Let's talk reality, OK? And the reality is: Can anybody envisage football of the last 50 years without Brazil 1958?... And what evolved from it?... In 1954 Hungary lost to Germany. If nothing interfered, till our days we'd be playing variations of the WM. When Brazil beat Sweden in 1958, football was finally confronted with the 4-2-4 in all its glory, and from it stemmed the 4-3-3, the 4-4-2 and all the systems we know nowadays - be them a defensive reaction to the original 4-2-4 or not. Hungary - yes - was important. As an ingredient of the cake. It produced the imprescindible leaven. Brazil - however - was...the cake itself
hmm..I'm not quite sure how to respond to this post. It's clearly laced with bias. Brazil 1958 was a fantastic team, but I think you put far too significance on them and to claim they changed football - I don't think that's quite true. Some posters have said it before in this thread but there were teams before Brazil 58 that played a style that can be traced to modern football or the football followed after the 58 World Cup. I don't understand your point about Hungray losing to West Germany. Their team still had a great impact and so did their players and it's well remembered this day. Now I don't consider myself an expert and I'm young but I do research and try to study as much as possible and from the information I've gatehred over the years in 1930's Germany, evidence of modern football can be found quite clearly in the Schalke team better known as "the Spinning Top", with names such as Ernst Kuzorra and fritz Szepan and in the country's 1937 National side which I referenced earlier known as the Braslau Elf. The Spinning Top derived its name from the unique brand of football the club played at the time, which was never moving up the field with long balls, but instead stringing together a bewildering succession of short and quick passes always keeping the ball on the ground, and always looking for the best positioned man. For this they'd often use systems that can be traced to the modern 4-4-2 and 4-3-3. The Breslau Elf was an extension of that Schalke team, sort of. The coach at the time Otto Nerz never really liked their style and was more of a fan of English football and its physicality and an emphasis on defense. But because his best players wanted to and preferred to play a more open attack-minded game, what resulted was a unique combination of a solid team with a foundation in defense but also with an approach to attack and score a lot of goals through movement and quick short passes with up to four players upfront. The Austrian Wunderteam of the early 30's played similar style and even the Nürnberg side of the early 1900's dubbed "Der Club" or The Club was famous for its fluid style and skills on the pitch - things that would influence football in the latter decades that would become what we know now as modern football. I don't think Brazil was the 'cake' as you point out but because at the time of the 58 World CUp the tournament has reached wider audiences than before, the Brazilian style was introduced to the world and they had a considerable impact, but also in a way that they inspired other teams and influenced other styles, similar to the aforementioned teams instead of being the be all, end all and beginners of modern football. I think the sport had far too wide and deep history to make such a definitive claim and like all movements across all sports and even arts, they cannot be traced to one single cause or entity.
Let’s start with a PS: ______________________________________________ Everybody is biased. Specially in a football forum, SirM. However, there are ‘bias’ and…bias. Some more, others less fundamented. Your bias is also present in your post. (Not ‘for’ but ‘against’). And you also fundament it – however weakly (in my opinion). But I respect it. Back to your post. ______________________________________________________________ SirM, Of course there have been relevant offensive formations prior to or even after 50's Brazil/Hungary. Brazil 38, the whole Argentina of the 40's (that if had the opportunity to play WC's probably would still be in our days a world sensation), the Wunderteam, Elf etc. I never said Brz 58 was the 1st offensive team ever or even the starter of Mod Football. As I had said before I voted on purpose on the 58 WC in order to stir national rivalries and make the thread more fiery. Of course you don't have to read the whole thread to get acquainted with that. But while it’s not that long yet (still 10 pages) – I think you should. Because it does get tiring having to keep using coloured letters & repeating already established points-of-view over & over, as in # 63: Last restauration point, SirM. Not Modern Football itself – nor even its very beginning: but it’s most recent update. After that I just see an important point: the 1974 Dutch team. That could have even been the latest one, if it hadn’t worn out, exhausted itself, in the late 70’s. After the Clockwrk Orange fever, everything came back to the tactical problematics initiated in the 50’s period with the introduction of the 4-2-4, the latest offensive drive in the last 50 years. To which even the defensive systems that sprouted in 1966 (with the 4-4-2) and from the 80’s on were no more than a reaction - & not a new fact in itself. And subsist in our days still within that tactical context. The 4-4-2 - that according to ET coach Don Howe ‘stemmed from the 4-3-3’, & which, on its turn, came from the 4-2-4 – is still the main system (with variations) in 2008!... The world is still bunkering against Pelé! … (Bear with the size of the trauma)… _____________________________________________________ PS 2: That’s not ‘bias’, SirM. That’s…bias! Fundamented one! Something you could elaborate more in ’yours’…
Hmm, a lot of speculation in these arguments, to say that Brazil 1958 is what shaped and served as the catalyst of what football has become is nothing but pure specualtion and not "reality". Who is to say that there are not other ways to arrive to the same destination? Also to point out the Dutch team of the 70's as perhaps the last "recent update" may also not be 100% accurate. After all one does not make a fine meal without several species, my one example with Ajax and their Romanian/Bulgarian coach withstanding.
