Just now, measure, manner. The Webster uses those 3 expressions to describe the Latin origins of the word modern. ‘Modern’ relates not only to ‘contemporaneity’, but also to what’s in fashion. Not by chance the word for ‘fashion’ in Spanish and Portuguese is moda. The expression ‘modern football’ is commonly and widely used in Forums in those 2 meanings. What in general reflects the opinion of the dominant generation on those boards. For instance, if the average age in this Forum is around 16, there will be a natural tendency to consider as ‘modern football’ something that started at the most 8 years ago (when most of the participants of that Forum started to have some understanding of football). Coincidently or not, 8 years is more or less the average ‘life span’ of a pro football player. Besides, it’s been 8 years already since the beginning of the millenium (and 2 World Cups, 8 CWCs, 5 Euro Cups, 8 Copa Américas, 8 CLs, 8 Libertadores, besides important domestic championships have already been played). They (the 16-year-olders) - understandably - won’t have much condescendence in considering ‘modern’ (in the sense of ‘contemporary’) the next past generation (grosso modo, 1990-1999) ‘something’ that started (arghh!) in the last century (XXth century, 2nd millenium)!... Compare for instant the pace with which football was played in ‘longinquous’ 1990 - and now in 2008. And what was a solely chronologic argument becomes also a technically cumulative one (‘more pace’... ). We are in the XXIth century, they’ll say – 3rd millennium - and, let’s convene, they are not totally deprived of reason. Nowadays a sufficiently clever 16-year old knows already quite a lot about football to be able to debate (and/or play) with anybody. However, the closest ‘past’ generation (the one that started watching football 16-18 years ago, + or - from 1990 on), won't agree: And here we have introduced another criterion - a predominantly technical (non-chronological, non-cumulative) one. On the other hand, though, the next past generation (80-89) will also feel in the right to protest: If we go back immediately further in time though (70-78), those generations on their turn will more than righteously also protest: And the 60s-70s: And so on. I myself am suspicious to say anything since I belong to that immediately post-50 generation, and the 1st World Cup I followed entirely was the 1958 one, when I was eleven. And, coincidently or not, in my opinion, it was in that ‘longinquous’ 1958 World Cup that in fact modern football was born - not only because it inserted once and for all the crucial SA x Europe rivalry in the context of contemporary discussion, bringing to the football fields of the world a never seen before conception of football, but also, and as important as: - it brought to the table the immense contribution to all fundaments of football (technical, tactical an physical, including…pace) put forward by the until then absolutely ignored…black player. That's just my modest opinion. In YOURS, though: When did ‘modern football’ start?...
Andrade I of Uruguay was hailed as the best player in football already in the 1920s due to his performances in the Olympic football tournament. Andrade II was considered one of the finest players of his time in the early 1950s. Both of them were black players.
In history the modern period started in 1500. In football it commonly refers to either post WW2 or the period since about 1990 (ie the beginnings of some of contemporary football's oldest players).
I think 1994 was a big year... - Rule changes the banning of the backpass to the keeper + changes in the offside rule helped end the stale, conservative football of the later 80s/early 90s. - Referees cracked down on discipline enormously. Yellow and red cards began to be handed out a lot more liberally. 'Professional fouls' and tackling from behind merited automatic red cards. - the creation of the premiership in England - multi-million dollar transfers becoming the norm, influx of foreigners into the various leagues, etc. - that years world cup saw every confederation; UEFA, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC represented in the knockout stages of the world cup - the first time that were to happen. - Also a lot of new technologies in the balls and boots started to be invented to enhance the games newly acquired attacking flavor. Other events soon followed, such as the creation of the champions league. MLS + J-league were soon opened, bringing (aging) football stars to unexpected destinations of the globe. I don't know - maybe it's just my age (29), but I think 'modern' football as we know of it sort of began around the early 90s with world cup 1994 being a key point. The big stars around that time were Romario, Stoichkov, Baggio, Bergkamp, Maldini, Weah, Shearer, etc. Some players, such as Ronaldo, Henrik Larsson, etc. were just starting their career then and are still playing now too.
Both the pass-back rule and the Premiership began in 1992. I'd actually say that modern football began with the change to the off-side rule in the mid 1920s. Not many massive changes have happened since then.
