Messi and Ronaldo, the Best Players in the History of the Sport
Posted on January 12, 2012 6:58 pm
On Monday I was in Zurich for the Ballon d’Or ceremony. Before the event started, I had to write a story from the red carpet for FIFA.com, and I was lucky enough to talk a few seconds with Zinedine Zidane. The French genius was in a hurry, and not too eager to talk, but before he fled down the hall I got a good quote from him. To the question “Which of the nominees do you think resembles most to you?” He replied, “None of them, all of them are different, football has changed a lot”.
He’s right. Zidane was -perhaps with Juan Román Riquelme, the last of the players of its kind. Those languid creative geniuses, sensitive playmakers which seemed to walk on the pitch but, suddenly, with two magical strokes they brushed aside their rivals and sent the striker away with one last touch. Football has changed, and made extinct those old artists. Never again will there be a player like Zizou.
I invite you to try an experiment. Go to YouTube and type in “Game of the Century Italy-Germany”. The second video on the list are the highlights of what is considered the best match in football history, the semi-finals of Mexico 70 between the Azzurri and the Mannschaft. You have probably heard your parents or grandparents rave about this legendary game, but the images say otherwise. The forwards are going in slow motion, the defense gives them acres of space, the midfielders have an eternity to pass the ball. Compared to current standards, the game looks like a dated B-movie.
Just hours before the red carpet, I had the opportunity to speak with Sir Alex Ferguson, who confirmed the perception. For the Manchester United’s manager, football is not the only sport that has got faster in the last few years, the enormous advances in nutrition, medicine and even pitches have made all the athletes in most disciplines much more powerful than in the past.
That brings us to the title of the column and its real purpose. At the end of the night, FIFA announced Lionel Messi as the winner of the Ballon d’Or, Cristiano Ronaldo second and Xavi Hernandez third. The fourth, although it was not announced in the ceremony, was Andres Iniesta. And there seems no doubt that these are the best players of our time.
So far, no controversy, but I will go further and, without hesitation, I can state that those four players are also the best players in history. A few days ago I said the same thing in Twitter and the responses ranged from complaints to insults. Most of the people insisted that Pele and Maradona were above Messi and far above all others. That sounds great in theory, in the end, both O Rei and El Diego dominated their times, while neither Leo nor CR7 have won a World Cup, and no one would say that Xavi and Iniesta are better than Messi.
But here comes into practice what I described at the beginning of the column. If we put any of today’s top four in a time machine, they would completely dominate any of the past eras. They run faster, are more resistant, dribble in less space. They are, in short, better. “But if Pele or Maradona eat what players eat today, or have today’s technology at their disposal, they would be much better” most will surely argue. It may be, but the matter is that neither of them had that nutrition or that technology, so their best versions are representative of their time, not ours.
“Pele and Maradona were the best because they were more talented, not more athletic” others might say. Wrong. You only need to read the words that Terry Butcher, the English central defender, used to describe the famous goal from Diego in Mexico 86 to the magazine FourFourTwo. “It was so hot, we were all knackered, so when I saw him pass by after he ran forty meters, I thought I would catch him easily … and, suddenly, it was as if he changed gears. He accelerated so fast that, when I realized, I was ten meters behind him”. As for Pele, he admits in his autobiography that in an era where most of the best players had some extra pounds, he always had the great advantage of keeping his body in perfect condition.
And yet, when you see both playing, they are clearly slower and less efficient than current players. That does not mean, of course, that they weren’t geniuses in relation to their times, but in absolute terms, they wouldn’t be great on a twenty-first century match. On the other hand, neither Messi nor Ronaldo will remain the best ever for a long time; science and the human body have not yet found their limits and a new breed of faster, more powerful and more technical players will replace them, even if they may not impress their contemporaries as La Pulga and Cristiano impress us week in week out.
(I apologize for not publishing this week’s Winners and Losers. As you now know, I was in Zurich during the week, and didn’t have the time. I will try to write a Copa del Rey edition tomorrow morning).
“but in absolute terms, they wouldn’t be great on a twenty-first century match”
Really? What utter bullcrap!! Having seen those legends play, as well as having seen Zidane, CR and Messi play you CAN compare them and no, CR is not “the best ever”. Not even close.
Get a match from Brazil in 1970 and one from Barcelona now. Put them side by side, and then compare. Repeat with Argentina in 1986.
Your reason, despite your examples, is specious at best.
You cannot say Napoleon is a shittier general than Rommel just because Rommel had more to work with. Unless you have stats that show the speed of Pele versus CR or Messi you have nothing.
Oh, and let’s not forget that todays LOTG protect the players MUCH more than they did back then. Guys like Pele and Maradona and Cryuff were sublime DESPITE being hacked and mauled. Put CR or Messi back in 1970 and they don’t come out of the locker room for the second half.
I’m with Martin del Palacio. And the Rommel/Napoleon analogy is very specious itself.
Napoleon may have been a better general than Rommel, to use your example, but Rommel sure would have kicked Napoleon’s a** in tank warfare. My math professor in college wasn’t “smarter” than Newton, but my professor sure knew a heck of a lot more about calculus than Newton did.
The point is this: Maradona, Pele, and others summited the world game at their time. Nobody dominated an era like Pele, and maybe you could say nobody dominated a World Cup like Maradona did in 1986. Messi and Ronaldo may not ever win one world cup between them, much less win three like Pele or dominate a winning effort like Maradona did. Being the best in the world by such a large margin is Pele and Maradona’s claim to fame. But the only serious commentator who still thinks Pele was the best ever, in the sense that if you put him on the field in any era he would dominate, is Pele himself. (And that is based on the huge assumption that Pele is a serious commentator). If I were building a team in 2012, there’s a long list of players beyond just Messi, Ronaldo, Xavi, and Iniesta that I would draft before Pele.
In addition to all of the advances in training, sports science, nutrition, etc., and the huge sums of money at stake that require dedication beyond anything Pele or Maradona would have even conceived in their era, one of the main reasons for this is the “global village.” The very best players from all over the world now play together on a regular basis much more so in eras past. If you played for Chelsea in the 50s, it just meant you were one of the top players from the London area. Now if you play for Chelsea, it means you’re one of the very best players in the world. You might have grown up in Africa, South America, or Europe. Watch Maradona run by Terry Butcher and the rest of the English defense in ’86 and tell me which one of those players would be so much as a squad player in the Premiership today. If you picked them up out of 1986 and dropped them into the present day, they’d all be playing on League One sides.
