It also has to0 be said that the major leagues/teams from that era was not the same as major league/major club today. Even the best clubs at that time did not have the clout which the modern mastodonts have, hence playing for a big club wasn't the "be all end all" of today.
According to the changing vagaries of the Ballon D'Or voting yes. Which completely fails to take account to the differences across eras. Do they? Not all the best players play for Real Madrid or Barcelona. Yes, they have a better platform than many players of the past, but its not that of Cristiano always. Messi was far superior to Sneijder in the CL though. The Sneijder example is the perfect case in point of differing priorities in the modern era. That depends on what games were televised. I'll wager the 1975 CWC final was widely televised and one of the very few games that year to be so. What game of Cruyff's was? No, but Platini was up against the likes of Keegan, Simonsen, Rummenigge who had proven themselves at the likes of Liverpool, BMG and Bayern. Not long ago you were disparaging the late 90s where Mijatovic could finish 2nd in the Ballon D'Or and Vieri finished 9th. Your supporters in this thread are holding up that era as a golden age. Do you not see that this is just another example of nostalgia?
I guess a lot of the votes for Simonsen in 1983 came due to his performances for Denmark in the European Championship qualification, most notably Denmark's 1-0 win against England at Wembley with the goal-scorer being Allan Simonsen.
Blokhin's three goals against Bayern in the 1975 Super Cup games might also have impressed voters (the game played at Munich when Blokhin scored a fine solo goal in the 1-0 defeat of the hosts surely was broadcasted in a couple of European countries).
I was not disparaging the late 90s'. I was disparaging the year 1997. It's not the same thing. Or, more exactly, the years 1995-1997, which were a transition period, when you had some years with some not very impressive crop players. Nothing new under the sun, it had happened before. The issue we are discussing here is a completely different matter. We are talking here about an entire generation which has failed to deliver - not some freak era with a weak crop of in-form players or some transition years. For instance, 1997 was weaker in this regard, but 6 years after the retirement of Van Basten we had an entire generation with a plethora of stellar players. Now, there's 6 years since the retirement of Zidane, and, with a few exceptions, the new generation has little to show. Do you take me for a complete cretin?
I wonder what EXACTLY you are talking about? Please go back and study the history of the BALL and CLEAT beforehand. What I talk is FACT (not speculate like you ) and FACT = evolution of technology in enhancement of the games in modern days (training facilities, balls, cleats, pitch , grasses, jerseys , video replay and software simulation of tactics ....) that this ERA players SPOILED with and forget about the basic of playing: ball control and SHOOTING. - 1970's : Players wearing Pumas/Adidas shoes (leather and plastic) with Adidas TELSTA ball - 1980;' Adidas and Nike started competing ... but most still wear Adidas and TANGO ball was first introduced at WC82. Now if you and some (others) try to DEFY the technology - then I suggest you go back to play tennis with Borg';s wooden raquet, or walking with old Puma's shoes, and juggling with the Santiago ball for the BEST PERFOMANCE? well unless you are DENIAL? ============================================= Here is basic info of latest ball and cleats: - BALL Designed for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the Jabulani features "Grip'n'Groove" technology, which supposedly gave the players more control over the ball. They said it made the ball unpredictable. Regardless, the new technology gave the ball a way-cool grooved surface - CLEAT: new name and a new logo, this innovative shoe company began implementing new technology in its shoe designs. In 2010, Nike's lightest soccer cleat, "Mercurial," featured pressure-activated studs that automatically adjusts stud length for maximal traction Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/355275-development-of-soccer-cleats/#ixzz1zUAhWEeV
I see it as a Golden Age, that is correct. IMO you had many quality players back then and many quality (national) teams. The 1990s saw CL finalists from eight different nations. Only 'weakness' of that era is that the UEFA Cup was dominated by Italian teams, but also in that case you had nine (!) different Italian finalists - and not just two or three. Strongest year was probably 1998 when Ronaldo, Del Piero and Bergkamp were worthy Ballon d'Or winners in their own right. With Ronaldo and Bergkamp carrying their national team (to a great extent at least) in injured condition at the 1998WC. I also see it as an era where many nations produced fantastic players. Croatia, Czech Republic, Portugal and so on.
