Why Do Many Consider This Current Era "weak"?

Discussion in 'Players & Legends' started by laudrup_10, May 4, 2012.

  1. condor11

    condor11 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2002
    New Zealand
    yeah I agree, its to easy to dismiss this era as weak and leave it at that, to me a lot of it has to do with "the good old days" syndrome
     
  2. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Getting 4/7 player names right and stating something that is factually blatantly wrong doesn't do you a favour.

    Seriously you must have some memory defect if you can't remember that Spain and Brazil were considered the favourites to win in '10 and Germany's odds were ~1/10 or something. :thumbsdown:


     
  3. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    Luckily I was lazy to list out some OBVIOUS names... all of you could do GOOGLE no?

    You always come up with PLAINWORDS ,,, and calling other "blatantly wrong?Now what part is wrong if not suited you? What possible FACTUAL of your words could turn this (sad) ERA to become GREAT>>>???? Pls ... (oh Messi aand CR7 scored 40-50goals a season? SHHH )

    SERIOUSLY I don't care who rated them 1/10 or 1/12 ... (those numbers are good for betting, not me) Germany were INDEED #3 in last WC10, and Spain were lucky to pass them in semi with Puyol goal ... the last man to count on scoring ... otherwise if going to PK, Germany team would be in the final with Holland.
     
  4. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Sorry, this new version doesn't let you multiquote :speechless:

    Condor - If Africa and Concacaf are so much better nowadays, how come they don't have the same great players this decade as in the 80s and 90s: Weah, Milla, Okocha, Madjer, Abedi Pele, Biyick, Kalusha for Africa, and Sanchez, Gonzalez, Maradiaga, Blanco, Reyna, Ramos for Concacaf? The only ones worth mentioning from now are Drogba, Eto'o, Essien and Donovan.

    Boca - It's not just Brazil and Italy that are much weaker, so are France and England. Spain and Uruguay are stronger, and I would assess Germany, Argentina and Netherlands at about the same level.
     
  5. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Holland is also weaker than 10 years ago, period.
     
  6. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Oh my here we go again with more lies.
    Obviously some career Ligue 1 & 2 journeymen are way greater than Yaya Toure, Adebayor or KP Boateng. :(
     
  7. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Okocha was better and more significant for some of his teams than Adebayor yes.

    Maybe it is a good idea to average the 90s ranking of the top five African nations and compare it with the current average? As start.
     
  8. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Why do you think that Okocha was the one I refered to as 'Ligue 1 journeymen' when he had his best part of his career in Germany? Oo
     
  9. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    No that's not what I want to do.
    Just calling you out everytime you say something stupid.
     
  10. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
  11. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    As addition to my previous answer I think it is also considered as weak for two other reasons:
    - The stars fail to deliver in big games. Ronaldo and Messi were often not the key players in key games for their clubs. Think for example about Chelsea 2009.
    - The concentration of talent at big clubs conceals a lot. A bigger spread of talent would've meant a wider appreciation of other stars or maybe those stars would have been rated higher for their playmaking attributes.
    - In terms of playmaking Ronaldo and Messi are rather poor. If you look at past greats, and even Keegan and Rummenigge, they were in a creative sense far more influential (rummenigge had his crosses for example). And they had to be, because the talent was more evenly spread - to some extent all the weight was lying on their shoulders. Hence, the likes of Keegan were naturally forced to spread their tasks and jobs. In general I feel that playmaking types are now not as highly rated as in the past. With all respect for the goalscorers and dribbling wizards; in other eras those types (i.e. Jimmy Johnstone and other dribbling masters) had a clear disadvantage.
     
  12. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Obviously I refered to Milla and Omam-Biyik.

    No hesitation to call Okocha great. :thumbsup:
     
  13. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member+

    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    - And this is new?
    - I agree with that and it might be the #1 reason
     
  14. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    That is not new but in general the effects of a sub-par performance by stars were greatly felt in past eras. The vs Chelsea game of this season is a bit what I mean but that game was the exception.
     
  15. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Tend to agree by the way that it is the #1 reason. The concentration of talents leads to a concealment of stars and also to an overappreciation of goal-scorers instead of play-making types.
     
  16. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Germany is far stronger than 10 years ago. They failed to get out of the group-stage in both Euro 2000 and Euro 2004. Okay, it's somewhat possible that the same thing happens in 2012. But at least they could blame it on a killer group. They're not falling against the likes of Latvia and Romania, not to mention a 5-1 home loss to England.

    Argentina is also stronger on paper than 10 years ago (which is really what we're talking about here). It doesn't translate in results because many of those world-class players all play the same position, but they do have more world-class talent now.
     
  17. pablo85

    pablo85 Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    You know why it's weak?
    Because some clubs have all the money. They are buying top players and bench them. Normally those players would give the other teams and the leagues a nice quality injection. But no rules (free market) means some get everything, and the other ones get nothing!!
     
  18. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    This is certainly one possible reason. Stephen Jay Gould explored the demise of the .400 hitter in baseball and came to a similar conculsion. The average player of today is simply better in so many ways to the average player of 20, 30, 40 years ago. Fitter, faster, better prepared, better looked after etc. So much so that the best are simply closer to the mass. While not an overall indication of quality, it means that teams are better prepared to counter the elite. This makes the performances of players like Messi and Ronaldo all the more impressive.

