I was imprecise. Thank you for adding depth to it (although i disagree with few minor things which i am not going into because are off topics). But i purposely avoided that rabbit hole because it is indeed irrelevant. i wanted to make a simple and clear point. The reason why it is irrelevant has already been said by you. Football in 1960s is not perfect nor near perfect by any criteria so your points, by your own definitions, don't apply in the case of football in 60s. Or are you suggesting football has already reached its modern form in 60s? Let me remind you that this was revolutionary at one point: Nowadays that would be a suicide. Note this came after Pele's era, but before Cruyff even made his mark as a coach in Barcelona, which is a foundation for what is widely considered to be the best football team of all time. The evolution of tactics seamlessly follows that of nature. It is governed by the same principles. Where is the ending is debatable, but the difference in football of past 50 years is blatantly obvious. Worth saying is that athletes are not getting better as a result of evolution of humans as a species, but indirectly. As science on human's peak performance (look into things that red bull does or the studies on flow) is getting better and better, pro athletes are adjusting their diet, training methods, lifestyles in general to suit their professional needs. In the case of 100 meters the track has improved as well as running shoes, which probably adds up to few 0.01s. Also, with fancy technology today, athletes are able to optimize their running technique to get few extra 0.01s. Also worth nothing is the era of drug use in all sports at the end of the last century. So difference in the last 30 years of 100 meters is slightly bigger than records might suggest. All in all, science managed to lower record from roughly high 9:80s (like 9:87) to 9.70 which is Tyson Gay's time. (Bolt is not really a referent point since he is clearly an exception to the rule likes of which has never been seen before in the sport). Gay or Gatlin are very much not superior athletes to Johnson or Lewis 20 years before them. But really, that is out of the point. This is exactly what i wanted to avoid, anyhow..
Addressing one at a time. 1. The margins improvement is small indeed among humans, but in a game as complex as football, it adds up into a huge difference. For example, lets say a footballer in the 60s can sprint 10-yards 100 times in 90 min. Let's imagine we send someone from today back to the 50s, and the only physical advantage he has over the 1960s player is that he can sprint 10-yards 110 times (10% improvement in 50 years). In a game such as football, to have 10 instances where say a winger can out-sprint a fullback due to superior stamina, is a significant advantage. That's possibly 10 times he can beat a fullback and put in a cross. Now imagine if the average player today was only 10% better athletically than the average 1950s player (it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were much more than that) in EVERY athletic aspect. Now compound that by 11 players. The difference becomes huge. 2. Sporting ability indeed does not transfer, but coaching knowledge does. For the average player, volume dictates abilities. The average player today, by the time they're 25 year old, will have had thousands of extra hours of better coaching methods than the average player from the 1950s. This is all due to professionalization of the sports. That adds up into a huge improvement in abilities for the average players. And this is not just individual coaching. A professional team today will have enjoyed the same advantage. What 11 professionals can do together today, with all their coaching and tactical understanding, is far superior what even the best teams of 1950s can imagine. ---------------------------------------------------------------- You see these advantages in other sports as well, by the way. Look at how much more athletic the average NBA player is today. Look at how much more skilled. Even in the 1990s, John Stockton, one of the best in the league, didn't have the skills that a "good" point guard of today would, let alone a Kyrie Irving or Russel Westbrook or Steph Curry. Or think of UFC. what started off as combat of specialists have now evolved into combat of fighters who must have skills in every type of combat (punching, kicking, grappling, etc).
It is insanely obvious how far superior todays football is even to football that wasn't that long ago like 1982 world cup final: Look at view from 0:42 to 0:51. There are 5 Germans literally standing at the centre watching what is happening in defense. It was 69th minute, 1-0 score, WC FINAL. Brazilian league in 60s is presumably far worse than this. Only 30 years ago this was happening: LOL
really? That for full 20 seconds 5 players in 69th minute with scoreline 1-0 in the most important game of their careers decide not to track back at all. You have access to all the major finals and semi finals for past 15 years, ucl, wc, Euro, copa, wahtever, find one example.
I remember Barca of 06/07 getting heavy criticism for leaving Messi, Eto'o, Ronaldinho upfront during set pieces and counter attacks. That's over a decade ago. Right now Barca fans are mad that Suarez and Messi don't track back. An instance of 5 players more or less completely out of the defensive phase in such a play would be slaughtered by pundits, you won't even remember the goal itself but the defensive (lack of) effort and structure.
