present day great players versus the olden days.

[Wile E Coyote]

impossible though it is to compare players and abilities from different times, I have a feeling that they were nowhere near as good as the modern greats in the previous decades.
Not talking about the present day journeymen, but the big names from present day football.
Try as I might I just cannot believe players like mathews or finney or puskas , Di stefano were remotely near the skill levels of maradona, ronaldo or messi.
even allowing for all the better pitches and sports science and nutrition, have you ever seen old footage and genuinely been stunned by the players of yesteryear? I havent .
Totally different game back then, might as well have had a bowling ball to play with, but they never seem close to the greats of recent times.
without doubt there must have been some exceptional footballers, dixie dean and his 60 odd goals in a season etcetera, but on the whole the standards looked to be poles apart from this era.

[Iloveyoubrady]

I believe modern day players and teams are absolutely miles ahead of where they once were. Everything in the game has developed and so the standard has improved hugely.
To the point I think our team now would stuff any of our great historical teams. However that isn’t a fair representation at all, as those older players and teams never had the opportunity to reach such levels due to the lack of modern training, nutrition and sports science - not to mention the pool of players being expanded to reach around the world.

[ClaretTony]

As you said, totally different game but I think those old players, given the facilities, training etc. would be right up there with the best today.

[Colburn_Claret]

Impossible to compare, simply because they are different times.
It's natural to say George Best wouldn't look as good as Messi or Ronaldo, but could they have played as well as George on some of those old pitches, I doubt it.
In 50 years time they'll probably be arguing that Ronaldo and Messi couldn't compare to their current stars.

You can only measure people against their peers, it's the only true measure of greatness.

[Bosscat]

I would suggest if you gave players from yesteryear current equipment and you would find they would have been able to play in the modern era alongside todays top sides.

[elwaclaret]

I suggest modern footballers would last less than ten minutes playing the old game, and the older players in a new game would generally last about as long before being sent off (or gasping for a fag break)

Oranges and lemons

[Froobs]

Diets for one
Players used to go to a cafe for a fry up before training or eat steak etc

[kentonclaret]

You can imagine teams being asked to play out from the back with a heavy leather ball and on pitches in mid winter that sometimes resembled a ploughed field.

[RingoMcCartney]

Waldron or Mee?

Fletcher or Wood?

Got you thinkin' anit !?......

[Ashingtonclaret46]

You can argue as much as you want one way or another but I know which game I preferred to watch ------and it isn't the sterile stuff that gets served up to us now.

[Iloveyoubrady]

You can only measure people against their peers, it's the only true measure of greatness.

Exactly. But no players career compared to messi and ronaldo’s in terms of numbers or world dominance.

[Rileybobs]

You can argue as much as you want one way or another but I know which game I preferred to watch ------and it isn't the sterile stuff that gets served up to us now.

There was a sending off for a freak accident in today’s game, but you can’t tell me that game was anything close to sterile. And the speed of play and skill on show, predominantly by Liverpool was breathtaking. Neville himself made a comment how much better the game was than when he played.

[Iloveyoubrady]

You can imagine teams being asked to play out from the back with a heavy leather ball and on pitches in mid winter that sometimes resembled a ploughed field.

But can you imagine asking players from the 60s to keep adama traore out for 90 minutes whilst hardly touching him.

The truth is the game has changed too much to compare the eras, but you can guarantee the modern day players who spend their time in the gym and eating perfect diets will perform at a much higher level than the ones who went for a fag at half time.

[Wile E Coyote]

we have a stand named after Jimmy Mac, and I am not suggesting for one second that those old enough were mistaken in classing him as a world class footballer. Supporters were similarly astute and knowledgable back then too. same applies to Jimmy Greaves, an amazing goal machine, but its just the game in general. I have yet to see anyone remotely like Ronaldo from pathe newsreels.

[DCWat]

The top players of years gone by were born with a gift, just as those from today are.

The modern player plays on a perfectly manicured pitch, is far better protected, uses a ball that is designed to perform perfectly, has a wealth of knowledge from sports scientists, nutritionists, doctors, physios, performance analysts - the list goes on and on.

Everything is designed to enable them to make the most of their natural talent.

Look back to the video of Stanley Matthews doing a few half hearted star jumps on Blackpool beach and it’s no wonder the players of yesteryear don’t look as good.

Given the same benefits as the current players get, the starts of old would have been right up there.

[RammyClaret61]

a wealth of knowledge from sports scientists, nutritionists, doctors, physios, performance analysts - the list goes on and on.

Previously they had Jimmy Holland, a bucket of water, and a sponge!!

