Bit like comedy and comedians really, all relevant to the times in which we live but, as I said earlier, I have a lot more years to make my comparisons.
No doubt you have seen more years than me and therefore more games of football but I can get hold of videos of Cruyff or Pele or Best playing and make a subjective comparison on who I prefer but the only way to really know who was/is/will be the best ever is to invent a time machine. I think the interesting thing to ponder is this: in 1953 Puskas did a little drag back that bamboozled the English defence and it was considered outrageous; when Cruyff first pulled off the turn that is named after him on that Swedish fella it was considered amazing- the Swedish bloke said he'd never seen anything like it, yet you can see people doing those things on Sunday league pitches in 2016. If Puskas and Cruyff were playing today, would they be able to do things that would be considered equally outlandish today? Or would they only be able to pull off tricks and skills that would be considered run of the mill now?
So that places you better to decide who is funnier? It's all subjective isn't it, and it comes down to preference. My kids and grand kids may tell me that Xezobot Fryopazzi is better than Cantona ever was and he might be, he's not even born yet but he might be, but I might just say nahhh these robot footballers ain't like when real humans played the game.
A good way of drawing comparisons on evolution in sport is to look at Olympians. Even the worst ones in this year's 100m final would be blitzing those from 60 years ago deemed the very best.
Both exactly right as it always has been subjective but at least everyone knew where they stood before money became a huge factor. My biggest regret about the past fifty years or so is the way Euro football has been set up for top clubs. Teams who are not even champions of their country can become champions of Europe without ever being the best in their country.
Agree totally there. I think it would be much better for the game if European competition was reorganised.
I agree, partly. The CL final is played over a full year since the previous domestic champions were crowned. When we won it in 99 we were EPL champions in 98/99, but Arsenal had won the league the previous year. I think it would be far less entertaining watching Barca steamrolling some Irish minnow 37-0 every other week. Just my opinion, it's the other European comp that desperately needs attention.
But we have a chicken and egg situation which allows the top teams to avoid each other until the last eight at least. Even the failures in third place remain in Europe via the Euro League which, if they win, get back into the ECL next season. It may be good for TV, sponsorship and commercial interests, but it is killing football for ordinary less well off clubs. Leics have had their moment of domestic glory, but going on their season domestically so far they could be back to bread and butter next year unless they go for it and shell out massive transfer fees and contracts.
I'm just curious as to what environment you would think the weaker thrive in? There's so much to discuss here that I'd be at it all day, it's honestly a minefield of a conversation to have, especially with me being a United fan and you being a Sunderland fan, there's no way for me to have this conversation with you without me being accused of being patronising or having lost touch with 'real football'.
Us so-called weaker clubs would thrive in the type of competition we had prior to Sky and other wealth. The Prem league was iproposed by Sky who discussed their plans with the FA who laid down rules about Sky money being spread throughout football and cherry picking of fixtures would not take place. As this was not wanted, Sky had back door discussions with the bigger clubs who fancied the money that was on offer based on position in league. There became a severe danger that Prem would go its own way without being members of FA so Sky won eventually for one game a week in the beginning. Agree we could go on about this forever and is the kind of discussion best done over a pint as our clubs are the opposite end of the benefits that Sky, and other circumstances, has provided historically, but at least we are fans who can have one without rancour. Got to add I did like the patronising bit as I have only found that with certain other clubs who are close-by. Been a good conversation though.
There's never been a more level playing field than now. Run your club right there's plenty of riches very everyone to complete. All the money in the game is making it more level than ever imo. This is shown by the sheers class in the rank of teams dubbed as unfashionable just a few years ago. Everyone wants to play here, and everyone who isn't running their clubs into the ground are in with a shot of landing these very players. Teams are only every a couple of good windows from a realistic shot of glory. Staying there is another matter, something even the top clubs are realising now. The Premier League is the best place to thrive imo.
I am aware success brings its own reward financial reward but that was never the whole point of this discussion. What is evident to me though is that from the beginning in '92 there was an imbalance in prize money, and extension to clubs qualifying for the ECL which is now becoming evident in the elite club/player/coach league merry-go-round.
I don't know what the point of the discussion is anymore, there's been lots of digression. Thought the point was a manager complaing about an unlevel playing field because of kick off times.
Got you now Bri. Things did meander away from the OP a bit back in time, then back again which is why I replied as I did. All in the spirit of discussion of course.
Of course mate. Been a slalom of the thread. Been two or three good ideas for threads in just three pages. Can't be arsed to start them though
I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as saying you'd thrive without Sky interfering, as the evidence suggests you were not, prior to Sky. I recall you bobbing around the third tier and second tier as I was growing up, I can't say this with any certainty, but for the last 10 years or so with 'Sky money' you're an established top flight team. I think you'd do a lot better with an owner who knows football, then you may thrive, more than ever. You have all the best tools but your blacksmith is poor.
Nowt cut and dried as there were other factors driving our two clubs. What I feel is during the old(er) days clubs built teams and there was equal competition in most things, as shown in the number of them that won the championship. Those teams inevitably faded and others came along in the building cycle. Now financial benefit via the various outlets, not least of which sponsorship, guides everything. England so far is the only country going in this direction. I watched a cracking game from Germany this morning with Leverkusen and Leipzig, who are now top of the Bundesligue. No sour gapes, just a genuine belief that our football has gone in the direction of the now wealthier clubs and it will stay there.
I don't think its true that England is the only country going that way. Money talks wherever you are. Its a widely discussed fact that Barcelona and Real Madrid dominate in Spain because they get a massively disproportionate share of TV revenue. Bayern have dominated in Germany because they are the richest club and now Leipzig are doing well because they bankrolled by a huge multinational company.