No one doubts that La Liga and the Premiership have grown in quality by leaps and bounds since the Pele and Maradona eras. It naturally follows that the players who play in those leagues, who train against the best of the best every day, are going to get much, much, better. When Pele was a kid, he would have had to watch 100 Santos games in person to see the kind of skill you can now find in 30 seconds over the internet. He may have been more creative, inventinve, and imaginative than every single player playing the game today, but no player playing today has to “invent” or imagine the things Pele could do with the ball, just like my math professor didn’t have to invent calculus to learn it. The most important resource players today have that Pele and Maradona didn’t is the ability to watch, play with, and emulate the very best players from every era more than once every four years.
Note that this is not to say that had Pele or Maradona been born in 1985 they wouldn’t be better than Messi or Ronaldo. You could make a strong argument that the kind of dominance they achieved says that they would have been. But that’s impossible to tell. Some people are just wired for nostalgia. I get that. Those of you who are can say that Maradona and Pele would have dominated this modern era had they been born in it. That’s a debate worth having. But what Martin del Palacio asserted really isn’t controversial or questionable.
” But what Martin del Palacio asserted really isn’t controversial or questionable.”
It actually is and if you paid even a modicum of attention to what was said in the comments you would have noticed.
I have already proven that what Palacio asserted is undocumented, poorly researched and it has no evidentiary basis.
If you still love his argument so much fine, but could you stop anointing yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all things football?
The “only serious commentator who still thinks Pele is the best ever is Pele himself”, “No one doubts that La Liga and the Premiership have grown in quality by leaps and bounds since the Pele and Maradona eras” ? I’m sorry, but this manner of arguing is gratuituous. Who decides who is a serious commentator and who is not, anyway?
i’m with you on this as well. it’s not as if today’s soccer players are using jet-assisted boots and a ball with a homing beacon, which is essentially the difference between napoleon and rommel. the ball is round, as they say.
The general analogy was Tribune’s, not mine.
And you attack the argument at the fringes all you want, but I’d really like to see you answer a question that gets to the heart of this:
Which of the following statements do you believe is more accurate:
The level of play in the Premiership has vastly improved since the Pele era.
The level of play in the Premiership is more or less the same as when Pele played. Even though there were few, if any, non-British players on British teams back then, there were just that many good British players back then.
If you choose option 2, I’d love to see you try to defend your position. If you choose option 1, you’re halfway towards admitting that players who have opportunities to play amongst the world’s best on a near-daily basis are going to have to raise their game to a higher level.
I’d say there’s an argument for Ronaldo being on a par with Messi. After all, Ronaldo has dominated in both the Premiership and La Liga – reputedly the two strongest leagues in the world. The fact is that he did this without missing a beat, despite moving to a new club, then a year later seeing a new coach come in, replacing many of the previous year’s players.
Messi is an amazing talent, but not only is he surrounded by one of the best collective teams the game has ever seen, he’s been with that group and that system since he was literally a child.
That’s not to say he isn’t the best player in the world. He arguably is, but the operative word is “arguably” and that argument exists purely because of Cristiano Ronaldo.
That was interesting. Bottom line is you are calling iniesta better than pele and maradona, quite hilarious. Shall we just ignore everything that pele and maradona were capable of with a ball that iniesta is not? I wonder if eveytime maradona controlled an impossible ball he gave a quick thumbs up to his biceps and thought to himself im glad my opponents arent as strong as me. Both pele and maradona displayed talent far beyond cristiano ronaldo, xavi, and iniesta. This article could be either funny or cringeworthy depending on your intentions
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Wrong. I like the stance you’re taking, but you are wrong. Maradona in his prime could run around you, kick it over you, go through you. He was a more talented, disciplned Tevez who could pass the ball better than anyone else of that era, save for maybe Zola, IMO.
“but in absolute terms, they wouldn’t be great on a twenty-first century match”
The logic you used for this claim is just totally flawed. If little david silva can dominate the most physical league in modern football i wouldnt hesitate to claim maradona and pele who were both clearly stronger would as well. Would iniesta really outmuscle and outsprint pele? you should have just left messi, xavi, and iniesta out of it and pretend to yourself ronaldo is the best player of all time, because he is the only player you mentioned that is arguably a better athlete than pele and maradona
Xavi, Iniesta, Messi or Silva are amazing athletes, you are now used to the rhythm of modern football, but they are miles (literally) better physically than any player from twenty years ago.
Pele and Maradona were clearly faster and stronger than the little spaniards regardless of modern training.
And what is your basis to say that? Not height I presume, as Diego is 1,66 and both Xavi and Iniesta are 1,70
My basis is watching maradona holding off players that are trying to wrestle him to the ground, where xavi or iniesta would simply flop to the ground
Soccer overall i sa sport where athleticism is just starting to really figure in the picture on a wide scale…I really do agree with that point in the piece.
Compared to other sports like basketball or football, where being a physical specimen was always required.
No one would ever say the Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson could not do the same thins they did in their era’s now.
Soccer not so much.
Basketball is a good example, as it was a sport that completely changed in the seventies. Nobody in their right mind would say that Wilt Chamberlain was better than any of the stars of the eighties despite having dominated his era.
I was going to say this about American Football. Sentimentally I still consider Joe Montana to be one of the greatest to ever play quarterback. But then you think of some of the players who have come since, and it is hard to maintain that idea. The whole game is faster now, with bigger, faster, stronger players.
I’m okay with all these fans nostalgically holding on to Maradona and Pele, and I think it might be a stretch to say that those two simply would not have been able to play the game today, but…its just all different then it was then. The skill set is completely different.
Zidane on the field would still perform some wonders, in much the same way that Valderrama did when he was in MLS – hardly straying from the center circle, but pulling some ridiculous touches and some fantastic passes for those notorious “secondary” assists he earned constantly.
You must be joking. Chamberlain wasn’t more physical, stronger, more athletic than Willis Reed? Than Artis Gilmore? Than anyone other than Kareem?
I agree with your basic premise about Messi and Ronaldo, but you’re obviously not a basketball pundit.
C Ronaldo could be the best if he wasn’t so busy falling down. Give me Ribery all day over that massive, massive pussy.
If CR is a massive pussy, then Ribery must be a little one. He stays on his feet more than CR and Robben but he is not far from being Flopmaster Flash himself. :rollseyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixxt3nVORVs
proof is in the pudding. there are several of these, i just picked one. oddly, there are no “ribery diving” compilations. you should prolly get on that.
I agree with you on this. The game is so different now than 20, 30 years ago. Even 10 years ago. Nowadays, each player runs nearly at full speed for the entire game. Space is closed down extremely fast and you have very little time to do anything. There is specialized training to address any weakness one might have. etc etc etc.
I don’t understand why people get so upset when this is pointed out. It is not an insult to Pele and Maradona. Their raw talent was exceptional, but we are in a different era now.
“…each player runs nearly at full speed for the entire game.”
