Football today (modern era)

Chancellor · Aug 7, 2020

This is kind of a general question, not necessarily just Argyle related, but, is football/are footballers better today than they were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
We all know that the game has become hugely monetized, but I often wonder if the game is actually that much better and played by better players, in the modern era?
The one obvious thing is the state of the pitches. Most of us can remember matches played on terrible, for various reasons, pitches, and that, to me at least is the most significant difference to today.
Presumably fitness levels, diets and life styles are very different today, but how, for example, would Georgie Best or Rodney Marsh, get on today. Duncan McKenzie reputedly smoked heavily but still produced magic on a pitch.
Just thinking back to some of the Argyle legends, would they even get a game today? I'm just not sure.

Green Painter · Aug 7, 2020

I mentioned this on another thread, watching back some classic 70s and 80s matches during lock down I was expecting to see a gulf in quality of football. There was none whatsoever. That all conquering Liverpool team of the 80s could easily hold their one in the Premier league. Cloughs Forest team, Everton, Arsenal and many others too. The one thing to me that changed the game for the better was the pass back rule preventing the goal keeper from picking up the ball. The money the theatrics, better stadiums pitches etc have added to the spectacle but is the football any better? Not a lot in my opinion

Quintrell Green · Aug 8, 2020

The same thoughts went through my mind whilst watch a re-run of the 1966 World Cup Final on TV. What I thought was remarkable was the skill levels and stamina generated in a very open match which took place well over 50 years ago. Alan Ball's running in that game was quite remarkable, and to a lesser extent the same could be said of Bobby Charlton running the ball out of defence. Bobby Moore kept his fitness and skill level up to a top world standard notwithstanding his well known liking for beer consumption.Both Moore and Beckenbauer had great capacity to read the game and that is a skill set that is an accident of birth rather than coached. I agree the condition of pitches have improved remarkably and professional club's have medical professionals who can get players back fit from the treatment table much swifter than in those days. That 1966 Final was a very open game, but if Messrs Klopp and Southgate were respective managers back then, with the benefit of their current coaching expertise, it would have made for a very different spectacle

mervyn · Aug 8, 2020

I read that if the famous Stanley Matthews cup final of 1953 had been played at today’s Prem speed, the game would have lasted 72 minutes. In all sports, as each generation becomes fitter so the game speeds up, which I think has pluses and minuses. Tennis is boring now, with the winner being invariably the stronger more powerful hitter.

I think football benefits from being faster, and I’m convinced there are fewer boring games compared to the 70s and 80s. I also like the fact that players at all levels are more technically competent, with more passes per game and hoof ball fairly rare. Thirty years ago no team from the lower divisions were ever promoted without extreme physicality, with size often more important than skill.

I would also hate to return to standing stadiums with rotten visibility at big matches, plus facilities bordering on Victorian. I twice peed against the wall at Chelsea’s shed end in the 70’s, as I had no alternative.

No, for me the ‘good old days’ is a fantasy, both in football and in life.

Green 1886 · Aug 8, 2020

I’ve had this debate before, it’s been touched upon already but the speed in which corners, goal kicks, throwins are taken now compared to 20+ years ago is the main deciding factor. Players got more of a breather during a game. The game itself is a faster pace, sticking someone who drinks 40 pints a week and smokes like a chimney in now would stand out like a sore thumb - even at Argyle’s level.

chichestergreen · Aug 8, 2020

Thier is certainly much more time spent laying down and screaming in the modern game also diving is much more prevalent since the influx of foreign player, but to me the skill level has gone through the roof. COYG

pilgrimage · Aug 8, 2020

Some of the tackles that were allowed are unbelievable in today's game. Also the lack of players rolling around in agony each time they're touched . Less of a man's game nowadays. That and the continual punching rather than catching by goalkeepers seem to have occurred since the foreign players arrived.

kernow19 · Aug 8, 2020

pilgrimage":2wbrug8n said:
That and the continual punching rather than catching by goalkeepers seem to have occurred since the foreign players arrived.

I suspect this may have more to do with the way the modern lighter ball moves in flight makes it far safer for the keeper to either punch or parry away a shot rather than risk catching it.

Biggs · Aug 8, 2020

I would put fairly decent money on the current Argyle team beating the 1966 World Cup winning team.

Tin hat on :coat:

Never mind the fitness, my feeling is that the speed of thought, technique and tactical awareness have advanced too much for a team from 50 years ago to compete against a good professional side in 2020.

doozer · Aug 8, 2020

I would bet on any current team to beat any equivalent team of an older era ....every sport is constantly evolving and improving...you only have to look at athletics and swimming world records constantly bettered, or one day cricket scores over 400......whether or not it’s more entertaining is a tougher question to answer

Knibbsworth · Aug 8, 2020

Green Painter":2kmfnf42 said:
I mentioned this on another thread, watching back some classic 70s and 80s matches during lock down I was expecting to see a gulf in quality of football. There was none whatsoever. That all conquering Liverpool team of the 80s could easily hold their one in the Premier league. Cloughs Forest team, Everton, Arsenal and many others too. The one thing to me that changed the game for the better was the pass back rule preventing the goal keeper from picking up the ball. The money the theatrics, better stadiums pitches etc have added to the spectacle but is the football any better? Not a lot in my opinion

Can't say I agree with that.

George Best was a genius player but he wouldn't have got in Bournemouth's team nowadays. He wouldn't have kept up with the game.

The pace and the energy in today's football is that much different to the 1990s, never mind the 70s and 80s.

loyal1970 · Aug 8, 2020

one of things I miss about the modern era is no real characters.

loyal1970 · Aug 8, 2020

just watching big match revisited from 1974 proper grounds proper football proper football supporters.

Barrie Davis · Aug 9, 2020

There is a lot more playing the ball backwards and sideways now - possession foorball. I can remember the crowd getting real stroppy if Nicky Jennings stopped and passed back to Doug Baird before moving again. They wanted their wingers to run fast and towards the goal. I also remember the team taking the field and half of them threw away their fag ends just before reaching the grass.

Action Jackson · Aug 9, 2020

The football in terms of quality maybe better but everything else is far worse.

Expensive ticket prices, clubs going bust left right and centre, players on stupid wages, lack of atmospheres, stadiums being knocked down and replaced with soulless bowls, americanisation of everything, vloggers, VAR, stupid kick off times/days.... this list could go on.

Football today (modern era)

Administrator