of football is in terminal decline.

A comparison of the greats of the past to those plying their trade today suggests that we are no longer producing the calibre of players that we once were.

Let us look at a notional list of the 10 greatest players of all time (I have picked these in part to suit my own argument)

Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Cruyff, Platini, Best, Eusebio, Garrincha.

Of these players an incredible 8 were playing the game in 1965, Platini retired in 1987 while Maradona was a shadow of his former self after about 1990.

In short football has struggled to produce a "true great" in the last twenty years.

So therefore I have to ask why?

There are I think a number of reasons for this, all of which have combined to give us this misconception.

1. We look back at history through rose tinted glasses. It is very difficult to accurately gauge a player's greatness until he has finished playing, particularly with younger players. This leads to a split between those younger fans who insist that Zidane was without question the best ever, and those who swing the other way and think he wasn't fit to lace the boots of Di Stefano or Pele.

2. Increased television has spolit the mystique of the greats. Before about 1990 it was usual to only see the great South Americans once every 4 years. Greats like Beckenbauer or Cruyff marginally more often. Now though most viewers are saturated with coverage of every league in the world. When Ronaldinho or Kaka make a mistake it can be viewed from a hundred different angles, and so these footballing gods are seen to be mortal.

3. The general standard of the game has improved. In the past there were numerous minnows not just as teams but as individuals. While players like Ronaldinho are just as technically proficient as the greats of the past their technique is not as far ahead as it was. Increased professionalism has improved the level of the game so that we now have 100 (or in truth many more) top class players.

4. Defence has been improved significantly. Watching some defending (and particularly goalkeeping) from early eras can make one cringe today. In general this led to more goals and more opportunities for forwards to exploit. As defences have sharpened up even the top players have struggled to break them down.

[Perry Digweed]

Average attendences in UK now double what they were 20 years ago, hooliganism almost wiped out..

Wouldn't call this decline.

[gmonn]

Zico fits into that group also. I wonder if the schedules were as heavy 20 years ago. Does travel, tiredness, wear and tear, injury, and burn-out effect today's greats more than they did yesterday's?
Maybe more recent greats are great for shorter periods of time. Ronaldo, Van Basten, Ronaldinho, were all-time greats if you look at their peak. Ronaldinho stands out as a modern burned-out and distracted genius. Messi is a modern Garrincha, but you always hear the sentiment among his fans that they hope he can have a full career.

[RichardL]

you pretty much get the same thing with any subject if you compare "the ______ today isn't as good as it was in the 60s/70s/80s" etc. If you compare the current day to a decade then invariably the decade will look good in comparison.

There's also the aspect that older players are perhaps a tad overrated, partly because as suggested, there's a mystique about players you hardly ever saw. Most could say Puskas, for example, was a great player, but far fewer would be able to offer a convincing arguement as to why.

It could be argued that there's a greater emphasis on athleticism than in the past, coupled with the rather unsubstantiated idea that the kind of player that's going to be a "maverick" and bring a bit of individualism to the game would have the sort of personality that'd find it harder to fit in the the regime required of a modern footballer.

Whether it points to a decline, let alone a terminal one, is rather less clear. Standards do appear to have raised, where you'd expect a fall if the game was declining.

[comme]

you pretty much get the same thing with any subject if you compare "the ______ today isn't as good as it was in the 60s/70s/80s" etc. If you compare the current day to a decade then invariably the decade will look good in comparison..

I'm not entirely sure that is true, though nostalgia is common.

If you look at sports like cricket few would fail to suggest that players like Lara, Tendulkar and Warne are up there among the real greats.

In tennis Federer and before him Sampras have both been considered as arguably the greatest player of all time. In golf Tiger Woods is revered as the greatest already (or at least in the top 2).

[RichardL]

I'm not entirely sure that is true, though nostalgia is common.

If you look at sports like cricket few would fail to suggest that players like Lara, Tendulkar and Warne are up there among the real greats.

In tennis Federer and before him Sampras have both been considered as arguably the greatest player of all time. In golf Tiger Woods is revered as the greatest already (or at least in the top 2).the difference there is that you can point to a cricketer's batting or bowling average as a standard of excellence, and with individual sports you can point to a number of titles won. You can't, on the other hand, measure a footballer's greatness by the number of medals won.