I see your point, that players run more, the game is quicker, but this statement comes off as an exaggeration. A recent camera following a certain American player all game long noticed he did A LOT of slow walking prior to sprinting. So I wouldn’t say “entire game” would be quite accurate. However, in Zidane’s famous movie where the camera followed him playing a whole game, well, that movie definitely reveals a lot of standing, walking, mosey-ing, light jogging, between the occasional pass, and dribble. Well, that’s how I remember it.
I’m going to pull a Bill Clinton and say that the accuracy of my statement depends on my definition of “nearly”
Sure, it’s an exaggeration. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lot more running in the game now than there used to be.
ha are you joking? messi actually uses games to get rest. Dont you wonder why he never gets injured? he WALKS around the pitch 90% of the time
And this post is an insult to pele and maradona. To say they couldnt play in the 21st century is beyond stupid. The author is probably just looking for a reaction
No, I’m not. I firmly believe it, and it’s not an insult to anyone. The game is played at much higher pace, and the players cover double the distance than they used to 20 years ago.
How old are you Martin?
So he runs 4-5 miles in less than 10 minutes? Pretty impressive.
Amazing, isn’t it? Or perhaps he doesn’t walk 90% of the time…
It’s true that most sports changed incredibly. I think handball has had the most dramatic change. Nowadays, when played at the top level, it’s fast and furious. 15 years ago it was terrible.
Football players execute at a speed today that would be unimaginable at the time.
Handball or team handball?
Meh completely different eras and completely different rules. Remember that in 1970 you could pass the ball to the goalkeeper incessantly so pressing like Barca do was a lot less useful then.
I have a couple of questions for the author:
1. In regard to the assertion that “enormous advances in nutrition, medicine and even pitches have made all the athletes in most disciplines much more powerful than in the past”, what exactly are these enormous advances in nutrition and medicine you are hinting at? I would like some details and some links with scientific data, please. Also, how much do they help the athletes improve?
2. What is the basis for the assertion that “science and human body have not found their limits yet”? Can you provide some studies to support it? And what are those limits which have not been reached yet?
I will try to be brief because it’s late in Europe and I’m tired. Around the year 1995, teams started to take nutrition and fitness more seriously. In England, for instance, Arsène Wenger created a revolution when he arrived to Arsenal by changing the dieting habits of the players, thus prolonging their careers for several years. Milan, on their part, installed their famous physical lab in Milanello, which has helped their players keep their level for a way longer time. Nowadays most teams have two or three nutriologists.
About medicine, the best example has to do with knee surgery. In the past, a knee injury almost meant retirement, now with microsurgery, a player could be back on the pitch in as little as two months (in fact, Franco Baresi came back after a month in WC 94), but there are lots of advances as well. Barcelona, for instance, have a machine that tests players every week and provides information to Guardiola on who could be injured in a match.
About limits, there have been numerous studies regarding that subject. Just Google “Human Athletic Limits” and you’ll find plenty of info on the subject.
If you are going to use nutrition, medicine, and training methods as an indicator then be fair in comparisons. Either assume that Pele and Maradona playing today would have the same access to these things from a young age as any other player or assume that CR and Messi playing back then would have the same crappy nutrition and training that the old stars had. Otherwise it’s like comparing costs between now and the past without adjusting for inflation.
Otherwise it’s not about the players, just about the context.
He did:
“But if Pele or Maradona eat what players eat today, or have today’s technology at their disposal, they would be much better” most will surely argue. It may be, but the matter is that neither of them had that nutrition or that technology, so their best versions are representative of their time, not ours.
I understand why you suggest to make adjustments according to the characteristics of era, but it can’t be done. It’s all hypothetical, like Batman fighting against Superman. So what he wrote still makes sense: in absolute terms, today’s players are better than the ones from the past. That is not an insult to the past greats because, as you pointed out, the circumstances were different.
Mister, I asked you these questions for a reason. It’s because your text was full of pontifications, but in included ZERO factual evidence.
As such, I wanted to give you the opportunity to correct that shortcoming. Calling your reply above a complete failure is an understatement. None of the above does not support the idea of your original post.
Let’s take them one by one:
1. “In England, for instance, Arsène Wenger created a revolution when he arrived to Arsenal by changing the dieting habits of the players, thus prolonging their careers for several years. Milan, on their part, installed their famous physical lab in Milanello, which has helped their players keep their level for a way longer time.”
What kind of “revolution” was that, since players being still active in their late ’30s was something not unusual even in the time of Pele? For instance, Matthews, Di Stefano, Puskas, Gento, Rivera, Zizinho, Nilton Santos, Djalma Santos, to name just a few all played until they were close to 40 (or even after 40).
And, in general, what is the link between having your career prolonged by several years and being a better or worse player? Case in point are Ronaldo and Ronaldinho, who treated nutrition and fitness superficially and had a shorter career than Ryan Giggs, for instance, but they were clearly better players than the latter during their prime.
From “prolonging their careers for several years” does not result at all that the respective players are better than ones who had shorter careers.
My first question remains valid.
2. “About medicine, the best example has to do with knee surgery. In the past, a knee injury almost meant retirement, now with microsurgery, a player could be back on the pitch in as little as two months (in fact, Franco Baresi came back after a month in WC 94), but there are lots of advances as well. Barcelona, for instance, have a machine that tests players every week and provides information to Guardiola on who could be injured in a match.”
And what is the correlation between the quoted above and the conclusions you drew in your blog? Yes, surgery procedures have improved worldwide, a lot of it due to the advent of computer technology and its applications in medicine. What this has to do with your original point? A knee-injury is less of a threat for modern players, but how does that make them better? And to what extent?
PS: Between you and me, that Barcelona machine obviously failed for David Villa, but whatever.
3. “About limits, there have been numerous studies regarding that subject. Just Google “Human Athletic Limits” and you’ll find plenty of info on the subject.”
Gee, why didn’t I think about googling “human athletic limits”?
Listen, I’m not interested in “googling”. There are 2 fundamental flaws with your suggestion: first, it is possible to find on Google more studies than it is physically possible for me to check, often including contradictory information. Second, most important, I wanted to know what YOU based your assertion on. You made a statement which was unsupported and I asked for your source. The answer “find it yourself” (because that what your reply amounted to) is trollish.
You say you are a freelancer contributor to prestigious publications like World Soccer, Kicker, etc. I seriously hope that your post and your subsequent reply is not reflecting on the level of those publications and your own writing. It is a sad state of affairs if it does.
This is true in every sport, but sports that glorify their long histories the most, like baseball and soccer, are where one encounters the most hostility when stating the obvious. Of course having said that, it’s also a bit unfair comparison because if Pele and Maradona were around today, they would be much better themselves as well.