[Spiral]

There's no such thing as natural talent. It's a lie.

Things a baby can't naturally do:

Walk
Run
Accurately and reliably pass a football
Talk
Ride a tackle
Stand upright
Read
Anticipate a through-ball
Clean itself
Win a foul

Sure, if you're born with serious lung problems or wonky limbs or special needs you're probably f.ucked as far as a career in professional football is concerned, but almost every so-called talent a human is capable of is developed through practice, and one disrespects great sportspeople by chalking their ability up to 'natural talent'. There's nothing natural about Ronaldo's and Messi's ability, they just happened to be better than others at improving their game along every step of the way from childhood through to adulthood, and ended up being the best in the world for it. They developed their game with great effort. Their ability didn't land in their lap.

The question is not whether Messi and Ronaldo could play on puddings and ride leg-breakers like players did in the 60s and 70s, but whether anyone from the olden days actually bothered to apply themselves in the way the modern greats do. I don't think a single one of them did apply themselves in the way the modern greats do, quite frankly. I think a modern League One side would smoke any Champion of England from the 80's. And following the logic (my own logic, tendentious though it may be, I concede) that modern mediocre players are superior footballers compared to elite players from decades ago, it stands to reason that the greats of today are vastly superior to the greats of old. Being hard as nails doesn't make you a great footballer. The fact that older players played with heavier balls and on heavier pitches and endured heavier challenges doesn't automatically mean modern players couldn't also play under such conditions. The fact is, modern players just don't have to play under these conditions, and they're better footballers for it, but they're also far more professional today. The psychology of declinism (the incorrect belief that 'everything is getting worse') might beguile folk into believing the game's gone soft (whatever that means) but be weary of that thought process, cos it's flawed, insidious and downright depressing. Being the best of a generation who all smoked 20 a day doesn't mean you'd excel over modern players who actually respect their lungs. The professionalisation of football over the decades has made it harder, not easier, to stand out from a crowd.

It's romanticised b0llocks to suggest that players from the olden days were somehow more 'gifted'.

[superdimitri]

It would depend entirety on application and discipline. If those old greats could maintain the levels of fitness of today they'd be just as good as the best.

Nowadays you have to be the very fittest to even compete. But you need to have the brains and that's something all greats had, be them intelligent people, or just intelligent on the pitch.

In ice hockey they have a good name for it: Hockey IQ. it's that separates the best from the rest, together with the want and desire to apply yourself at the highest level.

So yeah, no such thing as physical talent, but there's certainly intelligence and the ability to make the right decisions under pressure, and to bounce back from defeat.

[Nonayforever]

As mentioned above, imagine Messi turning up at Derby's Baseball ground in the 1970s. He wouldn't have even got picked for the team.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

There was a sending off for a freak accident in today’s game, but you can’t tell me that game was anything close to sterile. And the speed of play and skill on show, predominantly by Liverpool was breathtaking. Neville himself made a comment how much better the game was than when he played.

Shock, horror ---Sky employee says that the game is much better now than when he played ---quelle surprise!

[ŽižkovClaret]

You could argue we had the modern day George Best in Keith Treacy. The games moved on and there are things you can't play through these days.

[Rileybobs]

Shock, horror ---Sky employee says that the game is much better now than when he played ---quelle surprise!

Sky employee and former treble winning footballer. He's not wrong either - the game is much quicker and more skillful. You may not enjoy it as much but football is as popular as ever. I think as most of us get older we like to look back on things nostalgically and often with a misguided sense of how good things used to be. Naturally we were all more enthusiastic when younger. Spiral's post sums this up well.

[AlargeClaret]

It doesn’t help having only a tiny tiny fraction of footage of old players as opposed to the saturation footage of the modern era. To perform on the pitches they did in the past ,I’d say they were easily good enough for the modern era

[RMutt]

Is there any sport where participants were better in the past? The sports measured objectively like athletics don’t have any. Football would be an exception if it had players that were better than now from years ago. What it might have had, in common with all sports, were people who raised the bar more significantly, which is much more difficult to do now.

[SouthLondonexile]

Modern star players are given protection by refs.
Premiership pitches are bowling green standard.
Star players thrive.
Players like Best and Cruyff were battered black and blue
and given little protection from officials, on pitches resembling ploughed fields. Difficult to compare eras I know but Best was pretty special as is Ronaldo.

[HahaYeah]

The game has changed so much since the 50s and 60s that it's difficult to compare players from then but i think players from the more recent past with amazing natural talent such as Best, Cruyff and Maradona would be mindblowing in todays game.

