Pele played in more difficult conditions

This an extreme example of muddy pitch in spring in the old days.
A league game played in Hamburg on 1 April 1962. Back then, it was just expected to play on such a pitch and that's it. Nobody today would set a foot on such a pitch, not even the lowest-league amateur players.

 

First of all, i actually have played in pitches like this, multipule of times

Considering development of tactics there are countless of things that has to be put in an equation first, like superteams. Tell me which era of Spanish football have had as two dominant teams as Barcelona and Real past 10 years. If you take them out of an equation, there are less goals scored.. that's just an example of an outside factor that makes a difference on the amount goals scored, there are many more of them that are not necessarly huge factors in any sense. Plus, random variety in scoring goals is a reasonable assumption.

Mechanism of development of tactics go roughly like this:
First there were pyramid shaped tactics (2-3-5) at the earliest stages of football, which resulted in a lot of goals. What revolutionary coaches do is opposite to what is a characterstic of that era. Back then a lot of goals was scored,
so certain someone came up with an idea to bring few of players backwards, make a tougher defense that won't concede as much and play on counter attacks. It turned out to be a successful tactic, so everybody started to play like that because it worked at the time,. resulting in less goals in overal.
... and then for awhile they played that way until another revolutionary coach came and figured a way to score effectively against the tactic from above. Then everybody copied him and in a blink of an eye a lot of goals was scored again.

History of tactics is an ongoing interplay between defensive and attacking eras (but it has to be said that those eras are not coming at the same time in whole world. Italy for example, just came to that realization.Sarri is very revolutionary there) because once people figure out how to defend tactics of the past, the next logical step is to figure out how to deal with that defense. And it goes in circle like that.
Here is a demonstration of what i mean:

(NOTE: 4:30)

"And back in that era all of them played 4-4-2".. then Cruyff came up with a briliant idea how to deal with 4-4-2 (explained in video) resulting in scoring more goals. That opened up whole new perspective on how to attack which can be explained with raise of goals scored per game after Cruyff's contribution, both as a player and as a manager of Barcelona.
I think it has to be said that not only development of tactics made defenses better, but it also made attacks better so raise in goals is also natural.

This is not up for a debate. This is how tactics are developed. Revolutionary tactics are reaction to whatever is happening in that moment in football. At the end it always balances out...

BUT the amount of goals score per game is not soley depended on tactics. As i said already, if you take away Barcelona and Real from 10s and you substitute them with any two versions of Real and Barcelona in history of Spanish league, average will get lower. Also having Messi and Ronaldo increases the amount of goals scored, that's for sure.

So i guess to truely find out (prove) answers is to make a detailed analysis of each era and what was going on, season by season. That's absurd. It's visible to naked eyes that the way teams played tactically is way more flawed than it is now.

 

Here is another hypothesis:
The reason why more goals are scored in average is because an average la liga attacker is getting better.

Tactics might had a role till the 90s/00s, but since then, the reason is that concentration of great players is raising.

That's possibility.

 

Obviously no one is as good as Messi and Cristiano but the other link (on the previous page) also shows how much more the top two teams score next to the mid table sides, and how this was in the 50s and 70s.
Furthermore (and I figured this out before) the body doubles of CR7 and LM10 (when they don't play) have roughly 0.80 to 1.0 gpg too. Not only Suarez but also Higuain in previous times. Even 32/33 years old Raul Gonzalez scored 3 goals in 4 games when he was used as stand in during Ronaldo his injury in 2009-10. Benzema, Bale etc. have good rates when Ronaldo wasn't playing (until this season, to be fair).

 

That will become increasingly obvious (and irrefutable) with the passing of time--Messi and Ronaldo are amazing goal scorers, but they definitely benefitted from a greater concentration of service than possibly any other goal scorer that came before them. As you implied: Higuaín 2009-10 was scoring goals at a great rate, and without scoring PK goals, without taking the free kicks, and also he wasn't even the main target of the team--Ronaldo was the main target of the team. Not to mention that Higuaín and Benzema competed against each other for minutes.

