I bet calories burnt would give a pretty good picture. Looking after themselves by knocking back 15 pints and 20 ***s after the game do you mean?
Yeah but let's not get carried away, it's not like they were playing in swamps. They still had groundsmen. A lot of teams these days are playing on poor quality pitches and I can guarantee that it's the running around that gets them not how much mud there is.
Found this article from The Independent: "When British researchers looked at footballers from the old First Division in 1976, they found that the distance covered in a game was an average 8-11 kilometres, 25 per cent of which was walking and 11 per cent sprinting. Physiologists reckon that Premiership footballers now cover around 12-14 kilometres per match and that a greater percentage of that distance is run at top speed. In the World Cup qualifier against Greece last year, David Beckham was recorded as running 16.1 kilometres" If anyone thinks that running an extra four kilometres is nothing I suggest they run that distance then get back to me. If that's three times a week it adds up quickly.
Three games a week is no picnic but I'm sure it takes the edge off when you're sleeping on a pile of £50 notes.
United are having the same issues as Liverpool on those dates but we aren't crying about it. If you want the money you have to do the job. Sky control it, they **** every team in European comps in the arse with the fixtures not helping teams, probably why we have so few CL winners, 4 (half of which are ours) out of about 30 years.
Can't stand Liverpool personally. That's why I find itburonuc that Klopp is complaining about this and saying that city's issues aren'tas bad as they're at home on the Monday. Suck it up man instead of whinging you daft twat (Klopp,not you tel)
Most foreign managers moan about the winter fixture pile up here, at least for a year or two, then they accept it, unless they're Arsene Wenger. Everybody wants the money but nobody wants Sky to have a say. All games have to be staggered, to allow for Sky to make so much money from this and then they turn around and pump it back into English football. I reckon out of every team in the league, we have the fewest Sat 3pm kick offs. Just have to get on with it.
Yes the game are now more demanding and faster but the playing surfaces are far superior to those in the past and playing squads much larger imo we need to leave things as they are and managers and players should'nt whinge re tiredness and too many fixtures. Fans matter in the holiday fixtures
So, to put it in a nutshell, today's players run further and faster than ever, which I totally accept but that only made me recall how wingers/wingbacks or whatever sit around their own penalty area then hare down the field only not to receive the ball. So they have to hare back to defend and are forced to constantly do this within today's tactics. Maybe the older players were cuter and made the ball do the work by not losing possession while they carefully built up an attack with some accurate play and smart passing.
Back in your day when the ball went over the stand somebody had to go and get it. Every game ended 7-3 or 9-2, were goalkeepers going to get the ball and boot it back into the ground? by the time they got back they'd conceded another 4.
No, not back in my day, it's just that I have more days to compare different styles, and certainly before the big money days altered football forever. The players themselves are not that different as I can compare Messi/Ronaldo etc with Pele/Best and others of his time and later. Hardly got to see these players unless you went to games, but TV gave us more idea of how football was played. Some you do not forget,
Pele top for me. A 17YO kid in the 58 WC which was live on the brand new EuroVision, didn't see anything of him in 62 as it was in SAmerica,66 he was kicked off the pitch from game one, but in 70 he was outstanding. Best second for his sheer ability but the other two were part of teams that never struggles so neither faced any degree of adversity so have never had their overall character tested except in their national teams and both have never been outstanding.
Talking about fitness and throwing in techniqal players to make the point. It makes no sense. CR and Messi are fitter than Best and Pele were, all day long, but technically who's better is a whole other debate.
I'll never agree on Pele, put Darius Vassell in his era and his leagues he'd score for fun as well. Best was better though, obviously, it's in his name.
Comparing players from different eras is a completely futile task (imooc). The playing conditions, tactics, training techniques, competition configurations, weight of boots, weight of balls, number of games, diets, understanding of physiology, scientific aids, amongst other things vary so much over time that its impossible to say whether C.B. Fry, Charles Buchan, David Jack, Mathias Sindelar, Ferenc Puskas, Alfredo Di Stefano, Pele, Johan Cruyff, Diego Maradona, Niall Quinn, Ronaldinho, Messi, or Ronaldo is the best player ever. All you can say is that each was outstanding in their day. Beyond that, all you can do is pick your favourite.
