Got to say, I think you're talking bollocks. Do we go back as far as Cruyff, Maradona, Pele, Puskas wouldn't get in their club or national sides now because things have moved on? Or were they still great players in great teams? I agree it's hard to compare eras but to say our '94 side wouldn't live in the current premier league is complete nonsense.
Surley it's just the fitness aspect of it all that has changed? Give that team the same training facilities and sports science of today and they're up to speed. The talent is there, the reading of the game and technical ability.
For what reason, because football is supposed to be better now? It isn't, it's still the same game. Schmeichel Parker Pallister Bruce Irwin Kanchelskis Ince Keane Giggs Hughes Cantona. Where's the weakness? City would give them a game, that's it.
If you want to yeah. Pick those players up in their primes from their time and drop them in a top flight game now and they would have zero impact, the game would completely pass them by. They were clearly the most talented/best players of their time, so have every right to be mentioned as greats but fitness levels have risen so much that they simply wouldn't be able to compete in todays game as they were back then.
Nonsense, you have to level the playing field here and give the older players the same training opporunities but like I said earlier the reading and technical aspects of the game is what set these players apart so if they are as fit as their modern day counterparts they would still be great players.
Yeah but then there are other factors, given the same training facilities would they be as good athletically as players nowadays? Look at someone like Kyle Walker who is nowhere near the level of the players mentioned in a football sense, but a freak athlete which gets him into one of the best teams in PL history. As I say it is hard to compare eras and why I don't really like doing it, too much has changed in the game. It is the same with a lot of sports when comparing eras, I think it is virtually impossible.
I suppose it's all down to opinion but I think that those players were so technically gifted that if you make them as fit as the modern day players then they are still great.
Well yeah, but maybe I am just reading too much into it whenever I have these conversations with mates usually after about a gram and the sun coming up. Take Le Tisser's ability and Kyle Walkers body and you'd have a hell of a player, you can't just say "make them all as fit as todays players". You just don't know what players from the past would be like with training methods today, so hard to compare. But yeah I have thought too long about this before
Fair enough. On average the quality is better now its true. They were better days though. You could slide tackle, there were characters, less play acting, more pride in who they played for as a large proportion were British so were not just in it for the money. Had genuine loyalty and you could relate to them. They were wealthy but not on another planet. Owners were mostly British. The prices were not crazy. The Premier League is now just a rich mans game.
The football was also more entertaining as it was more attacking. That’s why English teams ****e in Europe.
Fitness, nutrition, the game has moved on quite a bit in twenty years. One could make the same argument from Utd of the 90's to Liverpool of the 70's to Portsmouth of the 50's and so on.
You could if you assumed those players didn't have access to the same fitness and nutrition programmes as current players if they were actually playing against each other. Set that aside, like for like they would piss the current premier league bar City. That's based on talent, work rate, balls, ability and the manager in charge of them.
Squads are also more or less twice the size now than when they were in the early 90's. Is that a reason to put down a side from the early 90's? Stoke are better because they've got a big squad and are marginally fitter?
Well that's very true, but I thought the point was the teams as they were, if we has time machines to prove it. If the 94 Utd had all been born 20 years later they'd be right up there.