Just look at Luis Suarez's drop in goal-scoring form this season--the primary reason for it is that Messi has been reinstated as the false nine of the team, so Suarez doesn't get to score his usual 10-15 easy tap ins (that he was scoring in the previous seasons).

In conclusion: it isn't universally easier to score goals in this day and age, but it definitely is significantly easier to score goals in this day and age, if you happen to play for one of the Top 2-4 clubs in the league. The difference between the haves and have-nots is much greater than ever before, which inevitably makes goals easier for the goal scorers who benefit from that unprecedented imbalance or disproportion.

NOTE:

Dennis Bergkamp at any point between 1992 and 1996 would've scored over 20 goals per league season, every single season, had he played for Real Madrid 2009-2017 or Barcelona 2008-2016. In fact, he probably would've scored over 25 goals in some of those seasons. (Of course, Bergkamp scoring that many goals for Real Madrid 2009-2017 rests on the assumption that Bergkamp would play Ronaldo's role, and also rests on the assumption that Ronaldo would not play in the same team as Bergkamp.)

 

Friend...past greats played in the past and Pep created his tactics several decades later...so obviously they couldn't have played his tactics in their time as players.I really hope you aren't saying this.If your point is...i quote you here"i am not saying past greats would be incapable of learning those concepts if they were born later,"... i completely agree with you and second you.If every Tom,Dick and Harry who exits the academies that you keep mentioning can learn Pep's and other modern tactics then why can't the greats.However,if you say...i quote you again,"but that objectively and critically speaking, their football lacks some fundamentals..." then you need to speak out your mind as to what you mean by "lack of fundamentals".You need to explicitly put it in words so that we could take this further.
Coming to the academies i have some layman queries[which i am in matters football]for you.I understand from your post that what students/players learn there are the zenith of all things football to the extent that even Cruyff's tactics are taught only at the basic level.Once we attain such a high level that should naturally reflect at ground zern the field.The level of play/competitiveness should have risen with teams becoming almost equal to one another.Even players without "exceptional technical skills and physical attributes" are able to raise their level of play to world class level due to the academies and superior modern tactics[your ex.Thomas muller].But i should say what prevails is the exact opposite of this.We still have strong leagues and weak leagues.We still have great/good players,average players and players even below the avg level.Why this disparity?This is how it was in the pre-Pep/academies period.I suppose teams are now employing the same superior revolutionary tactics against each other.Then why this imbalance?

Wow great to know that you are a footballer.An experience one at that as well.Having played on all types of surfaces as you have mentioned in your posts.Especially muddy tracks.Now if you wear modern boots and play with modern balls on muddy tracks then its still not same as it existed back then.Besides modern pitches are there not just because they are nice to look at.Actually they are really great to look at.More like green cushion beds than the surface of any sports pitch.The need for quality football pitches was felt by one and all from players/managers/tacticians to FIFA.They are there for valid footballing reasons.That is why pitch rules are getting strictly enforced all around.That is also why sub-standard to really bad pitches have been replaced by high quality surfaces.In light of these developments regarding footballing fields your personal opinion about,"it makes no difference (or it makes little to none) when it comes to pure dribbling,"[unquote] or on any other aspect of the game is not compelling enough.

 

Suarez this season in la liga has missed 9 big chances in 9 matches he played in. That's one big miss per game. Last season he missed 20 in 35 matches, which is increase by 0.43 big chances missed per game
The fact he didn't score those easy tap ins he usually scores is a reason why he has a slight dip in his form so it's his own fault, not a tactical one. If he did score 3 or 4 of those misses he would be at his usual.

Btw, Suarez does have 5 goals in 9 matches so far which is not too bad and Messi has never played as deeply as he does nowadays so that theory of yours is thrown out of window.

With which i do agree is that who you play with greatly influence your performance, but that's not the case just for modern era... it's goes through history. You think Hugo Sanchez would score 38 goals if he wasn't playing for Real? His numbers drastically changed once he joined Real Madrid.. this applies to anyone in history.

There are evidences that Messi and Ronaldo outside Barca, Real are worse scorers, it's called international football. Their stats are drastically worse.
Ibra last season in PSG scored over 50 goals,.. last season i am not sure he reached 20 with manchester united...that's all undeniable, and i would also agree that there are bigger differences between top clubs, mediocare clubs and low budget clubs, but to deny accomplishments from Messi and Ronaldo, scoring 50+ goals over almost a decade season in season out, is absolutely ridiculous.

