Thor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:40 am
If anyone thinks the Liverpool team of the 80's would lose to us is living in cloud cuckoo land. We would.never get near the ball to worry them about fitness levels.
Some people are deluded about the difference in quality and class, which cannot be overrun with fitness.
Obviously they were far, far better footballers for their time.
But the game has progressed so much. Even old fashioned cloggers like Coulson are expected to be able to play football nowadays. The game just wasn’t like that back then. Can you imagine Sitton or Day doing anything with the ball other than lumping it long? They’ve never played a pass more than 5 yards in their lives.
Add to that the vastly improved strength and conditioning training which leads to far great physical ability, I think you’d be surprised.
Hotdogs I know he game has moved on and the standard has improved that’s for sure.
However, are you seriously saying that Hanson or Lawrenson couldn’t pass a ball? Phil neal and Kennedy either side of them, they were the pass masters. Yes fitness has improved, but quality is still quality no matter what era you played in. Going further I think it was Sid who said that given the same benefits in diet, training etc. Mathews et all would all be as good if not better than the players of today. The good and great would be good and great in any era.
If you were to compare that Liverpool side with the Liverpool side of last season then I’m sure the new one would win the game, mostly because they are so offensively minded whereas the old Liverpool side whilst were good up front, they built everything on a sound defence. Then your argument of fitness would win.
I think the top players kind of transcend that a little bit like the Liverpool examples above, but the average has changed dramatically. I reckon the bottom Championship teams of today would be decent Premier League teams of 25 years ago.
I sometimes think of how the Orient sides of 1995 or so would do against us now and the current mob would smash them to pieces I think, for the reasons RH has said.
I also think if you look at Conference players of today, Conference South even - they are probably your good L2 players of 1995.
It doesn't mean the style is better. Football was more enjoyable then in many ways as it was more about skill than effectiveness or athleticism.
Thor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:40 am
If anyone thinks the Liverpool team of the 80's would lose to us is living in cloud cuckoo land. We would.never get near the ball to worry them about fitness levels.
Some people are deluded about the difference in quality and class, which cannot be overrun with fitness.
Obviously they were far, far better footballers for their time.
But the game has progressed so much. Even old fashioned cloggers like Coulson are expected to be able to play football nowadays. The game just wasn’t like that back then. Can you imagine Sitton or Day doing anything with the ball other than lumping it long? They’ve never played a pass more than 5 yards in their lives.
Add to that the vastly improved strength and conditioning training which leads to far great physical ability, I think you’d be surprised.
I think you're doing them a disservice. They were both alright playing the ball out. I appreciate that fitness has improved hugely, but I don't think the game has changed that much. The biggest difference for me is the quality of shooting and the talent of fullbacks. We also had centre halves like Roeder, Cunningham, Beesley, McCarthy, Clark who were all better on the ball than any centre half we currently have.
tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:07 am
Are people misreading what dogs actually said ?
He is talking specifically about fitness levels of the 70s/80s to those now
He isnt talking about skill or great players.
Kind of this. We have gone off on a tangent.
My point is that footballers of today put their bodies through a whole lot more than footballers of yesteryear in terms of stress and strain (not talking about the tackling, obvs). To perform at that level, twice per week, over a prolonged period of time, is not sustainable.