Falsely moralism by excellence, Matias boy!... Weren't you soo much 'against' it?... So, even 'worse taste' showing it again, bud. Why 'exposing the poor boy' in public once more? ... Sounds like the sensacionalist paper that 'condemns' crime by exhibitting the body in 1st page all full of bullets just to 'sell' the story better. Or the priest who in holy fervour drags the whore by the hair to his Sunday sermon just to sadically show his audience how 'sinfully' she displays her luscious thighs in the square at night... And with his buttons plays with the idea of a 'whipping session' later in his personal chambers... It wasn't me who was comparing you to that 'poor kid', was it?... Either understand my use of the pic (that must be seen in its context, and not in the context of your 'sermon') - or assume yourself an autist posture ...
That's just my humble opinion, Viejo!... Agree with it or not - and preferrably tell me why, OK. Besides, how do you expect me to bring 'reality' into a 'virtual' place?... I've never seen anyone doing that in an internet Forum. Do you think I'm David Copperfield? ... You are the one, kid. I believe you can!... I trust your capabilities, Matias boy!... Remember Honduras: 'Sí, se puede!'... I said Brz helped by Hungary 1958 WC was, not 1974 Dutch (an isolated phenomenon in my opinion.) Read my former posters on the subject over and do reformulate that, will you pleazze.
Im sure I could too, but franktly I have too much of a life to spend so much time here, honest. I would rather keep my wife happy, play with the kids, watch futbol than talk about it, or sit out in the evening rain. My quip about autism is thus, I have worked in the past with kids who did have the disease and one particuliar boy named Ben only conected with you if you spoke about American Football , a subject Im am sure to the day I die he knew more about than 99% of others on God's green earth. Ergo, it is entirely plausible that there may be someone in kind whom has a stellar knowledge of futbol.
Now Europeans prove their own poison... Why not take the whole Premier League, for instance, to Dubai (they have the conditions to build 30 new Wembleys)... By the beach...
Just wondering has anyone read a book by Alex Bellos called "Futebol Brasilero, soccer the Brasilian way". Quite complete and nicely done as well factual , there is some biases yes, but a good read.
Yes it is a very good book about Brazilian soccer and its history. Bellos also wrote some really good stuff about Brazil in the 1930's on Brazzil.com. BTW- Very impressive for an Argentina fan!
Congratulations guys, for this excellent thread! Perhaps the best I've ever seen here, although I've just given a fast sight to the posts. Less than a month of great idea debate. Unfortunatelly, I am late to the discussion... Briefely, I can say that, IMHO, modern (in the strict concept of the word: new, contemporary) football is "reinvented" frequently... Or after a great competition. After a WC or an Euro, the 'world' try to play (or is biased by) as the former champions... Actually, I don't have any formed idea about the real origin of the modern football, but I promisse that I'll try to find time to think about it, read carefully to ALL the posts and then give my personal opinion. For instance, here is a gift that I found recently on my favourites...The full-time video of WC 58 final match, Brazil 5 x 2 Sweden. http://www.svt.se/content/1/c8/01/18/18/27/080628SVEBRAVM58.asx Hope you all enjoy it! P.S.: By the way, is there any thread about tactics and formations (its origins, evolution, what's the best...etc) in the forum?
"Modern football", in the sense of over-commercialised, excessive media hype, mercenaries, greedy agents, unlevel playing field etc., started with Bosman.
Antes tarde do que nunca, bud. This is a never ending discussion, believe me. Absolutely. Moderno is what's in moda (moda=fashion in Spanish & Portuguese, from Lat. modus=manner, measure - see my initial post). My personal bias (and suspicious, I concede) is that the trail opened by Hungary and Brazil in the 50's hasn't still been surpassed yet. Man, thanks a lot!... That's an incredibly high-quality film: I had never seen in its totality the game that marked my adolescence and made the glory of Brazil - and which (in my humble opinion) established for good the basis for modern football. All I remember was hearing 'live' the precarious radio broadcast transmissions in 58 [mms://tv.igmediacenter.ig.com.br/milton_neves/site/audios/copa58/copa58.wma] and posteriorly watching the clips with the goals. In the full movie we can neatly observe that historical 'separation of waters': the way more static Sweddish game and the incredible dynamics of the new school, which (again, in my opinion) marked all football developments to our days. As a retribution, I'll post to you the complete game of the 1954 WC, Germany 3 x 2 Hungary (also a fantastic one), links furnished by Gregoriak in my thread on Garrincha ('Next!...'): https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797309&page=3 [Gregoriak's post #24] [If you click twice on the YouTube screen the films will show] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYUDSab0Rgw"]1954 World Cup Final - Part 1[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-TfIVvVU-I"]1954 World Cup Final - Part 2[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD0P89L_MjU"]1954 World Cup Final - Part 3[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yykSwI9MnUA"]1954 World Cup Final - Part 4[/ame] And you'll have the Magyar leg (and in that legendary game also German, since they had to adapt themselves to the Hungarian innovative way of playing) even in defeat and with an injured Puskas but still displaying their revolutionary style.