Sometimes I lose track of exactly what it is that people are arguing on here. Is the argument that the overall standard has not improved? That attacking has become easier? That players of the past would be more dominant than those of today? In any argument about progress in football I think it's worth stepping back to reflect the significant changes we have seen in diet, recuperation, medicine, tactics, coaching, scouting etc over the course of the game's history. In respect of any of these points, did they make a difference in terms of the overall standard? If we accept that there has been some 'progress' made over the last 150 years, when did it stop and why?
This sounds like an attempt to discredit contrary opinions (as you yourself have been one of the greatest proponents of this idea, of permanent improving) through the adoption of a contemptuous attitude. How can you ask these questions when, on this very page, we have someone claiming that "It is insanely obvious how far superior todays football is even to football that wasn't that long ago like 1982 world cup final"? Nobody, for instance, claimed that "players of the past would be more dominant than those of today" automatically, so why are you even making this strawman? As to what "I" personally argue, there are 2 things: 1. First and foremost, I deeply dislike arguments of the sort "It is insanely obvious that...", as they are most often based on conclusions drawn from visual perception and, historically, this kind of arguments have often been used to push forward flawed theories. "The Earth is flat" was based on the exact same of reasoning, that it was also "insanely obvious", based on the primitive man's visual perception of the Earth as a flat surface. 2. I would argue that linear improvement is impossible, in any field, because, at one point, you'd run into physical and biological limits. Fine. I remember old posts of yours where you have insisted that people kept getting better and will continue to do so. Have you seriously reflected on the implications of your belief? Taken to its extreme, it will result that, at one point, people will achieve negative record times, reaching the finish line before the clock started. About "stepping back and reflecting", ok. Here are the main factors which can influence the athletic performance of a footballer: 1. Sprinting past an opponents/running over short distance: reaction time and fast muscle fiber. 2. Endurance: slow muscle fibres and aerobic capacity. 3. Jumping: tendon stress limits. The biggest limiter is reaction time, which is dependent on the neurovegetative system, and has a much smaller margin of improvement compared to muscular power and aerobic capacity. That is because the nervous system can't transmit an electric impulse faster, therefore there is little potential of improvement through training here. Muscular power and tendon stress limits are in-between and only aerobic capacity can be substantially increased with training. The biggest improvement occurred between the 40s and mid60s, when the professionalization of most sports took place. Afterwards, it slowed down and in the late 80s and early 90s, the improving curve flattened out, as natural limits started to be hit. I remember you also asked in the past why clubs invest so much in training if no improvement is possible anymore. This objection would be valid if 2 conditions were met: sporting abilities were transmissible from one generation to another and the clubs would compete against past records. Neither is true. First, sporting abilities are not inheritable and each individual starts from scratch, therefore the best training available is provided in order for a specific sportsman to reach the level necessary to compete professionally and, eventually, to maximize his potential (whatever that might be). Second, clubs are not competing against past records, but against other contemporary clubs and their players. What interests a club, first and foremost, is not the absolute improvement of their players, but their improvement relative to the rival clubs' players. Simply put, Messi's interest (and Barca's) is not to beat Pele, but to beat Real Madrid.