    Other factors include:

    Exposure - every game today is available in full and reviewed to exhaustion. Players faults are magnified, whereas in the past not always even on film.
    Nostalgia - the good old days. Rightly or wrongly, people can look at the past through rose tinted glasses. Coupled with the greater exposure of players today it only provides a distorted comparison. How many of Gerd Muller's games were available to people (especially outside Germany) compared to Messi today? The average non-Italian fan's exposure to Sacchi's Milan was limited to a handful of European Cup games, and to the international stars an extra dozen or so games at the international tournaments. Today even cup games against lower division teams are there for all to see.

    Now, I'm not saying that the game today is better than in past years, or worse. It's just viewed differently and more critically.
     
    schwuppe and BocaFan repped this.
  19. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    The explanation by Gould is heavily debated and not taken for granted by every scientist.

    Furthermore, one can wonder whether the conditions that he identified ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/november96/gould.htm ), apply to football in the same degree. If you look carefully, he does not talk about the absolute level but relative level of players - or teams ("balance" in his words).

    Lastly, if you look at individual performance sports like the marathon, 100 meter sprint or swimming it is clear that world records can still be beaten with the same margins as 30 years ago. I don't see why football might be an exception to this.
     
  20. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    I'm not so much talking about the scientific element, more his observations on baseball.


    My argument is about comparison to the masses though, not about comparison to other greats in other times. Condor's original point was about it possibly being harder to stand out - that can only be looked at in relative terms.


    You need to strip out the margins at the top (and at the bottom) to get the comparisons. For this, we're not comparing the best to the next best. In football terms it's about comparing the best in the world to the average top flight player.
     
  21. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    It is impossible to seperate this. Because his explanation is an scientific one. And you mentioned that explanation.

    Besides, his observation about batting averages remaining constant throughout the years is also contested by the way.

    And it is doubtful whether the same conditions apply to football. Plus, baseball is a semi-individual sport and football not. This means that the "balance" between teams matters, not individual players.

    OK, but that is not what he was saying:
    This crucial assumption begs the question: why are world records in individual high-profile sports still beaten with the same margins, basically?
     
  22. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    It's do funny to say "this Germany" far stronger than 10years ago? Which team were in the final WC02 winning the Silvercup? At least that team got Ballack (best Germany player in last 10-15yrs) along with legend GK Kahn (arguably the best since Sepp Maier)

    POTENTIALLY stronger that's what you should say! ONLY last 2yrs .. with the emergence in young talents and HOPE in Ozil Kroos, Gotze ... and we'll see how they will do in next Euro12 and coming WC14

    Who cares of "stronger on papers" but the real display on pitch! Were not the Brazil06 had got the best "on papers" (with Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Robinho, Adriano, Juninho, Carlos and Cafu, Lucio - wow) and how they played on pitch?

    ==============================================
    Like Puck mentioned, most great stars in this current era (06-12) DISAPPOINTED in big games (from Ronaldinho, Kaka, Sheva to Messi CR7 and Ibra Robinho Rooney ...

    NAMES and "real CLASS" are sometimes two different things
     
  23. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    His conclusions aren't the main concern (I'm not arguing for or against them, in either a baseball or evolutionary context). It's his observations on standards in baseball which I feel is relevent.

    Not really, other than a couple of higher decade averages in the 20s and 30s overall league averages have been remarkably consistant. This is besides the point, however.



    But if a team is compased of better players, and has a better, more informed, approach then they will tend to perform better as a team, no? A better team can make it harder for an opponent to stand out.

    This goes back to your earlier point though, that football is not measured on individual statistics so it is a moot point.

    Overall, I do find it difficult to believe that the standard of the average player (and team) has not improved. There is greater professionalism, greater emphasis on development, more resources, more specialisation and so on. Of course there is always a cyclic element - standards are never consistant and can go up and down in any given sample, but the overall trend of the masses is one of improvement. If there is a higher overall standard, then often it is going to be more difficult to stand out.

    Unrelated to the above, I'm pretty sure that in 10 years time there will be some people asking why football isn't as good as it was now, and that there are no players to compare to Messi, Ronaldo, Xavi etc.
     
  24. BatatasFritas

    BatatasFritas Member+

    Nov 29, 2004
    Toronto
    Club:
    FC Porto
    Guys are stronger, bigger, and in much better shape then our childhood stars. You don't need the technical talent today that you needed back in the day due to our new standards. That's why guys like CR7 and Messi shine through. I think International tournaments haven't been all that great since WC2002. Seems like a lot of players could care less about playing for their country. Money is in playing for clubs. I remember watching games as a kid and some players weren't exactly in the best shape but they more than made up for it with their skills since running was out of the question :p
     
  25. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    So you consider Messi is "bigger and stronger" than older class? Let me remind you 3/4 of the great Barca team are "small and short"
    yep ... now aday the games required more of "drogba, Klose " who could run and fight for every ball - However ...

    SIZE and Fitness had nothing todo with skills As big as Caroll and as tall as Crouch they are so much clumsier than their elders in Romario, Baggio (90's) , Pele Garrincha (60s') Maradona Zico (80's) and lately Messi, Xavi - all those names are lessthan 5'8 - To lower extent, compare them to Eto'o, Overmars, Juninho Paulista, Ortega and Zola ...
     

Share This Page