The concern about Saints not having long between the Pompey game and the match at Palace got me thinking about how in the past fixtures were sometimes on consecutive days, especially over Christmas and Easter. For example, in 1966 Saints got tonked 4-1 at Highbury on Boxing Day, and the next day, also a Bank Holiday, beat Arsenal 2-1 at the Dell. On Good Friday 1968, there was nearly a full First Division fixture list on Good Friday, followed by a complete programme on Easter Saturday. Fulham, for instance, had Man U at Craven Cottage on the Friday and then went to Forest on the Saturday. Bearing in mind that squads were a lot smaller then, and that there were NO SUBSTITUTES, plus the fact that with better diets and better training methods etc., players are undoubtedly fitter nowadays, why should we worry about how well our teams stand up to playing 3 games in less than a week? Are they soft, or do we worry too much?
We have a large squad who are amongst the fittest in the league, so doesn't adversely affect us compared to other teams. There haven't been many cancelled games to make up this year, so don't see the fixture list being too hard to handle.
Good points and memories, Chilco. Trouble is, the general supporters know so much about the relative goings on in football nowadays, compared to way back when, that it gives them more licence to worry. Managers also go on about recovery times, and how their players have not had time to rest, if and when they put in a so-so performance, so the myth has grown up that 3 games in a week is a real task. But most of the time it's the same for the opposition. Where it does get one sided is where one team doesn't play for a week and another has had to play catch up, with several games in short succession, before they meet each other. Incidentally, I remain curious as to why teams played each other within two days, back in those days. If one team were disadvantaged, due to injuries in the squad, they pretty much remained that way. Was that fair..?
The fitter players and better training leads to a faster, more intense and most would agree better game. They haven't gone soft, the games are harder and the stakes are higher.
I think that's probably true, but I just wonder what someone like Terry Paine, who played every minute of every game for 7 consecutive seasons back in the '50's and '60's, would think of it!
That's true. No laces, and not much leather either. Also, they don't go three times their weight when wet.
I made the point because not only did I play as a Winger, and supplied crosses with footballs with laces, but I also played as a Centre Forward and headed the bloody things. I was always a better CF on a dry day.
I was that good a winger second stain that i always delivered a cross to the centre forward so that the lace on the ball was facing away from his head as he met it
Of course. I knew of Ron Davies, and nowadays I've had the privilage to know Ron Davies, but there was only one Ron Davies. Well actually, there were two, of course, and both played for Saints.
This is an interesting debate. I don't necessarily agree with the game being "softer" but fitness levels are more finely tuned so that there are greater risks of injury. It seems odd having watched players like Jimmy Case who tackled hard yet fair wearing the Saints stripes and to think that this gladitorial style of play is very much on the wain. Oddily enough I was talking to a friend this morning about Barcelona and their passing game which my friend commented seemed to intimidate opposition players from making a tackle. For me, part of the appeal is the full-bloodied body charge and the players battling it out for possession of the ball. Foreign fans often comment that this is what is so appealing about the British game. As someone with an interest in history, I love reading about the origins of the game and notwithstanding football's barbaric origins in the medieval times which caused the sport to be banned, I think that the game has tended to get "softer" down the ages" and that this is something that has happened since the 1870's. To read this thread is to assume that this is something new but it has alwasy been a part of football. Back in the 1870's, many players objected to the move to abolish "hacking" and this was one of the disputes that ultimately led to the splitting of the code and te creation of Rugby. Players like Kincaid were legends in their time and thrived on the ability to hack their opponents. Gradually the sport became more sophisticated and the influx of talen from Scotland saw the physical side of football replaced with the tactical aspects. That said, I didn't know until recently that the game continued to be violent through into the 1920's. Dixie Dean , the famous Everton forward, actually lost a testicle following a particular hard tackle. There was also an notorious player at Aston Villa whose name I forget was allegedly the most dirty player in the history of the game and added to this reputation by association with some of Birminghams most notorious gangland criminals. Part of me enjoy seeing players with finesse expressing themselves but I still enjoy seeing the physical battle of the game. Its fascinating to recall the the likes of Billy Bonds, Chopper Harris and Steve McMahon who mixed skill with physical side to their game. i think there are still players who are capable of mixing it but I do agree the game is much softer than the one I started to follow in the mid 70's.
It was actually first banned because it was distracting the locals from important Archery practice. There are many ways to win battles but you're not going to be the victor at Agincourt by kicking a pigskin at the French.
Footballers are bigger wimps now, yes but i think the reason players cant play game after game is that football has got faster and more intensive, so even tho they are fitter its still much harder
Footballers are too valuable as commodities for clubs to want to take risks. In the past, footballers were not highly paid and they could probably earn as much outside the game as within it. I want to see skillful tackling which gets the ball not deliberate injuring of an opposition player.
I have to say i really enjoyed football when players could get stuck in a little more and as long as it was not malicious where is the problem.In the late 60s 70s and through the eighties defenders were tough and the upshot was that flair players tended to be likewise just to survive people like Best , Marsh, Osgood,Paine Channon Keegan ,Ball,Worthington and many more could all look after themselves big time in spite of there outstanding skill.Although football has come on in many ways tactically,injury treatment ,nutrician etc etc I think the loss of the physical element of the game detracts from my own personal enjoyment of football you can see a time the way things are going what was a a full blooded contact sport becoming powder puff total non contact judging by what happened at Old Trafford when the QPR man barely touched Young and down he went in the 70s the ref would have merely waved the game on and he would have just had to have got on with no time to even protest .
Without protection, players like Lambert and Le Tiss would just be taken out of the game. You can see how often Ricky is pulled about now, but at least they are not hurting him. I do agree, however, that some refs, especially abroad, do not always recognise that the player got the ball and it shouldn't be taken as a foul.