Baseball Prospectus had a good article on this… Schrodinger’s Bat: The Myth of the Golden Age
http://www.baseballprospectus .com/article.php?articleid=5813
If you can’t read it, here is just one tidbit:
“These factors are then used to translate statistics and illustrate how a Honus Wagner ( EqA 0.354 in 1908) might translate to the modern game ( EqA 0.232, or roughly a Neifi Perez).”
For those who are not familiar with baseball, Honus Wagner was one of the first five members of the Hall of Fame, whereas Neifi Perez is one of the worst baseball players ever:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-real-chase/
Oops, the link is broken:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5813
I agree, never said otherwise, the thing is, Maradona and Pele are not playing now and thus we don’t know how good they could have become if they did. So, we have to limit ourselves to judging them by their best selves during their eras.
There are some definite reasons why teams are better now than they were in the 80s (Maradona) or 60s (Pele). The best team of Maradona’s European tenure was the triple Dutch AC Milan team with Van Basten, Gullit, and Rijkaard. Bosman and other things changed all of that and now the best teams have unlimited foreigners and you end up seeing teams like Barca and Real with talent beyond anything seen in the 80s. So its a fact that on the high end the competition is simply better and the top leagues are generally tougher than they were when Pele and Maradona played. Having said that I think Cristiano Ronaldo would be seen as the best player to have ever played the game if he was born in Spain and played for Barcelona. Since he wasn’t he won’t be seen as the best ever.
My point? I believe our ability to rate the great players is highly skewed to who ends up on the winning team. Ronaldo doesn’t win best player awards over Messi not because Messi is better, but because Messi plays for Barcelona. When Ronaldo’s team wins then Ronaldo will be the world’s best. etc.
Now if Maradona was playing today on his Napoli team he wouldn’t be in the equation. Nor would Pele on his Santos side. However, if you replaced Messi with Maradona on Barcelona he would have just won 3-4 straight World’s best player awards.
If Messi wants to have a claim as one of the top 5 players ever he needs to do something with Argentina and continue to be on one of the 5-8 good club teams in the world (are there more than that?). Maradona would have elevated the 06 Argentina side to the World Cup finals and he sure would not have let his Argentina be as lacklustre as 2010 Argentina. Ronaldo and Messi both had better teams than 1990 Argentina and yet both were unable to elevate their team in 2010 to anything more than a quiet world cup.
And…as far as playmakers being dead that gets said every generation. In the 1990s they started saying the playmaker was done, over, that the great 80s playmakers (Belgium, Uruguay, France, England, etc) were a thing of the past. But then I sat and watched as players like Zidane came along or more recently Wesley Sneider.
A good article, but frankly Diego Maradona had insane acceleration and change of direction and was very strong. He played in an era where defenders were allowed to go through the player to get the ball (ala Van Basten). I’m not sure Messi makes it through 5 years in the Serie A while Maradona was at Napoli. Van Basten didn’t!
who cares really, in my opinion, pele was the best in his time, maradona the best in his time, brasilian ronaldo best of his time, zizou best of his time and messi the best of this time. Whether they are better than each other or not doesnt really matter since football changes and you never know how horrible of a player pele might have been now or how badly CR7 or messi would have handled the constant kicking from back then.
Maradona is the best player I have ever seen. His control of the ball is unmatched, despite being predominantly left footed. Pele was an unbelievable talent and a complete player. Puskas was before my time, but just an amazing player. All 3 of these players could play in any era. Sure the game is faster now, but they would adjust. Man has evolved that much in this short time period. The game was rougher back then, too. It works both ways.
Maradona was hacked to death. Could CRonaldo or Messi handle that kind of punishment? I doubt it. Maradona had tree trunk legs of steel. He was stronger than Messi is now, and I think more skillful.
Messi is the greatest player of today, but when he singlehandedly dominates a World Cup as Maradona did in 1986, get back to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXVzCfavIfk
I don’t want to insist, but having won a World Cup or not is not relevant in this debate. You win a World Cup against your contemporaries, which makes you better in relative terms, not in absolutes as I’m trying to explain. Telling me that Messi won’t be better than Pele or Maradona because of that doesn’t add anything to this discussion.
Luis Suarez could be the best Striker of all time. He is hitting his prime right now. Copa America Champions. 4th in the World Cup. Lighting up EPL, until the recent baloney. He might be one of the best in history. Being on great clubs helps players too. Barcelona ia a heck of a team. Liverpool will now climb very high for a long time. They say great players make better teams greater, which is why you are misjudging Pele and Maradonna. imo. How is Rooney on the world stage? Not very impressive. just my thoughts.
And what does that have to do with anything
And something involving a Real Madrid player and a Barcelona player. Who would have thunk it?
People seem to have such an impossible time differentiating between relative and absolute. Players now are better than they used to be, technical skill has risen some but there have been huge gains in speed of thought and play. That’s not a slight of the older players but an indication that soccer technology (like all technology) has been advancing at a phenomenal pace. Have Pele or Maradona or Di Stefano (shame on everyone for not mentioning him, easily a rival to those two) grow up at the same time as Messi and Cristiano then there is a good chance they become the best, but that is not how history worked. They played in their own time and will forever be legends because of how they were able to dominate the pitch. Football will continue to grow and get better, unless Neymar surprises me it looks like the next biggest best thing is a while away though, but when it comes in 5 or 10 years then they will likely be better than Messi or Ronaldo, but unlikely to dominate the game because relatively they won’t be as impressive. Those sorts of players are rare indeed.
At last we agree on something!
Sorry, but this is nonsense. You have a quote in your piece about why people were so slow in Mexico ’70. It was very hot. If they weren’t going to have AC in Qatar you would see the slowest World Cup ever.
Next you’re going to tell us that Ben Arfa blows away Garrincha, and that Ronaldo Phenomeno couldn’t accomplish as much as Robin Van Persie.
Use Germany 74 or England 66, I chose Mexico 70 only because of the Game of the Century, but it applies to any World Cup before the nineties
Mister, at the beginning, you said “I invite you to try a little experiment” and now you suggest Gmonn to use 1974 or 1966 WCs. Can I know to whom is this invitation actually adressed?
It may have escaped you, but a lot of the people here are collectors of old games, so they have plenty of footage to analyse. I personally possess between 100 and 120 games from 1954 to the early 90s and there are many others who own even more. So, drop the condescending attitude, will you?
Not to mentions that a lot of people are old enough to have witnessed live games “before the nineties”.
It’s quite annoying to treat your readers as if there are all 15 years old – when the level of your own contributions is not far above that age.
You said that you received complaints and insults for making these points on Twitter. If this is how you made your points, I say you received them for a reason.
So cute. Grandpa talking about the good old time.
times
Trolling does not make your point.
Nice article,its about time someone said it. I still think its funny that people use winning a world cup as an argument for being the Greatest of all Time, when its played at a lower level than the Champions League. Or they forget that back then soccer wasn’t as globalized as it is now.