Watch the "Beckenbauer Story" video. It was shot somewhere in the early to mid 1980s. He makes a cheap promo talk and explains how the shoes had developed from his peak days. In 10 years time. Again, the Puma Kings of today are not the same as of 1968. On the other hand, development is not always good. Jari Litmanen of Ajax swore at so called "outdated" shoes because he had more sensitivity with it, he said, at the expense of sheer power and pace, as well as stability. This was a well known trait of him, to use outdated technology but he had somehow success with it.
I dunno, 2002-2006 stands out as a weak set of years to me. A totally average Germany NT going far in 2 world cups helps illustrate this, not to mention Greece's Euro win. We still had Zidane and Ronaldo, but they were past their primes. Same with Figo.
Yes, I mentioned that here too: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...urrent-era-weak.1943488/page-20#post-25934162 The Super Cup was back then at its infancy but it was labelled by some as the "true champion of Europe." For Belgian TV Van Himst was a pundit and had a reasoning like 'the CWC winner is by definition the underdog so if you single-handedly help your team to win against the powerhouse then...' He was impressed, a few days after the match or so. [I know that because there was a documentary and the website had put some old videos online]
One as host, one with an easy draw and a handball (plus a super Kahn, until the final). It was the best team, with the best tactics and the best team won. What is weak about that? At that time the media started to frame it as Henry versus Ronaldinho. I remember it well, although they did not always end up at the #1 and #2 spot, the debate was about whether Henry or Ronaldinho was the best of the world, in the 2003-2006 time frame. Arguably they weren't the two best by a margin as Messi and Ronaldo are now, but those two made the headlines - the one was the 'face' of the EPL, the other of La Liga. Serie A was at that time already seen as a deteriorating league. Henry was for euro2004 the 'to beat' man. That they despite this did not always end up at #1 and #2 indicates that it was somehow a lot stronger, i.e. the competition was a lot harder. The only 'weak' aspect was that the Serie A had not a real superstar - Nedved and Shevchenko were excellent players but not a superb poster boy.
What generation would that be exactly? I just don't understand. This generation, as with all, has a host of superb players. I just got back from the Euros and some of the technique has been scintillating. The "Rondo" that the Spain players were using in their pre-match warm up had a pace and intensity of passing that was the best I've ever seen (better than in matches). We have the likes of Xavi, Oezil, Modric, Iniesta, Ronaldo, Van Persie, Schweinsteiger etc. At a much lower level the way that people like Denisov and Zyrianov passed the ball and made themselves available to receive it back was outstanding in my opinion. I take you for either someone with an unfounded bias against the modern or who suffers overwhelmingly from nostalgia.
The generation which saw the likes of Zidane, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Figo, Nedved, Giggs, Davids, Henry, Shevchenko, Raul, Nesta, Thuram, Zanetti reach their best form quite during the same time span (1998-2004). versus "We have the likes of Xavi, Oezil, Modric, Iniesta, Ronaldo, Van Persie, Schweinsteiger etc" since 2006. Yeah, right. From those you mentioned only Xavi, Iniesta and Ronaldo are on the same level. On Oezil the jury is still out, the others are clear downgrades.
One interesting thing to add to this point, in the year 1972 no less than 4 Balon d'or winners were born who could all play more or less the same role i.e. being the #10s or playmakers of their teams (Figo, Nedved, Rivaldo, Zidane). That is remarkable IMHO.
But if not for the handball, maybe the USA beats them and that only strengthens my argument. Because that USA team was probably a bit weaker than the current USA team even. ... Even with the best tactics, I feel that Greece team would not be able to win Euro 2012. There comes a point where talent just trumps good tactics. England had good tactics in 2012 and were well organized defensively but didn't get nearly as far. And if Portugal and Spain had more talented teams in 2004 (like they do now), they would've dispatched of Greece in the group-stage IMO. That competition were guys like Gerrard, Lampard and Nedved. Nice players, but I'd put the first 2 a notch below today's top CM's, plus Nedved is not Messi. Heck Buffon almost won a Ballon d'Or in that period. I know its because of the defensive record Italy had in the World Cup, but Casillas has an even better defensive record in every major tournament for Spain, but I bet he doesn't crack the top 3 of Ballon d'Or voting.
You've though arbitrarily chosen a time period and decided the time period under reference, while (yet again) failing to consider the overall impact of the careers of these players. Already the legacies of those players look different to how the might have done had we been having this discussion in 2004. This is falling into the same circular merry go round yet again.