[comme]

the difference there is that you can point to a cricketer's batting or bowling average as a standard of excellence, and with individual sports you can point to a number of titles won. You can't, on the other hand, measure a footballer's greatness by the number of medals won.

That's a good point.

Another sport I was going to point out was snooker, which again is quite measurable in terms of points scored, century breaks made etc.

Football is a sport which is so subjective to measure that comparison between eras is incredibly difficult.

To be recognised as a real great you need to have such incredible skill combined with the luck of being born in the right country in the right generation.

I do find it incredible to think that we haven't had a top 10 calibre player in the last 15 years, when the history of the modern game only really stretches back 60 years. At a time when standards in every other sport are improving it just seems completely improbable.

[gmonn]

I do find it incredible to think that we haven't had a top 10 calibre player in the last 15 years, when the history of the modern game only really stretches back 60 years. At a time when standards in every other sport are improving it just seems completely improbable.

We just don't have *agreement* on a top ten caliber player. If the general quality of players has gone up, and there are more extremely good players, opinion is more split among them. It's possible that there are more players now who could dominate a previous era than there were then. They don't stick out quite so much now, and they do not have the longevity. Also, when they are in front of your eyes, they are human. Garrincha was great and Messi isn't? I watched Platini in his prime and didn't find him to be a top ten great by a long shot. He was a star but not immensely special as some would think.

[Auriaprottu]

For a number of years now I have wondered whether the game of football is in terminal decline.

A comparison of the greats of the past to those plying their trade today suggests that we are no longer producing the calibre of players that we once were.

Let us look at a notional list of the 10 greatest players of all time (I have picked these in part to suit my own argument)

Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Cruyff, Platini, Best, Eusebio, Garrincha.

Of these players an incredible 8 were playing the game in 1965, Platini retired in 1987 while Maradona was a shadow of his former self after about 1990.

In short football has struggled to produce a "true great" in the last twenty years.

So therefore I have to ask why?

There are I think a number of reasons for this, all of which have combined to give us this misconception.

1. We look back at history through rose tinted glasses. It is very difficult to accurately gauge a player's greatness until he has finished playing, particularly with younger players. This leads to a split between those younger fans who insist that Zidane was without question the best ever, and those who swing the other way and think he wasn't fit to lace the boots of Di Stefano or Pele.

2. Increased television has spolit the mystique of the greats. Before about 1990 it was usual to only see the great South Americans once every 4 years. Greats like Beckenbauer or Cruyff marginally more often. Now though most viewers are saturated with coverage of every league in the world. When Ronaldinho or Kaka make a mistake it can be viewed from a hundred different angles, and so these footballing gods are seen to be mortal.

3. The general standard of the game has improved. In the past there were numerous minnows not just as teams but as individuals. While players like Ronaldinho are just as technically proficient as the greats of the past their technique is not as far ahead as it was. Increased professionalism has improved the level of the game so that we now have 100 (or in truth many more) top class players.

4. Defence has been improved significantly. Watching some defending (and particularly goalkeeping) from early eras can make one cringe today. In general this led to more goals and more opportunities for forwards to exploit. As defences have sharpened up even the top players have struggled to break them down.

You're describing 1) a rise in the overall level of play and 2) more exposure, which results in the contemporary greats not looking as immortal as their predecessors (everyone can see their flaws as easily as their strengths), and the increased professionalism (#2) means that there are fewer defensive errors on which they can capitalize. I don't see this as a game in decline- I see it as growth.

[aloisius]

I do find it incredible to think that we haven't had a top 10 calibre player in the last 15 years, when the history of the modern game only really stretches back 60 years. At a time when standards in every other sport are improving it just seems completely improbable.

How is Ronaldo not a top 10 player?

[jpick]

How is Ronaldo not a top 10 player?

injuries

with regards to the original question, as talked about earlier, in individual sports or "statistical" sports, the modern era produces more greats than past eras it seems, but football doesn't? does not make sense (though that alone doesn't make it false), and i think most of the reasons you and richard hit on.