I am more into things driven by market and technology rather than the game itself. I voted the World Cup 1970 because that televison gave the game a much better appeal. The 1966 Finals was actually the first live broadcast of the Finals, but the 1970 Finals reached a much larger audience. The game became much more global. Furthermore, it was the first World Cup in color. the appeal of game was helped by Pele and the "boys from Brazil" with their sexy football. Of course, many people viewed the 1970's as an interesting era for many other things in life. I also agreed the 1990's was an interesting era. The Bosman ruling changed European football forever. The wages of professional football also skyrocketed somewhere around the mid-1990's.
Yeah the Bosman ruling was another episode that happened during that time period - good catch. Also the liberal work permit issues that the EU has brought. We live in a day and age now where club teams could easily defeat their national teams thanks to all the foreigners. Would the English national team, if they were playing in the EPL - even qualify for the champions league at the end of the season? Or Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, France even? This has to be a big change brought in by the 90s. Also the lackadaisical approach many clubs take to their domestic cups (FA cup, league cup) as opposed to international cup competitions (champions league) is another change. The banishing of the 4-foreigners maximum rule in both domestic and European club competition is another rule change that took place in the mid-90s that changed the way we look at football.
I think there is a big difference between being a 'big year' and the date that marked the start a whole new era. 1994 was considered technically poor, specially if we take the WC (& in spite of Brz victory). How about the 3-point per victory rule as an incentive to the attacks? Just escapes me the date in which's been instaured.
There have been no major rule changes, but almost every major shift in tactics has occured since then. Although you could argue that tactical developments are what defines the modern game.
And Friendereich in the 20s and Leônidas da Silva in 1938 too. But they were exceptions. Only after 1958 that presence started being massive.
WC 94 was the first major international tournament to use this. Euro 92 and Barca olympics that same year used the two point system. But the English leagues had been using it for sometime. There was a lot of cynasim when it was originally implemented internationally by FIFA and UEFA but it's turned out to be a very welcoming change. There was a huge distinction in the style of football played between WCs 1990 and 94 - that's why I mentioned this time period as maybe being the beginning of 'modern football' - brought on by changes such as these.
?? I don't get many of your posts to be honst, but the idea that the widespread introduction of black players marked the beginning of the modern era is bizzare even for you. The validity of it is highly dubious as well, given that a succession of top class black players had played the game since the 20s. A number of the biggest tactical changes directly fell out of that change. The third back, the use of full-backs rather than wing-halves to mark wingers, the withdrawn inside forward all fell out of the change in the rules. That rule change marked the biggest single shift in tactics in the history of the game.
Depends where. Maybe Excape Goat refers to Hong Kong or Asia in general. In Brazil the 1st World Cup ever broadcasted on TV was exactly (!) the 1970 one. And, still, the vast majority didn't have colour TV sets yet (way + expensive then). Up to 1966 all WCs were broadcasted on radio to Brazil . Anyway, if Pelé, since 1958, were not already universally considered The King (a 12-year span!) people would hurry to say he was a product of the media ... Extensive international TV broadcasting in Europe (I imagine) also must have only started in the mid 60s. That's probably why direct live international confrontations between SA and Europe were so much wellcome at that time. The excursions of the big SA Euro teams to each other continents - although technically friendlies - assumed the contours of very serious competition. As examples the famous clashes in the late 50s between Puskas' Honved x Evaristo's Flamengo and Di Stéfano's Real Madrid vs Pingga's Vasco (late 50s/early 60s) in Maracanã Stadium in Rio, besides the Pelé's Santos and Garrincha's Botafogo annual European tournées (whole 60s). Wished we could have tapes (or at least films) of those former classical games, most of them in part or totally lost in time. Blacks & whites then were just starting to confront each other, and (not necessarilly racially but mostly technique wise) to...mingle. This highly competitive interaction is what in my opinion starts shaping modern football. Compare France 1958: ...to France 2008: 6 black, 1 Eurafrican, 2 Eurasian, 2 White That’s even ‘blacker’ than Brazil 58! (lol) …
The answer to that post is right above your own. In it I respond to Gregoriak, who says: To what I add: The 3 pictures above are highly illustrative. PS: Yes, there was in the 30/40s 'a succession of top black players', BUT NOT IN EUROPE: most of them were confined to the limits of the SA territory. There was no atmosphere for them in the 30s/40s/early 50s Old World - racism was even more blatant than nowadays. It was precisely at that time that your continent started getting under Nazi ideologic domination, forgot? ... European reconnaissance just came after the definitive invasion (& conquest) of its territory by Black Football from the 1958 WC on ...
