I'd say, what seperates the classic football from the 60's (-/+ 30 years) from the football we know today (90's+), is the condition of the balls. Did the classic Brazilian freekick experts have better or worse conditions to their freekicks than for example Juninho, probably the best current freekicker? The old balls seemed very light. But considering the players' conditions for shooting freekicks - who is the all-time best?
How many times has this topic come up? Might aswell resurrect htis thread. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7824831#post7824831
Keepers in the 60s generally sucked compared to the last 10 years too. And the walls have gotten wider and taller I'm pretty sure the ball has been about the same weight for nearly a century. There is this widespread myth that the ball is lighter today though. The ball design may help or hinder... not sure which. WOuld be cool if some great free kick takers would compare old designs to the new balls, and see what their comments were.
I would have thought that heavier balls would be easier to control because you could hit them harder for more spin without putting it in row z.
I have also read in some newspaper some years back that previous balls were easy to control than the balls used after 90 or so.
Depends on the material of the ball. If its pure leather, then its going to be very hard to get some life on the ball anyway. You wouldnt be seeing as many 30 yard bombs with heavy leather balls. But a ball made of this material (in which the name slips my mind now) and pumped to a certain standard, you wont need to put that much power, Has anyone heard the folk lure story about Pele and how he took a freekick in which hit the crossbar on a free kick, then told said that the mearsurments of the goal post were wrong, so when they measured it, he was right? Just a story I was told when I was a kid.
For example, Haan's 40 yard (or something extreme like that) goal in 1978 (I think?) It doesn't seem like a hard kick but the ball is moving very fast, and that could indicate that the balls were very light.
Older balls were not easier to strike. As one who has owned an Addidas Telstar, Tango, Predator, Fernova, and now plays with a guy who owns a Roteiro, I can tell you without equivocation that today's balls are easier to hit - they are truer to distance, velocity and ability to impart spin. In fact the movement that you can put on the ball is ridiculous, even as a marginal ball striker. As I've gotten older all of my soccer skills have deteriorated considerably, except for my deadball strikes. The modern day ball is more forgiving. I remember the Telstar ball would feel like a medicine ball when it got wet. These new synthetic balls retain almost perfect weight and shape in inclimate weather. Plus, the panels and stitching process today makes the balls almost perfectly round. Plus, the manufacturing of these balls is much more consistent. Interchanging balls from game to game, or within the same game is easier on good ball strikers who value predictability. One can only imagine what the likes of Puskas and Didi would have conjured with a Roteiro.
If this is the same Juninho that plays in Lyon, yes, he's one of the best ever. He has about 30 free kicks for Lyon. a lot of them from around the 30 meters. One of his last ones was from 38 meters !
Juninho Pernambucano developed his deadball ability by studying the techniques of the master Arthur Antunes Coimbra.
To me it has to be Gianfrano Zola. At Parma there was a time where his ratio of freekick goals was one goal to every three free kicks.
It's hard to decide the "best ever" in anything, particularly when there are so many good choices. Let me put in a word for Roberto Rivelino though. In activity today, there are several excellent FK takers that haven't been mentioned: Two of my favorites are Alex de Sousa and Rivaldo.
Yes it was against Ajaccio. Actually i just saw it was from 41 m ! Here it is And here you have some other of his free kicks : http://www.forum-foot.info/vt235.foot
In the 50s and 60s the leather balls were heavier, especially when it rained as the leather absorbed some of the moisture, making it significantly heavier. As a result, it was harder to bend a dead ball (as distinct from a moving ball), and the ball never really moved in the air - unlike today where a shot can change direction twice, hence more goalkeepers punching these fays rather than catching. It's also why a significant number of players from that era, especially defenders and strikers, have had the same sorts of brain disorders that you find in boxers in later like, because heading a wet leather ball direct from a goalkeepers lick downfield, was not dissimilar to being hit. You've also got to bear on mind that in the 50s and 60s the pitches were rubbish compaerd to nowadays with players often playing on mud rather than grass - and the mud only added to the weight of the ball - again being absorbed.
Thanks You don't consider Juninho as a hard kicker, but this one doesn't go higher than the bar... The only thing I've seen that looks like this is Oleksandr Aliev's goal for the Ukrainian U20 team against Turkey But I can't find any video of it
Bloody hell - he passed it down the middle of the pitch and into the middle of the goal. What was the keeper doing ???
LOL the balls just goes too fast. Juninho gives a little lift to his shots, so the ball dives down very fast the last meter. Porato (Ajaccio's goal) is'nt the first goal that looks a little ridiculos.