It’s like saying Bill Russell is the best basketball player of all time because he won so many championships…. back when there were only a handful of teams, almost no one cared about the NBA, and NBA Finals were shown on tape delay.
It’s easy to be really good when you play for Barca, Real, Man Utd, all teams that function as a clockwork. It’s a little bit less easy to take on your shoulder a team like Santos or like Napoli – good teams yes, but nothing compared to Barca or Real today – and bring them to win a trophy after another. I’ve seen Maradona playing for seven years in Italy, and I can tell with absolute certainty that there has never been a player like him nor before, nor after. And in my opinion, there probably won’t be in the future.
Santos was one of the best teams of the world in its time. They had amazing players such as Coutinho, Pepe, Zito, Carlos Alberto… They had 7 players that won the World Cup in 1962 and 5 that won in 1970.
Napoli was not – but Maradona managed to raise them all the way to where they had never been and keep them there till he stayed. The second best player I’ve ever seen at least in the attack position has probably been Ronaldo (the brazilian one), I’m talking about the first Ronaldo, not the Real Madrid one and post Real Madrid.
You can only properly compare players in their own era. Using the “time machine,” you’re obviously going to show that Messi and Ronaldo are far better than their predecessors. But, to use baseball as an example, can you really argue that Babe Ruth wasn’t the greatest player ever? He out-homered entire teams in his day. It’s not his fault he wasn’t born in 1985.
Baseball is an interesting sport to compare because speed and pace are far from the most important assets and most of the differences in strength and athletic ability from the recent players with the ones from the past had to do with steroids. In that sense, I think it’s still safe to say that Babe Ruth was the best player of all time.
“I think it’s still safe to say that Babe Ruth was the best player of all time.”
No, he wasn’t. Unless you’re comparing him to players from his era, in which case you need to do the same for Maradona/Pele. Do you really think Babe Ruth faced pitchers who would cut it today? Just the fact that Babe Ruth himself was a successful pitcher should tell you all you need to know about that.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5813
Ruth would probably be considered a “AAAA hitter” at best if he was magically transported to the present day. If he did make it to the major leagues at all, he would probably resemble Jack Cust.
Fair enough, my knowledge of baseball is superficial, to say the least
We have no evidence that Babe Ruth could hit the average major league slider, never mind Mariano Rivera.
It was a different time… why would baseball be different from every other sport? It’s not. Standards have gone up across the board, and as in the article linked above, we can actually measure such things.
This argument lacks any depth to support it sadly and misses the vast number of difficulties that either of these players would have faced earlier in time.
For instance Messi would never have received the steriods that helped him develop into the player he is today had he been born in Brazil in the 40s like Pele.
Any reference to the relative speed or strength neglects the fact that even in disciplines where those are the be all and end all of the sport, nobody uses absolutes as the method of comparison. Nobody would claim that Roger Bannister wasn’t a great runner, despite the fact that a four minute mile is no longer any sort of achievement. Nobody would compare Jesse Owens adversely to Dwain Chambers, despite the fact he never cracked 10 seconds.
Nope, but everyone agrees that Usain Bolt is the greatest runner of all times.
Yes, Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time, but not just because he’s the current fastest of all time. It’s because of the way that he has destroyed previous records rather than just beating them. There have been lots of people over the years who have been the fastest of all time, but very few of them have been regarded as the greatest of all time.
The man regarded as the greatest 100 runner of all time before Bolt was Bob Hayes. There were seven or eight other world record holders in the 100 between Hayes and Bolt, and none of them were regarded as being greater than Hayes just because they were the fastest of all time in their day.
To Comme and everyone else who replied: questioning the use of absolutes as a method of comparison is a good idea, but why no one actually questions the crug of the original argument?
Even at a cursory glance, it should be become pretty conspicuous that the article pontificates a lot, but provides no evidence whatsoever for the respective assertions. I would say people should be wary of this kind of argumentation.
Vague generalities like “the enormous advances in nutrition, medicine and even pitches have made all the athletes in most disciplines much more powerful than in the past.” are simply not acceptable from a professional writer, regardless of the field he writes in.
The author makes several claims along these lines, insisting that current players are “miles ahead” of the past ones, but where do these “miles” come from, if the article does not include any scientific reference?
Frankly, I call bullshit on these ones. I had once the curiosity to check the timing of Jesse Owens (yes, Jesse Owens!) in the 100 meters race from 1936 Olympics and how he would have fared in the 2006 track and field 100 meters Grand Prixs from 2006, 70 years later. There were 6 or 7 Grand Prix in total. In none of them, Owens would not have finished last and he would have even reached the podium in some.
Similarly, the issue was many times discussed in the forums and one of our most distinguished members, Gregoriak, provided the link to a study done by a scientific german institute about the pace of the German national team at WC. The 1974 WC was the fastest one, the 1966 one was on the third place.
For instance, if what Mr. Palacio says is true, one would expect to see the respective improvements in track-and-field first and foremost. In the end, football players don’t have a particular incentive to break world records, track and field athletes do. Yet, modern athletes are not “miles” ahead of past ones, the improvements are minuscule.
To be blunt, statements like “enormous advances in nutrition, medicine and even pitches have made all the athletes in most disciplines much more powerful than in the past” look to me like a typical urban myth, perpetuated by atrociously superficial articles like the one from this blog.
Also, I took part several years ago in a discussion on a similar subject and another distinguished member of BS, Tom Clare, a former pro player and published author of a book of memories about his recollections of the Busby Babes, literally ridiculed the idea.
I’ve seen such statements a gazillion times, but never backed up by any factual evidence. NOT EVEN ONCE. In fact, whenever some research is done, the evidence obtained tends to point the opposite.
Is it that professionals and fans alike simply copy such claims from each other “asinus asinum fricat” ?
Yes, there have been significant advances in several fields, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that it resulted in what the author implied above, for the simple fact, that, in order to reach a very high level of fitness, you don’t actually need some uber-technologies.
I am not sure where I stand on this yet, but maybe the 100 meter sprinting is a bad example to show this progression. Because the race is so short.
Looking at the 200 meter world record times from 1960 to 2009. The times have gone from 20.6 to 19.19. That’s almost 1.5 seconds.
Even better take a look at world record marathon times from the 60s to now. In 1960 the world record was 2 hours 15 min and in 2011 the record is 2 hours 3 minutes. That’s a 12 minute difference. I believe a marathon runner has more in common with a soccer athlete then a sprinter. Another interesting point is the womens current world record marathon time is 2:15 minutes. The same time as the mens from the 60s.