For a large number of those countries the lack of black players in teams can but put squarely down to an extreme lack of black people in those countries back then. It's got nothing to do with racism. In the UK, immigration didn't really get going until the 1950s. It's kind of ridiculous to expect teams to be full of black players in an era when just seeing a black person would cause people to stop in the street in wonder in many places. Of course I'm sure you'd rather believe that unless you were a chap back then with a good old English name like Arthur Wharton, you'd never have been allowed to play, let alone turn professional.
So the arrival of black players marked the beginning of modern football? And what was their unique contribution perchance?
[kingkong logic]No Richard, we were being racist. So what if there were no black people in England at the time. We should have brought them over and forced them to play for our football team, as we would have done in the good old colonial days. The large number of black players in the current England side, given the small number of black people in Britain is only further proof of our hidden racism. [kingkong logic]
To start: Nobody ever demanded in this thread that in the 30s/40s in Europe teams were ‘full of black players’… If that didn’t even happen in South America… The ‘racial’ issue is not even either my main argument – and you’re trying to give the impression that my main point is to characterize blacks (racial & quantitavely) as the initiators of the modern game... You solemnly ignore what I stated in my immediately anterior post (#15) in relation to the late 50s on: Interaction… Mingling… That’s what I said!... C’mon guys, we know each other from other Carnivals… You don’t need to use those poor tactics just in order to win a argument... Be fair and don’t put in my mouth words/ideas I never said or implied!... It looks like the mere mention though of the word ‘racism’ makes you all get sensitive. Let’s take a look at a few other things I actually said – and you unfortunately tried to distort: That‘there was in the 30/40s a succession of top black players, BUT NOT IN EUROPE: most of them were confined to the limits of the SA territory’ is no novelty at all. That’s simply a geographic and historical fatality – and as such was presented by me. You wanted to pass though the false impression that that ‘succession of top black players’ was in the 30s/40s widely recognized in Europe, when – exactly because of that historical fatality – Europeans at the most could recognize their qualities upon their occasional participation (if they weren’t injured) from four to four years in World Cups – which by the way didn’t have any TV coverage yet. Remembering always that in 42 and 46 there didn’t even happen WCs because of the war… That ‘there was no atmosphere for them in the 30s/40s/early 50s Old World - racism was even more blatant than nowadays’ is not a novelty either. When I refer to ‘racism’ I refer to a historical and sociological fact derived from Europe’s colonialist heritage – and both – ‘colonialism’ and one of its natural consequences – ‘racism’ – are undeniable historical data that even the partidaries of those concepts will accept as sheer fact. And, OF COURSE, please Comme and RichardL, with that I’m not saying that you are ‘colonialists’ or ‘racists’ just because you’re European!!!… That same ‘racism’ and ‘colonialism’ existed (and exists) in SA as well, many times in the form of a complex of inferiority and glorification of European athletes & values. Wealthy Rio’s Fluminense mulatto players many times even used make-up in the 20’s in order to disguise their colour!... Racism from both parts, but specially in Europe (since it was the European countries that historically – from the great navigations of the XVIth century through the Industrial Revolution in the XIXth - promoted colonialism as an economic and political system that – psychologically – still subsists), naturally difficulted even more their full recognizal in Europe not only as the great athletes that they were but as the representatives of a new football as well. That ‘it was precisely at that time that your continent started getting under Nazi ideologic domination’ is not an absurdity either… Again, simply another historical fact. With that – breathe deeply, guys – I’m not implying though that your parents or grandfparents were Nazi or anything of the type just because they lived in those years… That ‘European reconnaissance just came after the definitive invasion (& conquest) of its territory by Black Football from the 1958 WC on...’ is simply another historical fact. And probably the one that hurts the most … 4-2-4? 4-3-3? Conscious offensive blitzkriegs?... Do those cold ‘formulae’ or ‘expressions’ mean anything to you?... The New Barbarians did come to stay and have their mark for good imprinted - not only in the flesh & but in the mind - of European football… Bear with it… Or love it.
I'm going to move on from these ramblings. I have no response to them as I simply cannot figure out what point you are trying to make. Hungary had already made the move to an informal 4-2-4 in the early 1950s, though the withdrawn position occupied by Zagallo was an innovation. Why was this single change the beginning of a new era?