No player of this era could have done that in no circumstances what these two have done for football, goalscoring wise!

 

What a great post.It really has brought a lot of clarity to this debate.
Just wish to add on this,'Less technology means other teams would have more trouble studying his play and tendencies.."
It cuts both ways.Pele and his team would also have no means of studying the defence strategies of the opposition teams to have a go at them.

 

It's about implementing tactics on the pitch, not every Tom, Harry can do that. THere are countless of examples of talented players, who can dribble, shot, pass, but they simply vanish because they are not good enough tactically.

THat would be my assumption for someone like Best, or even Meazza for that matter. I don't know how would they capitalize their talent with the attitude and approach they had towards the game.
And that's important !! It makes difference.

THere are no rules in lower leagues and definitely not in youth lower leagues.


I haven't played in any of them, but those are actually legit fields on which games are played every week. I am not saying i am a professional football player, but football is what i do as a hobby for majority of my life. And pitches like that still exist.

You act as if modern boots would give them superpowers. That's insane, who guarantees you they would get better wearing one of those. Maybe they would actually be worse.. at very most they would got slightly more agile and faster. BIG DEAL

You can't argue with my opinion. I dribble as well on every pitch, because when you play football on the bad pitch, pitch is not just bad for an attacker, but for defender as well. Fundamentals of dribbling, like body fients remain just as useful. It's my personal experience.
You are worse dribbler, but defenders are also worse defenders.

--I will talk about the fundamentals and imbalance in justa a minute--

 

Yes I agree he's elite level (so are most who have played for Real Madrid in this period) but top 100 not so sure. With 200+ goals quite a few of the past 10-15 years are ahead in terms of goals or accolades.

He scored 36 goals for Napoli, three of them penalties. When Ronaldo scored 48 goals it included 10 penalties. When he scored 46 goals (your number) he scored 12 penalties. When Messi scored 50 goals it included 10 penalties as well.

League goals per game was in Serie A 2.58, compared to 2.66 for PD when Ronaldo scored 48 and 2.76 when Messi scored 50 and Ronaldo 46 in the same season.

He's not as good no and more uniform standards & conditions across the board have helped to demonstrate so.

 

On five occasions here the leading league goalscorer has half as many goals again as his nearest rival. Di Stefano in 1957, Waldo in 1967, Quini in 1982 and Hugo Sanchez in both 1987 and 1988. Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have never managed this, partly because they are competing against one other.

There were three further instances in La Liga before 1951: Bata in 1931, Pruden in 1941 and Zarra in 1947.

The feat is rarer in other European leagues. It has only been achieved three times in the top division of Italy's Serie A: by Boffi in 1940, Rossi in 1978 and Higuain in 2016.

There have also been three such leads (+50% or more) in the Bundesliga since 1964. By Seeler in the first year then Gerd Muller in 1970 and 1972.

England shows only two such occurrences in 128 years. John Campbell of Sunderland in 1893 and Dixie Dean during his 60 goal season of 1927-28.

There were no instances in France before 1990. Then Papin achieved the feat in consecutive league seasons and Pauleta followed up in 2006. Ibrahimovic subsequently outscored allcomers by at least 50% three times in four years between 2013 and 2016.

The biggest proportional leads have been Muller's +90% in 1971-72 (38 goals, next 20) and Higuain's +89% (36 goals, next 19) in 2015-16.

 

I think this deviates a bit from the idea/observation I made. If you look at the league games Ronaldo missed (because of injury or red card) then Higuain is at 10 goals in 12 games that he played, without any penalties. Or at 1.19 goals per 90 minutes, without penalties.

Yes I understand the pitfalls of such analysis (and Higuain was often injured as a Real Madrid player) but it illustrates the idea. If he had scored 0.90 goals per game throughout as main player then he had been at 300 goals now, and had some more 30+ goals seasons. Napoli was less conducive for attaining consistency and steady numbers over many years (is less stable, ultimately a selling club).

Need to update and look further for Benzema.