This poll assumes modern football started with a World Cup. I'd say modern football started during the 90s with the creation of the Premier League and the Champions League, which changed football forever (and probably for the worst).
World Cups were used more in this thread as referencesfor whole periods. And IMO they are the ideal standard moments for checking the development of football world wide. EPL and CL are more localized events and don't give you a general view of that development.
Yes, I got it. Maybe I should've said restrict instead of strict . Also, I didn't say when it started, but I guess it real origin refers to some decades ago. Now you can load them together Now it's my turn to thank Maybe because every player in the world derams some day to play in a WC. Maybe because there is not another sporting event in the world that mobilizes hundreds of million people around only one modality. Maybe because the football world lives around the expectation of this event during the 4 years that separate them. Maybe, and that's imo the best reason, in general (and with few exceptions) only the best are there...
Considering our poll results as they stand, and dividing those periods in (more or less) 20-year ones, we'll have: 1930-1950=10 votes (giving two of those four 1950 votes to the 30-50 period and the two other votes to the 1950-1970 period) 1950-70=17 votes (giving four of the eight 1970 votes to the 1970-1990 period) 1970-1986 (1990)=15 votes 1990-2006 (2010)=14 votes With the Creation of FIFA Rules + None of Them (which are sort of similar)=13 votes Where we can see a clear 'division of waters' starting in 1950 & having its peak in 1970 (and that's so far the most voted period with 17 ballots). Following it not coincidently we have the 1970-1990 period with 15 votes & in 3rd place the 1990-2010 period with 14. I say 'not coincidently' because IMO the succession 17-15-14 establishes a neat preeminence of the former (1950-1970) over the others. As if the 2 latter ones were a logical consequence of the first. Anybody agrees with that type of 'reasoning' or I'm being too biased? ... ________________________________________________________________________ PS: Following Teso dos Bichos suggestion & just considering the names of the voters, we'll still have (using the same criteria above) in 1st place: 1950-1970=10,5 votes With the Creation of FIFA rules + None of Them=10 votes 1990-2006 (2010)=9 votes 1970-1990=7,5 votes 1930-1950=1 vote With still the preeminence of the former over the two latter (1990-2010 & 1970-1990, which in this case display practically the same number of votes). OK, you can call me 'nostalgic', but... Hail 1950-1970!... 'Period'.
It is complete nonsense to look for some kind of starting point, and then use a trend in periods of 20 years. The only thing the poll shows is that there is no consensus. The discussion focuses way too much on single tactical changes in my eyes. There has ever been tactical innovation, and there will always be. It is not useful to argue which of these innovations was the most important, and to declare this as "the beginning of modern football". I would like to introduce a different view. The big difference between nowadays football and "the old times" is not a tactical formation. The big difference is the internationalisation, the transparency in new trends, and the tempo of the spreading of these trends. The evolution of football in earlier days was nationwise. Different countries had different playing styles, different ideas of how football should be played. Every innovation started at a single club, it took years before it was adapted in the league, by the national team, and presented at the World Cup. The coaches saw the other teams and what happened elsewhere in a rhythm of 4 years; but it was still difficult to adapt new things, there were almost no foreign players allowed who could introduce something new to other leagues, there were no tv broadcasts from other leagues. This is very different from today. The national playing styles are dying, the core of most top teams consists of foreign players, coached by foreign managers, regularly playing against foreign top teams in the Champions League, every match of every team in every relevant league can be seen all over the planet. Every important coach knows what's going on in the football world, no team will present an innovation at a World Cup; everything was tested and developed in the Champions League before. The best club teams are stronger than the World Champion. Where is the "starting point" in this development? I put it somewhere in the 80es. TV via cable and satellite started to deliver foreign top leagues, the UEFA allowed three foreign players per team instead of one or two. In 1990 three key players of the german World Cup winning team played together at Inter, the best three dutch players at Milan, Napoli had a bunch of South Americans... The then-top clubs had systematically imported foreign manpower AND knowledge, culture; Serie A was a World Cup in a nutshell. After that Bosman opened all gates, the delevopment towards "modern football" was complete.
