Old Balls v New Balls, Can We Fairly Compare Older Footballers To Modern Footballers ?

[tannerall 25,935]

When it comes to comparing football teams over the football decades, the main problem, in my opinion is the balls. The tool of the football trade i.e. the ball, bears no comparison to earlier versions. 

Back in the 60s the ball was basically a bladder inside a leather skin. If someone had designed a receptacle to soak up and conserve  as much water as possible, then the traditional bladder was it. And it was seldom if ever perfectly round, usually under blown or overblown, laces too were a big  problem, and guaranteed to leave you suffering from concusison for 5-10 minutes after heading it on a wet, windy afternoon. 

You watch the older  football matches and the movement of the ball around the pitch is so much slower than today, no real signs of putting spin on the ball, no  quick "one twos" and few disguised or delicate passes as basically the football itself was a solid lump. 

Nowadays the ball is much more lighter, even aerodynamic, designed to swerve in mid air, easy to hit 60 yard passes, even easier now to hit goals from over the half way line, (I'm sure statistics would bear this out)

I believe FIFA even officially sanctioned lighter and more "swervy" footballs one time, possibly a "World Cup",  to allow more goals. And no one pre 1980 would have dreamed of achieving Roberto Carlos's famous swerving free kick with a sodden lump of leather.

Myself, I have fond memories of a Sunday League game in Brighton in the eighties on a muddy park with the rain and wind howling with an old style football. 4 minutes to go was a draw,  with 6 inches of mud in the centre of the park and a rain soaked lump of leather called a football was right in front of me in the centre circle. I decided to get it down the park early inside the opposition goal area.  

I lumped it from out of the mud, it travelled 3 foot up and kerplunked straight back down, still in the centre circle, my opposition midfielder lumped it back, it rose around 3 foot then kerplunked back in the mud. beside me We closed in, trying to dig the ball out the mud. This continued for a few minutes till the ref took pity and blew the full time whistle. 

However, back to the point, will we ever be able to compare the game and the achievements of modern day, highly tuned footballers playing with a highly designed football, to the old days when football was more a question of strength and endeavour rather than athleticism and technique. ?

Here's a great example, compare the movement of the ball when being played by Baxter and Albertz. 

 

[A.T.G 10,773]

Nope. Modern footballers would destroy the previous generations.

However, in a game of 5 of sides, you’re lucky if the modern players would touch the ball. (With the exception of a select few)

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

2 minutes ago, A.T.G said:

Nope. Modern footballers would destroy the previous generations.

However, in a game of 5 of sides, you’re lucky if the modern players would touch the ball. (With the exception of a select few)

Stick modern footballers in games with previous generations rules and they wouldn't last 2mins

[A.T.G 10,773]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

Stick modern footballers in games with previous generations rules and they wouldn't last 2mins

Aye you’re right there. Stick old players in today and they would be red carded within 10 seconds 😂😂

[tannerall 25,935]

14 minutes ago, A.T.G said:

Nope. Modern footballers would destroy the previous generations.

However, in a game of 5 of sides, you’re lucky if the modern players would touch the ball. (With the exception of a select few)

I tend to agree with that, but if the old time players had the same standard of fitness as modern players and played with a modern ball would they have been better ?

No one can surely deny that the likes of Baxter, Best and Pele had as able basic skills, awareness and ability than most  modern players. 

[peter huistra 1,740]

Love watching old videos of Baxter he's so elegant on the ball almost effortless, he could play today and wouldn't look out of place also Jim Forrest looked like he could have as well.

I'd reckon a lot of them could when you think of how good Tommy McLean was at crossing the ball he would no doubt be able to ping today's footballs about for fun only difference is the harder tackles and the fitness and how that side of things have changed. 

Someday the will be able to put all the stats and info into a simulation and see who really was the best.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

4 hours ago, tannerall said:

I tend to agree with that, but if the old time players had the same standard of fitness as modern players and played with a modern ball would they have been better ?

No one can surely deny that the likes of Baxter, Best and Pele had as able basic skills, awareness and ability than most  modern players. 

They would be as they spent their careers having a 6th sense to ride leg breaking tackles etc, imagielne someone like best being able to dribble the ball on todays pitches, no one would get close to him

[Malvern 11,329]

22 hours ago, A.T.G said:

Nope. Modern footballers would destroy the previous generations.

However, in a game of 5 of sides, you’re lucky if the modern players would touch the ball. (With the exception of a select few)

Modern footballers would still be rolling over claiming a foul when the other team are celebrating a goal with a beer and a cig on the touchline.

[RangersMedia 35,961]

On 14/11/2020 at 23:29, tannerall said:

I tend to agree with that, but if the old time players had the same standard of fitness as modern players and played with a modern ball would they have been better ?

No one can surely deny that the likes of Baxter, Best and Pele had as able basic skills, awareness and ability than most  modern players. 

People are a product of the environment. 
 

In the old days talent would be enough - but the modern game you need the attitude. Plenty of average footballers who apply themselves and learn how to play a role in a system in the modern game, the modern game is about getting the best out of a system and getting the sum of the parts to add up to the maximum possible number, for that you need players who can fulfil roles - rather than players who can display raw talent but maybe not the understanding or discipline to fulfil their task. The modern game has less variety and far more coached and learned than the game even 20 years ago and that is down to the application of science and very in depth analysis of every aspect of performance. 