I think also Lewandowski is not as good as Ronaldo but he would probably score over 40 if he had played for Real Madrid.

 

So here an overview of all league games Cristiano has missed, with the Real Madrid scorers in brackets:

2009-10:

Sevilla (Pepe)
Valladolid (Raul, Raul, Marcelo, Higuain)
Gijon
Getafe (Higuain, Higuain)
Atletico Madrid (Kaka, Marcelo, Higuain)
Racing Santander (Higuain)
Valencia (Higuain, Higuain, Garay)
Deportivo la Coruna (Granero, Benzema, Benzema)
Espanyol (Ramos, Kaka, Higuain)

Higuain had 27 goals this league season (2nd best effort is 22). 8 of those goals came in the 9 games Ronaldo didn't play. Higuain himself not playing against Gijon and Deportivo la Coruna (brace Benzema) so 8 goals in 7 for him, no pens.

2010-11:

Racing Santander (Adebayor, Benzema, Benzema)
Hercules (Benzema, Benzema)
Gijon
Zaragoza (Ramos, Benzema)

2011-12:

N/A (CR7 missed nothing, Real Madrid won the league)

2012-13:

Osasuna
Atletico Madrid (Juanfran o.g. Di Maria)
Real Sociedad (Higuain, Callejon, Khedira)
Osasuna (Higuain, Essien, Benzema, Callejon)

The Atletico Madrid game the first instance where no striker was among the RMA scorers, although Benzema provided the winning assist for Di Maria.

2013-14:

Valladolid (Bale, Benzema, Bale, Bale)
Villarreal (Bale, Benzema, Jese, Benzema)
Getafe (Jese, Benzema, Modric)
Elche (Illarramendi, Bale, Isco)
Real Sociedad (Illarramendi, Bale, Pepe, Morata)
Almeria (Di Maria, Bale, Isco, Morata)
Celta de Vigo
Espanyol (Bale, Morata, Morata)

Gareth Bale (overvalued player imho) scored 8 of his 15 goals in his maiden season when Ronaldo wasn't playing. Bale himself not playing against Celta thus 8 in 7 games, no pens.

Higuain was gone summer 2013.

2014-15:

Real Sociedad (Ramos, Bale)
Real Sociedad (James, Ramos, Benzema, Benzema)
Sevilla (James, Jese)

2015-16:

Rayo Vallecano (Bale, Vazquez, Bale)
Real Sociedad (Bale)

2016-17:

Real Sociedad (Bale, Asensio, Bale)
Celta de Vigo (Morata, Kroos)
Espanyol (James, Benzema)
Deportivo la Coruna (Morata, Diaz, Ramos)
Eibar (Benzema, Benzema, James, Asensio)
Leganes (James, Morata, Morata, Morata)
Gijon (Isco, Morata, Isco)
Deportivo la Coruna (Morata, James, Vazquez, James, Isco, Casemiro)
Granada (James, James, Morata, Morata)

2017-18:

Deportivo la Coruna (Bale, Casemiro, Kroos)
Valencia (Asensio, Asensio)
Levante (Vazquez)
Real Sociedad (Mayoral, Rodrigues, Bale)



Benzema has 7 of his 24 braces in games without CR7 playing, which is quite a high proportion. Since he himself did not play everything of above games, especially the last three seasons.


Scorers:

Benzema 17
Bale 16
Morata 13
Higuain 10
James 9

 

One of the things I notice when I watch old matches is how few tool defenders had to use against superior attacking players.

I got annoyed that they would commit themselves against the attackers, who would easily get away from them. Yes, they could get away with more, but it was also quite obvious they didn't know of much else but 'ball-winning.'

With the rare exception of someone like Messi (and even then, very rarely) dribbling runs are barely effective outside of counter-attacks, compared to footage of 50-60 years ago where I saw attackers dribble against packed defenses.

The most useful ball control skill of today is the ability to create half a yard of space and half a second of time.

Imagine if modern defenders threw themselves at Messi and Robben like their ancestors did, but without the permission of the refs to hack. Messi would look like a god.