Why? ... ‘Nonsense’ is writing a post without having appropriately read the thread. If you read it well enough you’d see the 'starting points' here proposed were not put forth as the very first 'cause of all', or as any 'genesis' of 'modern football'. They are presented in fact as the last or more recent 'restauration points' in the evolution of the game (read the whole thread & you'll aknowledge that). The expression 'modern football' was used in the title simply because reflects the fact that at any two steps you give in this Forum you see it employed in the most varied & dubious acceptions - and consequently you have to deal with it. We purposedly used it in order for people themselves to situate those diverse conceptions of 'modern football' in time, space and eventually give their own version of what 'modern football' is, and consider the validity or not of each conception. So we are not dealing with 'some' kind of starting point but...several (mutually exclusive or not). The proof is that it's been offered the options 'With the Creation of FIFA Rules', 'All of Them', 'None of Them'... I'll ask again, why not?... Those periods were not chosen aleatorilly. From the beginning of the XXth century to 1930 is not much more than 20 years, and how not to consider the 1930 WC (to which the 1924 & 1928 OG were righteous antecessors) as an important new 'restauration point'?... And how not to accept either the notion that from 1930 to the end of WW II (1945-50) we did have another 20-year long autonomous & recognizable period?... And with the Hungarian & Brazilian interventions from 1950 to 1970 we didn't have another one?... And further on with the Dutch revolution in the early 70’s to the late 80’s another one?... And from 1990 to 2010 with the definitive instauration of business & and the consequently logic implantation of a cautious defensivism (any businness demands caution) in football?... As it was showed above the concentration of votes between 1950-1970 us indeniable. Yes, it focuses on tactical change, but not necessarily on ONE single one. Everybody in the thread is democratically entitled to put forth his own personal ‘restauration point’. 1950-1970 was MY chosen period, and fortunately I was followed in the poll by the majority of the voters. Very similar to what I proposed when I said that the Hungarian mid-fifties team & specially the Brazilian victory in 1958 (first and only victory of a foreign NT in another continent), definitely opened Europe’s markets to black & foreign players in general. That’s when ‘internalization’ really started in the world – and we can very well say that Pelé & Co were its righteous introducers. Even that internationalization though has to have its limits - in name of the preservation of football itself, which is rooted in the grounds of each nation & where it's got to stay before its players are sold elsewhere (at least up to the total ripening of its players, let's say, up to the age of 21 or 23). All that up to the mid-fifties... After that everything became different. As always the biased views of an European observer… The ‘national styles are dying’…in Europe. The ‘core of clubs consisting of foreign players’ is an European reality… Coaches did know what happened in the rest of the world since the 30’s: one of the innumerable proofs was the Bella Gutman/Flávio Costa interaction in the mid-fifties. Yep, Nobody was able yet to surpass the innovations brought by Hungary 54, Brazil 58-70 and Holland 74. Either these were VERY good or XXIth century football became mediocre. LOL Those Ringling Brothers CL clubs?... That one day beat Milan or Manchester, and the other day lose to CSKA or Galatasaray at home (just because don’t have a minimum of ‘playing style’ & are no more than a carnavalesque hodgepodge of individual player’s decisions)?... Now you unveiled to us your real European-biased face. So, you take away the players’ and coaches' merits (!!!) in the formation of ‘modern football’ and transfer them to the electronic gadgets & the commercialization of players as the main ingredients to use in your European goulash… And – last but not least – after all that, what’s the use of initiating your post with such bombastic affirmation???: Bosman developments may be good to the European player, who even when goes to another country of the continent still remains in his own habitat, where way more finantially structured clubs won't get that severly disturbed by such transferences. But not to the poorer countries (although richer in native football) and clubs which spend their whole life upbringing their talents for a more or less rich team of Eurobe or Arab sultan go over there and cherrypick the best ones at a very low price, without any compensation to the local club's efforts. With the choking of the best sources of players (SA, Africa, Asia, in this order), even with all the money of the world, football will end up dying in Europe too. You're killing the golden eggs chicken. Or trying to: at least SA won't let it happen. The present mediocrity of world football is just a sign of the Armaggedon.
I haven't read the whole thread, but for me the modern football started in the mid fifties of the last century. With the establishing of TV in europe and the european club competitions.
Since I like to feel historian, have to agree. For the killing of pleasure often associated with modernity, I go to Rinus Michels good luck: if the guy only didn't have geniuses like Johan Cruyff in his line, perhaps we could see games today where goals would be the goal...