I agree. But even in the 100m, the world record has decreased by over 0.5 seconds since Jesse Owens’ times. That’s around 5% of the race time. In the long jump, Owens’ best distance was about 10% less than the current world record. Those are pretty significant differences for a high performance sport. Even with his best time in the 100m, Jesse Owens would not have qualified for the 2008 Olympic final. In fact, depending on the heat, he may have exited at the quarterfinal stage. If not, he then would have been tied for last place at the semi-final stage.
Owens’ best times might not even get him into the Olympics today. Owens’ best times were with hand timing and track has since changed to automatic timing, which yields slower times for the same speed. Owens’ fastest 100 meters, 10.2 seconds with hand timing, is worth 10.44 seconds with automatic timing.
Judged by absolutes like times on a clock, present-day athletes turn in vastly better performances than athletes from decades ago, but I don’t think that makes they vastly better athletes. I think you have to judge athletes by how they perform against the standards of their own day.
“Looking at the 200 meter world record times from 1960 to 2009. The times have gone from 20.6 to 19.19. That’s almost 1.5 seconds.”
Correct. And the biggest increase occured between and 1960 and 1968, when Tommie Smith run 200 meters in 19.83 seconds. So, between 1960 and 1968 a 0.77 seconds improvement occured – over a 8 years span. Between 1968 and 2009, the improvement was 0.62 seconds – basically in the next 41 years we have a smaller improvement.
It’s plain obvious it does not support Palacio’s assertion, as his “target” time span was from 1995 onwards. For instance, Michael Johnson’s record from 1996 was 19.32 seconds. Usain Bolt’s times from 2009 are 19.30 and 19.19 seconds.
In other words, the performance increase for the 200 meters dash over the period where the author claims that “enormous improvements in nutrition, medicine, etc” occured is utterly insignificant.
And I disagree with the marathon stuff. A marathon runner has to keep up over 40 km continuously. A football players does not. A player’s running during a game consists of short bursts, then slowing down, with a 15 minutes break in between.
You post about unsubstantiated claims, yet you pretty much do the same. Saying something is “utterly insignificant” is quite a strong statement which you do not back up with any facts. In reality, the facts are that in most track and field disciplines the times follow trends of getting better and better. Sure, the rates vary sometimes, but we do generally see better athletic performance over time.
On the subject of decreasing rates, improved performance often follows a logarithmic pattern. Initially, greater improvements are possible. But after more and more things have gotten optimized, the performance increases slower. It’s the same reason India and China have higher growth rates than the US and Europe.
I will go further out on the limb and suggest that “athleticism” in some instances (like with Brazil) is killing “the beautiful game”. The emphasis on speed is no doubt making the game more exciting in that respect, but when I watch games from the past, especially those involving Pele, Maradona and Zidane, I see a sophistication in terms of build-up and execution that is simply not there with the current Brazil squad. It’s no longer samba but frenetic activity and drama. Also, it was not only what Pele and Maradona and did, it was oftentimes what they DIDN’T do, such as passing the ball or moving in a direction with the ball that was totally unpredictable, yet brilliant. They didn’t rely on speed to drive past opponents, though they both certainly had it. And to suggest that Ronaldo is even in their league–much less the top 10–is a waste of everyone’s time. In regards to the speed and athleticism on display in the Premier League, yes it is there, in a way that it is not in La Liga or Serie A. So why then have teams from these ‘slower’ leagues won the Champions League 8 out of the last 10 years?
i meant to reply to this earlier but the comments section went fluky. i agree with you on this. i watched brazil a couple months back and was really disappointed. i grew up with the 78 – 86 version with all those amazing interchanges and footwork. i admired the clockwork orange dutch team 0f 98 – 00 for many of the same reasons, even though the style was completely different.
“You post about unsubstantiated claims, yet you pretty much do the same.”
This kind of obtusity is stupid.
If you consider that I make unsubstantiated claims, maybe you should ask me the information which you lack.
“Saying something is “utterly insignificant” is quite a strong statement which you do not back up with any facts.”
What additional facts do you need to know in order to appreciate whether the difference between the times of Michael Johnson is significant – besides their times, which I already specified?
“In reality, the facts are that in most track and field disciplines the times follow trends of getting better and better. Sure, the rates vary sometimes, but we do generally see better athletic performance over time.”
Lol. Do you seriously not see the contradiction in making first the accusation that “I do not provide the facts” (a statement utterly false unless: 1. you have a pair of tomatoes instead of eyes; or 2. you need supplimentary information besides their running times in order to assess the improvement from Michael Johnson to Usain Bolt, whatever that information might be) and the coming up with such a sweeping generalization?
Yes, athletes are getting better. The problem is some certain individuals grossly exaggerate the respective improvements.
The idea that current players are “miles ahead (literally)” from players twenty years ago is fantasy.
“What additional facts do you need to know in order to appreciate whether the difference between the times of Michael Johnson is significant – besides their times, which I already specified?”
It is a fact that the time difference was X seconds. It is an opinion that this is “utterly insignificant”. To justify that opinion, you need to provide me with some other evidence. For instance, I have something that puts your position in serious question. What was the big story in the Beijing Olympics? Usain Bolt breaking the 100m record, of course. By most people’s standards, that was significant. If it were not so, it would not have received world wide attention. Now let’s look at the improvement he made in time with respect to the previous record: 0.03s. Percent-wise, that is roughly half than how he improved Johnson’s 200m record, something that you call “utterly insignificant”. See the discrepancy here? Maybe it is utterly insignificant to you, but it sure did matter to a lot of people.
“Lol. Do you seriously not see the contradiction in making first the accusation that “I do not provide the facts” (a statement utterly false unless: 1. you have a pair of tomatoes instead of eyes; or 2. you need supplimentary information besides their running times in order to assess the improvement from Michael Johnson to Usain Bolt, whatever that information might be) and the coming up with such a sweeping generalization?”
I assumed that you would be able to do some research on your own. But since you didn’t I will provide you with some links. Men’s track world records:
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/records/records.jsp?sex=M&typeId=0&listId=1
Out of the 18 events in the Track category, 15 of those world records were made after 1995. Taking out three events (hour, 25000, and 30000) which I don’t believe are contested very often anymore (at the Olympics at least), you see that only the 400m hurdles record was set before 1995. So no, I did not make a sweeping generalization.
“What was the big story in the Beijing Olympics? ”
The war in Georgia?
You are talking about “significant” in terms of news headline value… which is completely irrelevant for the issue at the hand, which is sport (football) performance.
In relation to this, Usain Bolt’s world record is “significant”… and so is Bin Laden getting caught or the oil price going up.
Not sure what this proves. Let me use your own words to make it clearer: “I wanted to know what YOU based your assertion on. You made a statement which was unsupported and I asked for your source.”
Still waiting for sources from you to show that the increase in performance was “utterly insignificant”. Sources besides your personal opinion, of course.