This has been your tape record for at least 2 years by now. Try something new. It's beside the point how the legacies of those players look now. It matters how they looked then, when all the others didn't look like strumphs beside Zidane/Ronaldo the brazilian. You use the same ********ing argument every ********ing time a player isn't regarded as great as you think it is. "You don't take their entire career into consideration", "X is a great player", "we have a host of great player", "this is a circular argument" and shit. Do you think that someone is incapable of comparing several player from a 10 year interval or what? All those players I mentioned were in their prime about 10 years ago, not in the age of Di Stefano.
This probably guides you're perception. You're part of an inner circle. Complaints about the UEFA making a sterile, manipulated experience of the euros, a party for officials, VIPs and the rich happy few have been raised once again. This is said by someone who argued against the arts-football comparison with the argument 'football has a tangible goal, scoring goals.' Maybe their passing is "scintillating", their scoring is not. Not only in 2012 but even more in 2010. They needed an offside goal against Portugal and so on. It is also funny that you now mention Iniesta in your list of good players of this era - a player you vehemently argued against with statements as "he is nowhere near the top 500 of his position" or something like that. It is also something you evade, exactly Iniesta of all people has been voted as best player of the tournament, a player you do not rate very high.
USA team was also helped by the draw. This is flawed for a few reasons I think. Portugal was in 2004 stronger than now, more balanced. They had a proper striker and a world class defense. Furthermore, at that time France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Italy and also England were stronger than today, talent wise. England had Gerrard and Lampard at their prime and a good defense, Italy was #2 at the bookmakers. France was at the bookmakers a #1 favorite, and for a good reason. Czech Republic was a major outsider, together with Holland. And this was one of the reasons why France was the favorite: France had still a few of the highest rated players in the world at that time and the best European player at that time, Henry. What happened: Czech beats France and Greece beats Czech Republic, and they beat the hosts. And have you seen how much trouble Spain had with Croatia in this tournament? Buffon is in every way a better goalkeeper. Has more aspects under control. You do not only get it for clean sheets but for the overall performance. And the stereotype of Italy producing good defenders and leaning on their defense also helps. At the same era also Kahn was rated as one of the best. Guess what: he has a terrible clean sheet record.
I'll take a stab at this. You say that a number of different elements or circumstances (those not present in Platini's era), have allowed Ronaldo to win what would have been 4 Balon d'Ors under the old system or to be more precise, end up 1st or 2nd in the Balon d'Or voting in the current system in 4 different seasons. Then you say that had all these elements been present during Platini's era, then he too could possibly have seen an increase in the number of Balon d'Or wins that he had. My problem with that last point regarding Platini's Balon d'Or wins increasing is, that if all these were true in Platini's era, you would have had players like Zico, Maradona, Socrates, Falcao, Bochini, Giresse, Schuster, Kempes, Rummenigge, Passarella, Scirea directly competing with him through the entirety of his career for the Balon d'Or while the likes of old Cruyff, Muller, Beckenbauer, Figueroa and young Gullit, Van Basten, Laudrup, Francescoli, Butragueno would also overlap with his time as a Balon d'Or candidate. Out of this above list, I can see at least 2 names (Zico, Maradona) giving Platini a tough time throughout his career and even at his very peak, while others could sneak in where he and these two had a relatively off season. Some like greats of earlier eras or future greats, would also decrease his chances of winning the Balon d'Or in his younger and older days. All this is since of course these players (along with Platini) would have the benefit of the medicines and technologies available now, allowing for quicker recovery from injuries and that these players (along with Platini) would not suffer from horror tackles marring their careers, due to the presence of the stricter refreeing as is prevalent now-a-days. What I am basically trying to say with the above is that, if we had the same circumstances as are now prevalent, during Platini's time, then atleast 3 different players would be competing for the top honour, while quite a few more would be biting at their heels for the prize. A situation which could lead to different players winning the Balon d'Or each year with maybe one or two having more than 1 trophy i.e. a case similar to what we had in the 90s and early 00s. That IMO is what is lacking in the current era of Messi-Ronaldo duopoly, since all the available elite talent (small in volume as it is and still a notch below the top-2) is bought up by their club teams, leaving none for the lesser club teams to compete with (something which was not the case 10 years back when a lot of elite level talent was in the market thus making it very difficult for just two clubs to hoard all of it).
For the causes, we can start with these two posts made earlier, to try and understand why football, in the eyes of some like me and Tribune, no longer has as high a volume of elite players as it had in pre-Messi/Ronaldo eras -