TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Something has bothered me for quite a while, not just on this forum but with football fans in general. Most 'oldies' seem to place a lot of value on being 'oldies' and so insist that the players that most fans would know are nowhere near as good as 'back in the day'; this was most noticeable during the ‘Top 100’ thread. It's a footballing equivalent of the hipster 'well their old stuff is better, I knew them before they got big.'

Almost every single shred of video evidence I have seen (including Chunkygull’s post on the ‘Top 100’ thread, showing the ‘sublime football’ of long ball and goals from corners plus Lee Sharpe and a pacey striker) directly contradicts this, as does simple sporting science and logic.

I’m sure the golden oldies will be the first to admit (indeed, they usually celebrate this, seeing as it’s all the England team is generally good for) that football was a lot rougher back in the day. Fouls that would be considered dangerous play now were commonplace, and generally you had to be tough to survive. This is not conducive to better football or being a better footballer. A better thug? Perhaps.

Secondly, sports science and nutrition, not to mention coaching and fitness, has changed completely since the ‘good old days’. Players having a pie and pint before the match is now recognised as not being the best way to get a good performance, and training is more in depth both physically and tactically than ever before. So, modern players are fitter, and most likely faster and stronger than players used to be. In addition to this, the level of work put into the tactical side of the game means that they are likely to be a damn sight more tactically aware.

In addition, consider almost every single sport in which world records are achievable. There are precious few records that do not get constantly broken as time goes on. This is because as we learn from the past, we are refining sporting performance to a higher and higher level.

Why does nobody use 2-3-5 nowadays? Because football has evolved beyond that tactically and technically. Why did Spain come unstuck at the last World Cup? Because their tiki-taka style has been superseded by well-organised defending and direct counter-attacking play.

Also, whilst modern-day footballs are lighter and thus able to be curved more, consider that heavy footballs are actually MUCH easier to control.

I’m sure that this will provoke outcries of ‘well if they had all of the facilities and science from today they would be better’.

Maybe. But they didn’t. So they’re not.

An interesting post, Madgull, and a lot of truth in it but I make no apology for remembering the 'good old days' with affection when Plainmoor was indeed a fortress and we rarely lost a home game. I would argue that the better players of yesteryear such as Don Mills, Sammy Collins, Robin Stubbs, John Bond would adapt and would succeed in the modern game. I don't agree that the game was rougher. More physical, yes. You say that 'Fouls that would be considered dangerous play now were commonplace'. That is correct, but they weren't fouls. They were in the rules of the game. Not since football has been 'sanatised' have heavy tackles been banned. I would also argue that the old 2 - 3 - 5 formation provided more entertaining football and I'm not sure I agree that the heavy leather balls were easy to control. But you're right - football has evolved and will continue to evolve until one day it will come back to the 2 - 3 - 5 formations ...... Much in your post to provoke discussion.

tomogull wrote:But you're right - football has evolved and will continue to evolve until one day it will come back to the 2 - 3 - 5 formations ...... Much in your post to provoke discussion.

Yeah, I failed to mention that lots of tactics do re-emerge, such as the 4-3-3 a few years ago, and now three at the back is making a comeback. The meta game is constantly changing, mostly in the top divisions but it still trickles down.

Modern footballers may be faster, fitter stronger, but better? That's laughable. Virtually every team now has a lightening fast winger who can do 100 metres in 10 seconds but can't cross their legs let alone a ball and couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo. I've seen loads and loads of them, even in the top flight (Aaron Lennon is an example). Even in the 80s Brian Clough bombed out a young winger named Franz Carr due to the demands of his father, and the fact the bloke was utter crap! Like lightening, but crap. We had him on loan at Hillsborough and he could beat a greyhound over 30 yards but then we started to duck on the Kop as that is where his cross always ended.
Pace is the all encompassing quality needed now. Football is played in systems, patterns and various tactics are used. These can all be taught but pace is something you either have, or have not, and no pace=no career as it's something you can't teach. I'm not suggesting it isn't needed but in many cases now it's ALL some footballers have.

IMHO

A good point from Madgull, something I have thought about before myself, how can we compare past era footballers with modern players as the game is so different and there are the science, fitness, evolution, training method factors to consider. It is impossible to say how the old players would compare if they were around today, but if they were then they would be subject to the same benefits of the things that modern players enjoy. As Tomogull says the better players of yesteryear such as Don Mills, Sammy Collins, Robin Stubbs, John Bond would adapt and would succeed in the modern game. I would add that probably many of the past players on our top 100 list would be good enough if they were around now.

I would not say there have always been times I have seen much better football as such, two eras stand out in that way, the seasons under Leroy Rosenior and the 97/98 team. The 87/88 team are one of my favorites not neccesarily fantastic football but they were tough, they were hard and they could play a bit also, but notably they had some stand out players. Teams just used to have a lot more about them and there seemed to be more effort, passion and determination than you see now.

I couldnt put it better than Emmet does, he sums it up perfectly about modern players and football in general. Most are a bunch of robots, sprinters in football boots, no football brain, no different skills, no craft or guile. The fitness might be better in modern times, but looking at our level and watching TUFC now, I would have to say the technical side is not really better at all, I have seen some crap teams in my time and players who cant pass a ball but in most of the last 8-9 years I have to say the football has been worse than anything else I have seen before,all but 1995.

As far as I am concerned. Modern players have far too much of an attitude problem. right from the top all the way to the bottom. Many a non league and lower league manager has complained of players who think they are better than they are. ans Pay more attention to how they look and Girl gazing rather than putting in a shift on the park each match. If some of them sat and looked at themselves in the mirror then they might see that it would be worth more practicing a few of those old school skills and being a bit more effective on the Pitch. Untill they do. I don't think I will ever see the magic of Charlton and Best recreated in modern players. Now those were players who could set a place alight..dribbling with the ball passing all and sundry. which is a skill that we seem to have lost by and large

One thing we can be sure about, is that the current side would shocking in any era.