“Still waiting for sources from you to show that the increase in performance was “utterly insignificant”. Sources besides your personal opinion, of course.”
The general.
In your own words again: “Trolling does not make your point.”
This comes to mind:
http://neoavatara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/footinmouth.jpg
Ok, I’ll try to answer Tribune’s posts thoroughly as it’s one of the few criticisms that I’ve received in which someone tries to point out weaknesses in my argument instead of disqualifying it as a whole. Even if his tone sometimes completely contradicts his statements (tomatoes instead of eyes?)
“Mister, at the beginning, you said “I invite you to try a little experiment” and now you suggest Gmonn to use 1974 or 1966 WCs. Can I know to whom is this invitation actually adressed?
“It may have escaped you, but a lot of the people here are collectors of old games, so they have plenty of footage to analyse. I personally possess between 100 and 120 games from 1954 to the early 90s and there are many others who own even more. So, drop the condescending attitude, will you?”
What condescenting attitude? He said that the reason a present game is faster than the “Game of the Century” is because of the heat in which the latter was played. I just said that he can take a 1966 or 1974 game and wouldn’t change the explanation at all. I always try to take my readers with respect, and it’s usually with a lot more respect than what some of then treat me when they disagree with my ideas.
“Vague generalities like “the enormous advances in nutrition, medicine and even pitches have made all the athletes in most disciplines much more powerful than in the past.” are simply not acceptable from a professional writer, regardless of the field he writes in”
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of scientific evidence on the subject. I have been trying to get studies on past performances and they are surprisingly sparse. There are, though, some articles referring to the subject (like this http://www.livestrong.com/article/387950-how-far-does-a-soccer-player-run-during-a-game/). I invite you, however, to check out this article, that treats the subject in extension. It’s safe to assume that the same athletic improvements seen in other disciplines also apply to football. And in most of them the improvement has been a lot larger than in 100m (although later on I will try to explain why the improvements in 100m are a lot larger than what the base percentage might indicate).
http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/1/7.full
As you are, I’m also a collector of past games. And you don’t have to measure to realize the rhythm is much faster now. It’s not only me who says so, obviously, but as I said, some of the best in football do (like Sir Alex Ferguson, Guardiola or Arsène Wenger).
(I have a couple more things to say, but I need to go now, will try to update later on)
“What condescenting attitude? He said that the reason a present game is faster than the “Game of the Century” is because of the heat in which the latter was played. I just said that he can take a 1966 or 1974 game and wouldn’t change the explanation at all. I always try to take my readers with respect, and it’s usually with a lot more respect than what some of then treat me when they disagree with my ideas.”
I was not refering only to your reply to Gmonn, but the general attitude.
Are you seriously telling me that you don’t understand how something like “Go and watch X game and you will surely see things as I do” (which is what your invitation amounted to) is patronizing as hell?
First of all, a suggestion of this kind is not a valid argument if you want to make a point. Putting aside that implies everyone bases their opinion on past times on hearsay (else what would be the point in asking them to check an actual game?), if someone does as you say and reaches a different conclusion than yourself, then what?
Moreso, what’s the idea of actually telling them what they are supposed to see in that game?
But anyway, this is a side issue, without much importance.
” I invite you, however, to check out this article, that treats the subject in extension. It’s safe to assume that the same athletic improvements seen in other disciplines also apply to football. And in most of them the improvement has been a lot larger than in 100m (although later on I will try to explain why the improvements in 100m are a lot larger than what the base percentage might indicate). ”
Ok. The article does not support what you say it does.
Allow me to quote a larger part from the conclusions:
“Although WRs initially progressed according to a linear model in the nine Olympic disciplines of Track and Field Athletics included in our analysis, as already reported by Mognoni et al.,4 in most instances the progression curve has flattened-out over the past 20 years (e.g. run and jumps), while in other circumstances (e.g. shot put) no improvement has been recorded since the mid-1900s. Hence, if the present conditions prevail for the next 20 years, this will support the hypothesis that most of the male WRs will probably no longer be substantially improved,2,8 although some female WRs can still be expected to be broken, given increased access and participation.6 Nevertheless, if gene doping is enacted, we may never be able to predict what the limits of human performance might be. The probability is that further improvements will be mostly due to chance (occurrence of ‘extreme outliers’ in the normal distribution of top-class athletes), the use of mechanical aids,9 the introduction of genetic or other forms of doping and, finally, environmental and ecosystem revolutions (e.g. pollution).”
The article YOU provided me as source actually concludes that progression has flattened out over the last 20 years – the exact opposite of your own conclusions, which insisted on a massive improvement over the last 20 years.
THe article admits that further improvements might occur. But do you notice in what conditions? Genetic engineering and mechanical aids. In other words, if you implant to an athletes cybernetic muscles (or even full legs), then he will be become better. But I would outrun as well Usain Bolt if you give me Terminator’s legs.
“As you are, I’m also a collector of past games. And you don’t have to measure to realize the rhythm is much faster now.”
That is not an argument per se, and it has no business in such an analysis.
For instance, several years ago, a fanboy of Ronaldo (the brazilian) was pestering some forums about how much faster than Pele was Ronaldo. He became quite obnoxious. So, as I had enough footage, I searched for moments when both players were running at full speed, cut them with some video splitter software and then watched them again and again. It was impossible for me to decide who was faster after repeated viewing. This in regard to your statement that “Pele and Maradona were clearly slower, etc”.
So what gives?
Man, you cherry-picked that quote.
Assuming you are refering to the “I iunvite you to check etc”, ignore it, then.
C Ronaldo isn’t even the best Ronaldo. I’m not even sure how it’s even up for discussion.
Is anyone realizing the fallacy of saying when “Messi/C.Ronaldo dominate a World Cup like in 86, get back to me”?
We are acknowledging that today’s players are faster, fitter, stronger, and possibly more skilled than most of the players of yesteryear; yet we are saying we expect the top .01% of them to dominate a very subjective event like someone did 25+ years ago. Keep in mind the gaps between who is great now, and who is above average is not as wide as it was in the years that Maradona and Pele played.
First of all, the World Cup has changed; there are more matches and a wider pool of teams (some say it thins the talent, some say it doesn’t); this means that you have to perform at a higher level, for longer than you did in say, 1986 (on top of long club seasons). Also this allows for a wider draw, with a less chances of seeing a group of death. If Messi or Ronaldo got a favorable walk to the semis via a draw, the apologists for older players would say “Well the draws were harder in the older days”.
Second, players like Messi and Ronaldo are playing more games at a higher level than older players did, thus leading to the Euro and WC hangover that we see quite often. I know Maradona played tons of games due to his clubs exploiting him, but no one can reasonably argue that the charity games were as intense or demanding as the games played today; especially when you look at the physical output of someone like Ronaldo.