Modern defenders know better and have way more support. Defenders main tool is no longer ball winning, but pressure. Defenders have got so good now at closing down time and space, without committing themselves. A lot of the time, defenders would be happy for the attacker to dribble or even pass, as long as it's down the channels they've forced them down to. It's not about ball-winning, but channeling the attack, and minimizing threat.

There's also less payoff to dribbling, due to superior defensive coverage and rotation. Defense has become much more coordinated, which makes individual plays less rewarding, which forces attacks to become more coordinated. A great dribbler can't break down a defense consistently anymore. Even 5 dribblers can't do it. 5 great pass-and-move players, however, is extremely dangerous.

The best attackers looked individually better back then because defenders simply did not know how to handle them. Defenders and defenses are very good at stopping individual plays now.

However, with the rise of super teams, it is clear the defense simply hasn't caught up with super attacking units. Defenses have become so good at stopping individual brilliance, but they still got some work to do to combat collective brilliance. Players who are lucky enough to be part of these super teams have a very distinct advantage.

 

Well my "theory" is based on actual sources: Valverde wants Messi to be more of a goal scorer, than a playmaker---a false nine, as opposed to the playmaker at the heart of Luis Enrique's MSN.

Moreover: Messi playing "deeply" doesn't actually mean that Suarez is playing as a traditional number nine (nor does it mean, for that matter, that Suarez will get a lot of easy chances), assuming that Messi is the reported false nine of the team---which would, and reportedly is, having a notable negative consequence on Suarez's influence as a traditional number nine. A number nine playing in the same team as a false nine, will not score as many goals as Suarez was scoring with Luis Enrique's MSN.

And again: without Neymar, Suarez is simply not going to score as many EASY tap ins.

Strikers, especially great strikers who play in great clubs, will tend to miss 9 big chances out of every 9 games played. I haven't been following La Liga so far this season, so I don't know the type of chances that Suarez has failed to score, but I doubt he has failed to score the EASY tap ins that Messi-Neymar served to him on a consistent basis. Without Neymar, and with Messi as the official false nine of the team---Suarez will simply not get anywhere near as many EASY tap ins as he was getting with Luis Enrique's MSN strategy.

Can't comment on the so-called "easy tap ins" as I haven't been watching La Liga this season, but if Valverde is (as has been reported by many sources) intent on making Messi the false nine of the team, then Suarez will definitely score less goals, and it will primarily be a tactical consequence, regardless of Suarez's form (assuming he eventually improves on his current drop in form). Barcelona 2010-11 had a more balanced concentration of goals scored per player than Barcelona 2011-12, because Barcelona 2010-11 did not have Messi as the false nine that he exclusive became in 2011-12. Valverde's tactical approach is (according to all the sources I've read) based on exactly that---making Messi more of a goal scorer who can occasionally assist, as opposed to a modern playmaker who can score as many goals as he creates for others. And if that is indeed Valverde's tactical premise, then you can rest assured that Luis Suarez will score around 10-15 goals less than what is usual for him, regardless of Luis Suarez's actual form.

You must be quite young to be so arrogant as to think that I'm gullible or ignorant enough to not understand relativity as it pertains to eras---of course, my point explicitly was that THIS ERA is by far less balanced than the era Hugo Sanchez played in. In other words: the argument does not apply to anyone in history, simply because history was essentially never as imbalanced as the post-2012 era. Again: this will become obvious with the passing of time---we will see other Cristiano Ronaldo type goal scorers.

I'm not denying their accomplishment, I'm merely making proportionate sense of them. (You might see this as "discrediting" them, but discrediting and denying are entirely different things.) For example: the fact that Gonzalo Higuaín could've RATHER EASILY been a 22 goals-per-league-season-player for at the very least 3 consecutive years had he played in a Ronaldo-less Real Madrid... What does that say about Real Madrid's superiority compared to the rest of the clubs?? Messi's accomplishment is more difficult to criticize (or discredit) from my point of view, because Messi is not only extremely high scoring, but he also is the most prolific dribbler of all time, and he also played in the same team as other prolific goal scorers (meaning that Messi could score lots of goals, without necessarily massively downgrading the amount of goals that Luis Suarez could score, for example). With Cristiano Ronaldo, I see an overrated dribbler (let's face it, he was already an overrated dribbler as early as in 2010, let alone the post-2010 period which accounts for the majority of his career) who scored a lot of goals but a lot of goals at the direct expense of other players scoring much less goals than they normally would.