No idea if Baxter or Best would have the application to excel in the modern game, despite being amongst the most naturally talented player to come out of the UK. George Best was a spent force by 26-27 years old...... in an era where fitness was nowhere near the factor it is today. Could Best have mentally coped with earning £150k a week, and not went down a path of implosion?

I'd go as far as to say football peaked in the 80's and 90's, where it was professional enough, but not so professional it became sterile. 

[Drumloyal 14,966]

If you took say a Ryan Kent and popped him into a team 50 yrs ago, he would excel physically but probably fail to make an impact with the ball.  On the other hand, take some cunt like Fyfe or Henderson and plop them into today, they would be like cr7 but only for the first 25 mins of a match. 

Products of their time imo. 

[JamieD 18,928]

9 hours ago, Badger said:

People are a product of the environment. 

This is the key point.

Maybe the likes of Baxter and Best could thrive today, maybe they couldn't, but if they did it would be because they had the drive and desire to become great players of the game that exists now. They absolutely would not thrive today playing the way they did in their own era. 

Tannerall suggested above that if Baxter, Best and Pele had the same standard of fitness and equipment that players have today, they would be able to compete, but this doesn't address the fact that if they had the same standard of fitness and equipment that players have today, their playing style would be different. They would have less time on the ball. Their bodies, rather than the ball, would be doing more of the work. Their game would become less technical and more athletic not because Baxter, Best and Pele don't have the technical ability but because in this scenario they do have the athleticism, and that's more reliable than technique when Virgil Van Dijk is bearing down on you.

[RangersMedia 35,961]

1 hour ago, JamieD said:

This is the key point.

Maybe the likes of Baxter and Best could thrive today, maybe they couldn't, but if they did it would be because they had the drive and desire to become great players of the game that exists now. They absolutely would not thrive today playing the way they did in their own era. 

Tannerall suggested above that if Baxter, Best and Pele had the same standard of fitness and equipment that players have today, they would be able to compete, but this doesn't address the fact that if they had the same standard of fitness and equipment that players have today, their playing style would be different. They would have less time on the ball. Their bodies, rather than the ball, would be doing more of the work. Their game would become less technical and more athletic not because Baxter, Best and Pele don't have the technical ability but because in this scenario they do have the athleticism, and that's more reliable than technique when Virgil Van Dijk is bearing down on you.

It is difficult to compare. In the old days technical talent would shine - but you could hammer square pegs into round holes and make it work. The games evolved beyond even fitting round pegs in round holes now. It's round pegs with a hex shaped groove needed for holes of that shape, etc - and players are refined and coached to become that.

You don't really get the maverick genius footballer in the modern game. The game is very much now about maximising a system and group of players to perform roles effectively in the system, rather than getting individuals to play together effectively.  Being a good footballer isn't enough anymore - better to be a lesser footballer, but supreme athlete with the discipline and awareness to carry out the exact role that has been asked of you, than be a better footballer but free spirited on the park. The elite players have both in abundance. 

As said, I don't think football has became better for becoming like that - however it is the inevitably of the professionalism and money in the game that it has. Too much at stake, and perfection is the standard. 

[tannerall 25,935]

18 hours ago, Drumloyal said:

If you took say a Ryan Kent and popped him into a team 50 yrs ago, he would excel physically but probably fail to make an impact with the ball.  On the other hand, take some cunt like Fyfe or Henderson and plop them into today, they would be like cr7 but only for the first 25 mins of a match. 

Products of their time imo. 

That's a great point, when I was wee, I could do keepy up with no bother on either or both feet for hundreds , header a ball against a wall and get it back spot on to around fifty, boot a ball 30 feet straight up in the air, and trap it dead every time, total ball control, I'd practise hitting corners on my own straight in to the goal or straight up and down to the penalty spot with over 80%  average, yet on the park it was a case of hoof it to the nearest player as quick as you could before getting hammered, then either  punt it up the park, or if you were pressured, punt it out the park. One of the basic skills then was knowing when to jump over a fouling outstretched leg and keep going. 

50 years on, I'm playing 5 a side and my skills are still decent can do wee side flicks, turn an opponent, spot a pass with not so much aggression. And the ball responds perfect, especially the size 4s.  And I get so much more enjoyment playing the beautiful game, rather than the overtly physical game. 

Not saying I was soft, never shirked a 50/50 tackle or got bullied out, (was more dangerous to pull back actually) but would have preferred to be playing my football on the park nowadays, its just so much more dependant on skill and awareness, rather than physical clout.

[Tom0411 1,226]

On 16/11/2020 at 02:20, Badger said:

Could Best have mentally coped with earning £150k a week, and not went down a path of implosion?

I

He didn't as when he first signed for Man United he lived in a club house in a Coronation Street type of house. Only problem was his gold E-Type Jag sitting outside. So what did that do to his life style and attitude.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

There would be more man management of the likes of best etc these days, in their era the gaffer showed up for training and games and let the squad do as they please, todays managers and their staff could probably control players a lot more