OK, so what was the point you were trying to make when you said... Yes, it's historically accurate that there weren't black players in european teams in the 30s/40s, but what is the significance of racism in that fact? You implication seems very clear - that black players weren't allowed to play because of racism. Almost all of the black immigrants to europe in the era of large scale immigration came from areas that either didn't play football at all, or were from areas where the game was at a very much developing stage. They learned their football in europe. They didn't come over from Jamaica or Nigeria playing a new adventurous style of football never seen before over here. You may be quoting historical facts, but your grasp of cause & effect is about as much use as Helen Keller on a karaoke night.
Great post> So is shall put my two cents in I think "modern" futbol really could be said began in the mid to late 60's. Just the changes in tactics, globalisation and later into the 70's and 80's the equipment, physical training and economical factors. So for me the late sixties was a time of marked changes from formations like the 4-2-4 or the W formation of earlier years, to the anti-football and more defencive tactics all of wich make for a more complete and tactically advanced game we see today. The tinkering with ideas like wingbacks, full backs, libero's, sweepers, the number ten playmaker, the true number nine striker, the supporting striker, the defensive midfeilder, stopper,all tactical advances and adaptation to make the game now in my humble opinion more collectively advanced than the often over "mythed" "golden era".
Before Comme, RichardL and Viejo Matias keep fooling the readers of this thread with their conveniently manipulated information on the origins of the 4-2-4, let’s post the interesting article on the subject we find at the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(football) 4-2-4 The 4-2-4 Formation The 4-2-4 formation attempts to combine a strong attack with a strong defence, and was conceived as a reaction to WM's stiffness. It could also be considered a further development of the WW. The 4-2-4 was the first formation to be described using numbers. While the initial developments leading to the 4-2-4 were devised by Márton Bukovi, the credit for creating the 4-2-4 lies with two different people:Flávio Costa, the Brazilian national coach in the early 1950s, as well as another Hungarian Béla Guttman. These tactics seemed to be developed independently, with the Brazilians discussing these ideas while the Hungarians seemed to be putting them into motion [4] [3] [5]. However the fully developed 4-2-4 was only 'perfected' in Brazil in the late 1950s. Costa published his ideas, the "diagonal system", in the Brazilian newspaper O Cruzeiro, using schematics as the ones used here and, for the first time ever, the formation description by numbers as used in this article [4]. The "diagonal system" was another precursor of the 4-2-4 and was created to spur improvisation in players. Guttman himself moved to Brazil later in the 1950s to help develop these tactical ideas using the experience of Hungarian coaches. The 4-2-4 formation made use of the increasing players skills and fitness, aiming to effectively use 6 defenders and 6 forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks. The 4th defender increased the number of defensive players but mostly allowed them to be closer together, thus enabling effective cooperation among them, the point being that a stronger defense would allow an even stronger attack. The relatively empty midfield relied on defenders that should now be able not only to steal the ball, but also hold it, pass it or even run with it and start an attack. So this formation required that all players, including defenders, are somehow skillful and with initiative, making it a perfect fit for the Brazilian player's mind. The 4-2-4 needed a high level of tactical awareness as having only 2 midfielders could lead to defensive problems. The system was also fluid enough to allow the formation to change throughout play. 4-2-4 was first used with success at club level in Brazil by Palmeiras and Santos, and was used by Brazil in their wins at 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup, both featuring Pelé, and Zagallo who played in the first and coached the second. The formation was quickly adopted throughout the world after the Brazilian success. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article very clearly shows the preeminence of Brazil in the creation of the system. Let’s remark that, as the article says, it was the 1st time that a football system was described in numbers – what remains until today. Another undisputable evidence that everything started there. Coincidently, the country that invented and implemented it in the world was full of black players. (I never established a causal relationship between the Brz black and the beginning of modern football, as by force RL and Comme prefer to put it). Please you or not, what can we do?... Modern footbal happened - and still happens - our way …
Wikipedia is now undisputable (sic)? Yet according to Wikipedia's article on Márton Bukovi: It was Bukovi, working at MTK with Péter Palotás and Nándor Hidegkuti, who developed the vital 4-2-4 formation, later adopted by national coach Gusztáv Sebes and exported to Brazil by Béla Guttmann. Which was of course exactly what I said when I previously commented that "Hungary had already made the move to an informal 4-2-4 in the early 1950s, though the withdrawn position occupied by Zagallo was an innovation." So remind me how I've attempted to manipulate information or fool people?