Not a contemptuous attitude or a strawman. What I find is that often threads take various tangents from the starting place and meander in such a way that it is difficult to work out precisely what the point of contention. So not contemptuous at all, but questioning. That's understandable but the counter arguments are often also based on visual assertions as well. You have yourself made many assertions previously which are clearly subjective. I don't think anyone has (to my knowledge) necessarily been suggesting there has been 'linear progression' or that there is inexhaustible capacity for improvement. However, I think it's possible to hold a position which would suggest that progress is still ready to be made, whether that be physical, technical or tactical. And which we have seen improve: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-much-football-has-changed.1687646/page-2#post-33137012 So even if we accept (unlikely but let's let it slide) that the increased gym work, the better diet, the more focused training has done nothing to improve players' strength or speed, we can see that their endurance has improved significantly (30% in 40 years). Bear in mind that running was one of the few things footballers in the 70s in England did do as an integral part of training. That was basically the entirety of pre-season and yet a marked a improvement has been made. Moreover, other studies in Puck's links show that the high intensity elements of the game have increased in particular. So is your contention that no progress has been made since the early 90s or simply that the progress has slowed? I don't have a particular problem with an idea of slowing progress but the idea there has been no progress in the last 25 years would be a struggle to me. Because while sports 'professionalised' in the 50s and 60s, it was from a very low base. Stories abound of rank unprofessionalism throughout English football in the 70s and 80s at a time when they were conquering all rivals at a club level. When Arsene Wenger arrived at Arsenal he was considered to have revolutionized the club, a team who had won two league titles just a few years earlier, by getting them to eat pasta and not go out drinking regularly. But if all these innovations make no difference, why bother? If Real Madrid and Barcelona are equal, the 'improvements' must make things better otherwise they wouldn't do them. If one improves and the other doesn't then it gives them an edge. In all of this it's clear that humans have not evolved in the last 50 years. They aren't intrinsically better, but they have benefitted from various improvements which have lifted the overall level of the game. If the raw materials (humans) are just as capable now as they ever were, then better training, diet, medicine, tactics etc should make them better. If they all improve then the standard will improve. Your focus on the limits of human endurance, speed, stamina etc are only one part of the game. In a 100m race, there is no scope for tactics or technical ability. It's about raw physicality, honed by subject-specific training. Football isn't like that at all. It's about the interaction between 11 players and 11 opponents. There are countless improvements that can be made, technically, tactically, psychologically. That means that there is far more room for ongoing progress than in something with a more specific and single outcome.
Have a look at the marking by Inter on Günter Netzer in 1971 (sorry for the low-quality but Facebook was the only platform I was allowed to upload snippets from that DVD). https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=174016889399025 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=174018729398841 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=174021522731895 Particularly remarkable in that last scene, Netzer gets fouled in midfield directly in front of the referee and the ref gives a freekick to Inter .... imagine the social media outrage if such calls were given against Messi ....
The typical modernist approach to such debates, which they will always descend to after a certain while is "let's post a youtube video from an old game with defensive mistakes and use it as an argument". As has been pointed out in here, such mistakes are still happening today and my god every weekend when I watch Bundesliga highlights I see soooo many defensive mistakes being made regularly! So often players are found unmarked in the penalty box with defenders 4-5 meters or more away from them. Apart from that, if you put Barcelona of today to the 1970s and let them play a league game under 1970s conditions against a good Spanish club side, then I am absolutely confident the score will not look anything like modernists in their unfounded arrogance would imagine. The lenient refereeing alone would assure the modern players a very cautious approach after a few minutes, the passing game would not only be constantly interrupted by uncalled fouls but also by pitches in a terrible state. No custom-made gear and 1970s balls would further decrease the comfort-zone level they find in today's game. Plus, less tactical mistakes than today because tactics were simpler and more efficiently applied than today's sophisticated yet taxing-on-the-mind tactis. Have a look at goals averages in 1970s Spanish football (pretty low) compared to today's goal averages (fairly high historically). The sophistication of modern defensive tactics actually makes it more likely that mistakes are being made the longer the game goes on as concentration level naturally lowers with increased physical exhaustion.
That's a fair point with regards to cherry-picking. And it is right that equally bad examples, even if not exactly similar can be found to this day. Brazil-Germany (2014), Liverpool-Barcelona (2019) have several examples and these are matches at the perceived highest level. They could well be exceptions to the rule, but so too could the examples of older matches. A bit of confirmation bias on my part I guess, as a modernist.
