Ok, here goes, my thoughts on why players of previous generations were technically better than the modern day counterparts. In broad terms at least.
I think there are some things that modern day players have in their favour, that tend to make technique either easier to come by, or appear exceptional. The football now is so light and easy to shape it in the air. Free kicks are to the modern day players benefit. But go back and look at players like Eder and Zico and how much they could make the older balls move. Go back even further they wouldnt move side to side, but you could see top players make them dip viciously. Boots are other things that favour modern day players. Quality of pitches another. Then of course the rules now favour players of a certain type and tackling with any physicality is close to being outlawed. All of these things to me mean the modern day player have more scope to show skills and technique. I think it perhaps, also makes the modern day play quick to stop practicing and evolving their ability.
The above said though if you go back and look at the high skill players in previous eras, I think the top end players were doing everything and more the modern players do. You can see players who can dribble with unreal quality, hit a pass inch perfectly, have a touch to die for and do outrageous things on the ball.
I think you need to look at the upbringing of players to see why one generation differs from another. The modern day player grows up in an academy environment, often from 6 years old upwards. When they hit 9 it is all they know. My opinion is we overcoach players in the modern game. There is no learning through play anymore. It stifles the imagination of young footballers. I see this all the time in youth football. We are coaching shape and transition at age 9 and 10. It is counter intuitive. I have mentored young coaches and the one thing that really gets me agitated when I see them stopping everyone from gathering round the ball. Why do we want 6 and 7 year olds to not want to get the ball? The bees round a honeypot is what you should encourage at early ages. Then as coaches we have forgotten how to simplify practice which maximises return. The best example I can give is solo practice with a wall and a ball. The wall pass, to teach you touch, is unbeatable. You can do that for 20 minutes and probably have over 500 first touches! You can do everything from safe side to half turn. I run a little soccer school for 5 and 6 year olds and I ask mums and dads to do this and they look at me as if I am daft. Instead kids want to practice youtube skills, none of which are game relevant. The amount of times kids want to do a rainbow flick drives me barmy. I teach them the Waddle feint instead
Compare that with previous generations. I would literally kick the ball against a wall for hours. It wasnt intentional, but it was fun, and boy did my touch improve. Everybody did it. But then we didnt have youtubers trying to kick balls into bins, or do these crazy skills to distract us. In years gone by we taught ourselves, in our own environments. We learned by making mistakes, not by having folk tell you what to do at every turn. It just meant we learned our own bodies, our own attributes physically, and our techniques were naturally evolved, not unnaturally created.
I am a huge futsal fan. If I were in charge of the FA I would make futsal the game for kids up to 9, not football. The concept is so simple, you touch the ball 10 times more. The ball is weighted to give your touch a helping hand. It creates confidence for young players. Brazil, Portugal etc have a deep history with futsal, mainly in Brazils case due to their being no open space in the favellas. They did everything in tiny spaces. Running wasnt rewarded, pace wasnt relevant, being 6 foot tall was pointless. Out of those environments came some of the greatest technicians of all times. Touch, pass, move. Liverpool took this on in England, small games 3v3, 5v5 etc. Pass and move. These players didnt practice much other than touch, pass, vision. Somebody mentioned Molby earlier. The boy had a wonderful touch, that is why he didnt leave the centre circle, he didnt need to because of his touch and quick mind. All honed in an environment where technique was this natural thing, unspoken of, but so vital to the game. I used to watch Ronnie Whelan a lot, just this natural ball player, not coached into something else.
I have stopped my coaching in academies now, and in serious football generally. I am a bit of a dinosaur and the new lads are coming through. They are very good coaches, and we produce very good footballers, dont get me wrong. I could watch the likes of Foden all day long. Rigg and Neil are technically superb too. It isnt all bad at all, loads to be excited about. But do we have the players that are so naturally instinctive because their technique is so natural. In some cases yes, of course, but not in so many cases is my opinion.
I maybe blinded a bit by my heroes in football. And as a coach largely my approaches are seen as a bit old school. I could therefore be wide of the mark. I still love watching footballers who can look after the ball, and the modern game has plenty and the coaches are doing well. Maybe I just love the romance of a kid kicking a ball against a wall, in the tipping down rain, in some pit village somewhere, or a favella, or the dusty streets of Beunos Aires, emerging as these beautiful artists with a football.
.