[Metropolitan]

Zidane is undisputably in the top 3 ever. This isn't only a matter of results, it's before everything a matter of class and intelligence of play. Zidane could have four players on him and still find the space to make a magnificent pass to a striker. Watching Zidane with the ball on his foot is pure beauty. When playing, he raises football to the level of a major Art.

Anyway, now that justice is done about Zidane, your point remains valid.

The most obvious explanation is that the game has significantly grown physically. Great technicians with no fitness abilities simply don't have a chance in the modern play. Many of professional players could be marathonians. As long as they run enough, they can get space. As long as they are solid enough, they can win duels.

As a result, one simply has no other choice than being physically on top if he wants to become a professional footballer. Technical skills only come after. Now, that doesn't mean there are no great technicians anymore. There are a lot of them actually (nowadays, we can even find great English technicians, which wasn't so true historically speaking). No, the thing is that the overall style of play has grown to something incredibly more physical, making it less esthetic to watch.

However, a big mistake would be to consider that now that the game is more physical, today's technicians are less talented than their predecessing generations. The game is played differently, but trust me the abilities are still well there. Especially when it goes about control of the ball, passing and dribbling.

[RichardL]

Zidane is undisputably in the top 3 ever. .I think a fair few would argue George Best was better.

[Auriaprottu]

I think a fair few would argue George Best was better.

It's not necessarily an"either or" thing. Pele, George Best and Zidane make a respectable top three.

[Pakalolo]

It's not necessarily an"either or" thing. Pele, George Best and Zidane make a respectable top three.

but then we still have Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Eusebio and di Stefano... still, it's not too far fetched to consider Zidane as a top ten player of all time.




*knock, knock
-Teso?

[Excape Goat]

2. Increased television has spolit the mystique of the greats. Before about 1990 it was usual to only see the great South Americans once every 4 years. Greats like Beckenbauer or Cruyff marginally more often. Now though most viewers are saturated with coverage of every league in the world. When Ronaldinho or Kaka make a mistake it can be viewed from a hundred different angles, and so these footballing gods are seen to be mortal.


I blamed it on TV. I saw plenty of poor games by Zidane, Ronaldinho or any of the more recent stars. I won't get to see Pele in action regularly even if I lived in Brazil thirty years ago. Only a handful of fans who attended the games regularly got to know all of his games. His poorer games would be buried in history.

[Real Ray]

I don't know...I think if you look at those players with the exception of Eusebio, they have a very important common thread that we just won't see in the current game: they played for teams that were dynasties-hugely historic clubs and national teams. That is why IMO we hold them in as high regard as we do vs the current era of great players. I don't think it has anything to do with individual skill.

Think about who often comes up as a "truly great player" of the past 20 years: Paolo Maldini. His place in the Milan sides plays as big part in this as does his qualities as a great player. We speak about Baresi in the same breath as Beckenbauer-why? Six scudetti & 3 European Cups, perhaps?

But going back to 1987, who many times have we seen a club like that killer Milan side? (...tick, tick, tick...) How many repeat Champion League winners have we seen? With the movement of players today, I don't think we will ever see sides like the great Madrid or Milan sides. And that is going to shape the way we view the historic place and greatness of players today.

edit: And thinking more about Eusebio, I think it applies to all those player, as Benfica place was indeed historic.

[Auriaprottu]

but then we still have Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Eusebio and di Stefano... still, it's not too far fetched to consider Zidane as a top ten player of all time.

Oh, no doubt- if we made a top 3 list, some deserving players would always be left out. Zizou's easily a top tenner, tho, IMO level with Eusebio, Diego Maradona and maybe even Beckenbauer.

*knock, knock
-Teso?

Heh. He's always good for a chuckle or two.

[Stud83]

How does a perceived lack of all time greats in our generation relate to a terminal decline in a sport? Wouldn't a better indication be the growing number of fans, amount of generated revenues, staidum expansions, etc. or a lack thereof?

[Teso Dos Bichos]

*knock, knock
-Teso?

This has the potential to be the best thread we have seen on this board for quite a while. To belittle it by even mentioning his name is not on my agenda and the same should apply to everyone else. If people still ignorantly believe his myth then they should take their rubbish elsewhere. It only serves to highlight how football has declined.