Surely no football follower has ever called himself a 'modernist', a traditionalist or whatever, or see themselves in such dichotomous terms. It is a fabricated term, a pseudo-professor term that shouldn't get any traction or following. But sadly because of consistent repetition by one or two people it does. It is like phrases as 'cultural marxism', or to a lesser extent 'neoliberal', while in reality no such thing exists and no one sees himself as a cultural marxist. What does exist are circles and regions that struggle with modernity as a whole, but that says more about them (southern Germany, Poland, Hungary, parts of Italy) than the rest of the developed world. Accept the reality of progress. All the talk about factors in the past are distraction from the objective existence. Neither Cristiano Ronaldo (heart surgery at the age of 15) or Messi would have been pros had they grown up in the 1950s. The increase in literacy and education level had also its implications for footballers and athletes. Just one month left of the best decade in history. pic.twitter.com/XGg6mpLTNq— Johan Norberg (@johanknorberg) November 28, 2019
To expand on this (and repeating here what I've heard on the radio and the words of 'experts' I read); Cristiano Ronaldo had a racing heart condition. That almost definitely rules him out for (semi-)professional sport had he been born 50 years earlier. In fairness though, a strong heart and a strong heart capacity is especially beneficial for aerobic exercises and endurance sports, but still beneficial for making many quick sprints in a match (and football is an interval sport). https://www.health.harvard.edu/exercise-and-fitness/interval-training-for-a-stronger-heart Messi his therapy - for which he perhaps wouldn't qualify had he been born in Northern Europe (in terms of the required standard deviation) - not only makes someone stronger and taller, it also has a significantly strong impact on the neurological and psycho-motor development of a child, the nervous system and the hand eye coordination. Increasingly there are peer reviewed studies (just make a quick search for confirmation) coming out proving this thing. That also means players are independently of the boots, the fouling and the pitches at a higher motor performance level than previous generations. At the same time, I do believe not everything has improved, in particular for Europe, and therefore various governments and organizations have made efforts to make (talented) children more active. I think esp. the birth years ~1962 to ~1970 were stacked with skilled European players (ranging from Gasoigne to Baggio, Savicevic to Laudrup, Scifo to Vanenburg), with great first touch, adaptation and improvisation - to an extent and density we haven't seen since. Cruijff also said in 1998 Europe will possibly not see a football genius again in the (foreseeable) future and one might argue he was right (just as his early call Messi will win five to seven Ballon d'Ors). http://www.elbarca.dk/169554.htm
CR is not a genius at his craft? saying modernists and traditionalists is a made up fanciful term by arm chair experts is one thing but Who is anyone to define a set criteria for what constitutes as a genius and what doesn't As of 2019 you'd be hard pressed to find a single analyst worth his salt who doesn't consider CR a top 10 all timer What is a rough estimate on pro players in all leagues/nations since 1950 You telling me a guy who is unanimously considered in the top 1% isn't a genius Cruyff was a visionary but never had some crystal ball He got it wrong Cruyff said George Best was in the top 7-8 talented players Europe ever produced He also said CR at 22 years old was better than best ever was how do you interpret this
Not in the technical, intuitive and perceptive way it is traditionally understood. I also said: "one might argue". I didn't say it is a fact or is watertight. No one has this, but some have the experience, knowledge, intelligence and intuition to make tentative predictions. When? Where?
On George Best “I think if you talk about (the best players in) Europe, you talk about five or six and if you talk about his qualities he’d always be in there. It was a short career but if you go back to the basic qualities he was exceptional.” — Johan Cruyff https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/198627/ On CR7 "Cristiano Ronaldo is better than George Best and Denis Law, who were two brilliant and great players in the history of United. "But Ronaldo is 22 and with his quality and progression in the game, I believe he will be even better and win many more prizes for himself and his club. For him to be so good takes dedication. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/johan-cruyff-pays-cristiano-ronaldo-725552.amp This is for the 'traditionalists' who doubt the genius of CRonaldo (his natural ability) unequivocal and clear as day
You did agree with me the 'Gascoigne, Scifo, Stojkovic generation' had a high amount of those players, right? Basically the European players born between 1964 and 1970 (roughly). Perhaps the last generation that could play on the street. And it is not only the 'number tens', it are also other positions with technical and improvisational players (for their position).
Evaristo de Macedo ... more GPG in La Liga than Carioca league ... @carlito86 https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaristo_de_Macedo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A heads up to those who said he cannot survive two footed challenges and aggressive man marking of the 70's
Santos Pelé (1958-1969) for me is similar to Messi Barcelona (2009-2019) in terms of offensive dominance, each one in their own time. In this I am saying that proportionately their radars would be similar. I would say that Pelé in internacional competitons and finals was more impressive tho, even tho it was a different time. Overall I put peak Pelé, peak Messi and peak Cruyff as the best players ever. Between these I think Pelé is the one with the least 'holes' in his carrer. I don't think Maradona, Cristiano Ronaldo reached the same level (CR7) neither consistency (Maradona) than these three, not sure about Puskas (in his time) or Di Stefano.
This is definition of spite thread. Messi’s club career trumps this farmer’s career. Pele is basically football’s equivalent of Boston Celtics’ Bill Russell. Boomers believe Pele is the greatest, but that’s it.