The flaw in Cristiano Ronaldo's game is clear and easy to criticize: goals scorers who play in the same team as him, for some reason just don't ever seem to be truly prolific. Not to mention that he's very lucky to have won as many trophies as he has; including the 2008 Champions League on penalty kicks and after having missed his penalty kick; the 2014 Champions League after Sergio Ramos scored a 90th minute equalizer to take the game into extra-time; the 2016 Champions League on penalty kicks again; the Euro 2016 where he didn't even played the final; etc. Take LUCK out of Cristiano Ronaldo's equation, and what are you left with? A prolific goal scorer who required so many shots-per-game, that the strikers in his own team were reduced to a peasant-like status that made it impossible for them to be truly prolific.

 

It is rather time-consuming, but I think the data is there if anyone cares to look for it. Higuaín 2009-10 is one such reference. Another interesting reference is Benzema's goal scoring record vs. Barcelona in La Liga games, that is, in games where Real Madrid cares more about winning by any means necessary, than about creating chances for Ronaldo---hence why Benzema's open-play record is measurably better than Ronaldo's. Of course, Benzema's goal scoring ability goes away in the other games, because in the other games, Real Madrid's superiority is so great that they can afford to care more about Ronaldo scoring the goals, than about actually scoring the goals.

 

That is more or less, in essence, what I was talking about before: intelligent players do better in this day and age, because football is more intelligent in this day and age. In the past, you had super-athletes like Frank Rijkaard or Fernando Redondo playing midfield roles. In the modern age, we have seen a measurable increase of lesser-athletes like Sergio Busquets, Andrea Pirlo, Xavi Hernandez, Luka Modric, etcetera, find more success in the midfield than they would've back in the early 1990s. Smaller midfielders whom are relatively or deceptively quick in short sprints, are a lot more efficient today imo.

My two cents: From 1990 all the way to 2017, dribbling ability has never really been a consistent ability---spectacular, but never consistent nor efficient. I think defenders in the 1990s had already largely learned how to deal with dribbling threats, quite efficiently, and which was arguably further made easier by the fact that they could hack without so much as a yellow card.

In other words: what Di Maria did in 2014 and what Robben did in 2012 is arguably exactly as efficient as Luis Figo in the late 1990s, or Laudrup in the early 1990s, etc. Dribbling looks great on the good old youtube screen, but it never has been an efficient ability in my view. Messi is one of the few dribblers to do it at such a consistent level that it's difficult to say that it's not efficient, but even with Messi, you see that his dribbling ability couldn't work out neither Chelsea 2009 nor Chelsea 2012 nor Inter 2010 nor Atletico Madrid 2014 nor Atletico Madrid 2016, etc. The same thing would've probably happened in the 1990s---see how "the real Ronaldo" looked when he tried to dribble through the top clubs of his time (very similar to how Messi looked when he tried to dribble through the top clubs of his time).

 

Why do you mean tend to miss a chance per game? Haven't i just pulled you out stats that show how Suarez evidently misses more this season than he did last?
It's the same source, so it doesn't matter how "easy" those chances are. Last season he missed ONLY 20 of them in 35 matches, which is significantly less than 9 in 9 matches. If he continued to miss just as much as last season he would have scored 8 goals in 9 matches so far in league instead of 5, which is at similar level he has been at Barcelona since day one.
So all that talk what Valverde said or not is just that, "talk". Those stats are pretty straight forward. Suarez is slightly out of form, if he weren't he would have scored just as much as he usually does.

Btw, it has been said by many oldsters in the club that Messi has never been playing as deep as he does now, so it's not like 2012 Barcelona under Pep. (That's if we are going to talk about "talks". Messi is in completely new role atm.)