Third, hanging on to the World Cup win as the measure for greatness is passé at this point. Surely the World Cup is a lesser competition in terms of it’s skill, and demand for ability than the Champions League. The best of the best (players and teams) in Europe play in the CL, while the World Cup has teams like Spain (great) down to teams like North Korea (umm, not so great). The World Cup is a marketing tool first, and a soccer competition second (maybe third, with all the FIFA money grabbing). While the CL is also a marketing boon, the integrity of the competition is 100% stronger than the World Cup. I think someone who has spurred their team to CL wins, like Messi and Ronaldo, are equal in achievement to players like Pele or Maradona when they did their World Cup heroics in their day.
To the poster that said BS to the “advances” comment; are you taking the piss? How can you argue that better fitness, nutrition, and general physical care are not significant in this game? Players today play more matches, at a higher level of physical demand, than anyone in the older days did. Saying that their diet and improved knowledge of sports medicine is not a factor is idiocy, to be blunt. You do not need a 20 year case study to know that knee injuries that spelled the end of a career even as recently as the 90′s are now usually seen as a career obstacle, not a career ender. If you want to get into the nutrition aspect, take a look at the physical condition of players now vs. players from yesteryear. There are usually miles of difference; much of it down to diet and then more advanced training methods. You say there are various studies to support your claims of little to no difference, but you pull out some self-research on Jesse Owens, comparing a sport that has little if anything to do with soccer. Are you a scientific researcher? A doctor? A professional soccer player or track and field athlete? Are you a top-level fitness trainer or nutritionist? If you did not answer yes to one or more of those questions, your opinion is just that, opinion…and one that lacks appropriate ethos to back up your statements. Using a straw man is a nice try, but it won’t float with people who know how to argue. I just had a conversation with a professional coach, and former player, who played in England and America with and against George Best, Pele, Banks, Beckebauer, and so on. He said that players today are faster, fitter, and better maintained; he also stated that the demands of the game today would be harder on players of his time because of their eating habits, drinking habits, and training methods. I would be more inclined to take him at his word, than you at yours.
Finally, the opinion of Ronaldo not being in the same league as other “greats” is just that opinion, but one that I would argue against. Listing his speed as reason he shouldn’t get the nod is absurd; have you ever heard the term “speed doesn’t count without control”? I would say he has total control at speed, which is a skill on its own. His skill on the ball is nearly unmatched in the modern game; he is fantastic in the air, two footed, and he has fantastic touch and control of the ball. Just because you don’t like someone, don’t slag off his talent. Skill for skill, on a technical level, I would match Ronaldo up against anyone in the ubiquitous “top 10 ever” lists, and I would put money on him being more technically sound than any of them, bar one or two. By your logic Ronaldo should be out-skilled in Spain, because he relies on his speed more than anything…if so, how on earth is so dominate there, with vastly superior players around him from a skill standpoint? I mean 87 goals in 80 games is the mark of a shite player, correct?
Why have teams from “slower” leagues won 8 out of 10 times? I would say a combo of tactics, which is vastly different than technique or the combo of skill and speed, and the fact that finals are one off games, where anyone can win on their day. Surely the Madrid/Barca semi should have been the final in a fair and just world, as they were the planets two best teams, but the draw allowed for a different outcome……
If you want to make that hasty generalization about “winning”, you really should look at the finals and who participates. Since 2005 7 of 14 finalists have been from the “athleticism” league (including an all English final); not a bad showing for a place that you imply offers just runners and not real “players”. Believe me, I am not PL apologist either, I am just pointing out that your logic is flawed, badly.
Also the winners and finalists are usually in the top two of their own leagues (bar Liverpool), and vastly superior to the domestic competition they face; often playing in a much different style than the rest of their league, no matter if it is La Liga, Serie A, or the Premier League.
Even though Barca is from a “slower league”, would you qualify them as a slow team? I don’t think so……..
“To the poster that said BS to the “advances” comment; are you taking the piss? How can you argue that better fitness, nutrition, and general physical care are not significant in this game? ”
No. The ghost of Stalin told me so.
“Players today play more matches”
False.
Tribune, I think all the points in Jc18star are more than valid. Answering “The ghost of Stalin told me so” doesn’t add to the debate.
And it’s true that in some case past players played the same amount of matches as before (the Santos of the sixties did), the amount of COMPETITIVE matches is significantly lower.
I answered Jc18star like this because he is a troll, just like the other one, snahdog.
First of all, how can you say that “his point more than valid” if the part adressed to me started with a lie, which you yourself have spotted? Is there anything “to add to the debate” in such circumstances?
And the questioning of my credentials… “Are you a scientific researcher? A doctor? A professional soccer player or track and field athlete? Are you a top-level fitness trainer or nutritionist? If you did not answer yes to one or more of those questions, your opinion is just that, opinion…and one that lacks appropriate ethos to back up your statements. ”
And some self-agrandizement… “Using a straw man is a nice try, but it won’t float with people who know how to argue.”
And a dubious statement, which valor of truth cannot be checked… “I just had a conversation with a professional coach, and former player, who played in England and America with and against George Best, Pele, Banks, Beckebauer, and so on. He said that players today are faster, fitter, and better maintained; he also stated that the demands of the game today would be harder on players of his time because of their eating habits, drinking habits, and training methods. I would be more inclined to take him at his word, than you at yours.”
So, again, what points “are more than valid”? Because, after I purge the part adressed to me of all the inconsequiential stuff, all that is left are nothing else than your original points, in an even more simplified form. Do you want us to talk through an intermediate party?
And, in regard to the claim that he just talked with a former coach, I invite you (and him) to check the thread “Is football in terminal decline” in the Beautiful Game section, post 179. There user Tom Clare makes the next assertion:
“And therein lies the difference. I actually played the game over 40 years ago and at a very decent level – I know what it was like, know what I saw and I know what i experienced. I have folowed it since I stopped playing. I’d love to see you trailing behind the likes of Mathews, Finney, Puskas, Di Stefano, Best, Law and Charlton – and then tell me that they are not as quick as anybody is, or has been in the modern game. You know what you can do with your science – end of. ”
Certainly, Mr.Clare does not have to be the Bible on the issue – but, unlike Jc18star’s ghost coach, is an actual person, with a real background in the game, and everyone can see for himself what he actually said.
I also invite you to search for the thread “How much football has changed” in the same Beautiful Game section. There you can find the results of a research conducted by the German Sport Academy of Cologne for the german magazine “11 Freunde”, provided by the user Gregoriak, about the pace of the german NT from 1958 to 2010. It totally contradicts both your claims.
I just saw the 11 Freunde study, I need the methodology. What does pace means? With the ball or off the ball? What was the distance they ran? It doesn’t offer enough information to be taken seriously