[Quickenthetempo]

Sky employee and former treble winning footballer. He's not wrong either - the game is much quicker and more skillful. You may not enjoy it as much but football is as popular as ever. I think as most of us get older we like to look back on things nostalgically and often with a misguided sense of how good things used to be. Naturally we were all more enthusiastic when younger. Spiral's post sums this up well.

You describe the attacking talent of Liverpool very well.

But I looked at that Leeds side and thought they were devoid of footballers with footballing brains. They just ran around a lot.
If Raphina doesn't get back to last years dizzy heights they will be in the relegation scrap.

[Rileybobs]

You describe the attacking talent of Liverpool very well.

But I looked at that Leeds side and thought they were devoid of footballers with footballing brains. They just ran around a lot.
If Raphina doesn't get back to last years dizzy heights they will be in the relegation scrap.

Leeds can be a big threat going forward but their game management at time is atrocious. There were huge gaps across the pitch yesterday and really they were lucky that Liverpool didn't have their shooting boots on as it really could and should have been 6 or 7.

I think their athleticism means that they'll only really be punished by the better sides though, and I think they've got plenty enough attacking talent to comfortably survive the drop.

[dsr]

There's no such thing as natural talent. It's a lie.

Things a baby can't naturally do:

Walk
Run
Accurately and reliably pass a football
Talk
Ride a tackle
Stand upright
Read
Anticipate a through-ball
Clean itself
Win a foul

Sure, if you're born with serious lung problems or wonky limbs or special needs you're probably [obscenity deleted] as far as a career in professional football is concerned, but almost every so-called talent a human is capable of is developed through practice, and one disrespects great sportspeople by chalking their ability up to 'natural talent'. There's nothing natural about Ronaldo's and Messi's ability, they just happened to be better than others at improving their game along every step of the way from childhood through to adulthood, and ended up being the best in the world for it. They developed their game with great effort. Their ability didn't land in their lap.

So if you take a bunch of 8 year olds who have never played cricket, and give them all a bat and see how far they can hit a ball lobbed at them, you'd expect them all to be about the same? You wouldn't expect to see one lad carting the ball all over the shop while another lad can barely make contact? Obviously the talent that is there needs to be worked on, but you can't become Ronaldo unless you are prodigiously talented to start with.

[Colburn_Claret]

So if you take a bunch of 8 year olds who have never played cricket, and give them all a bat and see how far they can hit a ball lobbed at them, you'd expect them all to be about the same? You wouldn't expect to see one lad carting the ball all over the shop while another lad can barely make contact? Obviously the talent that is there needs to be worked on, but you can't become Ronaldo unless you are prodigiously talented to start with.

Trevor Stevens interview from a couple of weeks ago was interesting. In that he says he benefited form having no one to play with. Instead of playing games and being coached, as most players, he was kicking a ball against a wall and practicing tricks. The outcome being that he was far more gifted than the coached players around him.
Some people have an eye for talent. The guy who snapped up so many gems from the NE for us in the 60s was one. Guardiola saw the talent in Foden, the first time he saw him play. I recall our youth game against bastards a few years ago, and their team of kids were all 6ft and built like brick shithouses, apparently. Do we overlook natural talent, for people of athletic ability at the U18s and lower!!!
We all know we need more pace in the team, but we also need someone who can put his foot on the ball and control the game. If he happens to be as tall as Brian Flynn does it really matter.

[RMutt]

So if you take a bunch of 8 year olds who have never played cricket, and give them all a bat and see how far they can hit a ball lobbed at them, you'd expect them all to be about the same? You wouldn't expect to see one lad carting the ball all over the shop while another lad can barely make contact? Obviously the talent that is there needs to be worked on, but you can't become Ronaldo unless you are prodigiously talented to start with.

A good book on this called Bounce. It’s by Matthew Syed a top class table tennis player in his day. I think it sub titled ‘the myth of talent’

[kentonclaret]

Rod Laver is regarded one one of the greatest men's lawn tennis players himself admitting "For our era we were pretty damn good, but we weren't facing serves coming down at 125mph on a regular basis".

Of course modern day world class footballers are more dedicated now with regard to health, diet, fitness and training but the players in the 50's and 60's weren't being offered £50k to £60k a week.

[dsr]

Rod Laver is regarded one one of the greatest men's lawn tennis players himself admitting "For our era we were pretty damn good, but we weren't facing serves coming down at 125mph on a regular basis".

Mind you, they didn't have graphite rackets the size of dustbin lids to hit them back with!

[gandhisflipflop]

The 90’s and early 00’s was the absolute peak of football in my opinion up until social media era. I think the game as a whole has less quality but is more athletic and they are fitter but it doesn’t compensate in my opinion.