I get all of that, i've been saying that for years as a major argument to why Cristiano is not quite on the level of Maradona, Pele (etc.) despite historical numbers and achievments., but, let me be clear about it, no player other than Ronaldo (or Messi) of this era, would manage to do what they have been doing if they had the same benefits. It's not just about having one exceptional season like Higuain in 2016, Suarez in 2016 and getting close to their stats, but doing it season in, season out for so many years.
There are some that would get close, but nobody quite like them.

poetgooner beautifully said:

Things like that are obvious to us right now. You should never rush at the best dribblers because they will make you look stupid,. and things like that, but they didn't know different back then. You confirm that by a quick glance over past matches. It makes it, at times, unbearable to watch.

There is disaprity because not everyone is talented enough, nor physically suitable to football as much, not everyone works equally as hard, not everyone is determined as much, ambitious as much, inteligent as much,... basically, people are different on more fundamental levels, which are personality and phyiscal attributes, resulting in a spectrum of footballers. From bad to good.
So, now, you have bunch of footballers of different qualities. The best ones tend to play with the best ones in the best teams and the average ones tend to play with the average ones in the average teams and the bad ones with the bad ones in bad teams. That's common sense..
Hence the disparity.

Analogy would be something like wondering why all students are not equally successful despite having access to the same amount of information... well, they are different. It's simple as that. Not everyone uses information as well. Muller might not be technically amazing, nor physically great, but he is an inteligent, hard working human being, which still is something that some people don't have.

Having that said, i predict disaprity will get even bigger with time if FIFA doesn't introduces something like salary cap.
If everyone is interested why that is happening. It's pareto distribution. Something that is nature of business and it's hard to fight against (the point is that nothing was done wrong by FIFA. It would happen regardless of their actions):

 

Think the best and most concrete example of this 'accumulated knowledge' (and your post containing the 4-3-3 video) are 'the moves'. Even more so than the ying and yang between the 'tactics'.

Some - more than a couple - foreign trainers and coaches have said: "That’s the only move they’ve named after Johan Cruyff. If they named all the moves after him that should be named after him, kids would just get confused." (or something else with the same message).

If you see him play you easily recognize (effective) moves such as the 'croqueta' (vs England), the Ribery/McGeady spin (vs Seattle Sounders I'm sure of right now, but also against better teams surely) and even the very same 'Bergkamp Newcastle' spin against Austria (except that a stretched leg from a defender prevented him from shooting this time). One might think of the two-footed dribbling against Sweden too.

Many have fleeted the word 'invented' around, but that is not the best and right term. Also his own words "I never did tricks, it was just the shortest way to goal and a chance" often confused people and placed people on the wrong track.

The best terms to use, in my view, are that he (helped to) conceptualize the moves, perfected it further, had the off-field intelligence to collaborate with people, and because he was a good player it was a major boost behind continental popularization. Zagallo in Placar talked about such things.

Also the famous works of Wiel Coerver (later explicitly used for perfecting Cristiano Ronaldo at ManUnited; cf. Queiroz and Meulensteen) are a data point here. There is a direct link between Coerver and the famous number 14 (not the least Coerver's studying of the player).

It is not a coincidence that both figures had continuously a problematic relationship with the FA, and were always held back.

edit: Horst Wein also an interesting one in this context (author of the textbook on youth development the RFEF, Spanish FA, has been using since 1993 as manual)

http://www.horstwein.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMP-Interview.pdf
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wein

 

I dont know, this thread's creator, his argument is that since conditions were worse in the 50s and 60s, Pele would now scored goals by the thousands and thus dwarf the achievements of the likes of Messi and Cronaldo. The counter argument made is that though pitches, equipement and medicine was without a doubt worse back then than now, scoring does not happen more often as it "should" be the case if we only think of that. Truth is that despite the undeniable improvement of conditions socring happens less often in recent times than back then. So something else has changed as well alongside the improvement of the conditions that made scoring harder over time. I dont see why this counter argument would "work" only if had taken place in a steady linear manner. Tactical evolution happens in both ends of the pitch.
I think it is unreasonable to say Pele would score more today than in the 50s and 60s. Reasonable imo would be to say he would have scored a lot today as well, but not as much as he did in the 50s and 60s. And he would have scored less in the 80s than today too. Find that unreasonable?

 

That sounds reasonable. I wouldn't say Pelé would score more goals today, either.