Think football is poor now ?

[slartibartfast]

I was at this game as a 14 y o, didn't realize quite how poor the standard actually was back then! I know the pitches didn't help............another interesting point, listen to the silence when Man City score, away travel wasn't " a thing" back then, took another couple of years for it to really start. Any away fans (back then ) were mostly oldies travelling in ONE coach. They used to sit in stands (as opposed to terraces). At AG they seemed to used to congregate in the Grandstand (Williams) toward the EE.

[TBW]

And this is exactly why I can't take anyone seriously when they compare players from the 60s to players today. The memory of them might be great but the game has evolved so much that an average player from today would have been a world-beater back then.

[slartibartfast]

18 minutes ago, TBW said:

And this is exactly why I can't take anyone seriously when they compare players from the 60s to players today. The memory of them might be great but the game has evolved so much that an average player from today would have been a world-beater back then.

Yes, surprised at several poor touches from "Big John", which would earn a lot of negative post on here, nowadays !

[downendcity]

15 minutes ago, TBW said:

And this is exactly why I can't take anyone seriously when they compare players from the 60s to players today. The memory of them might be great but the game has evolved so much that an average player from today would have been a world-beater back then.

Evolution of diet, sports science, lifestyles,  medical techniques, improved training regimes, better pitches, better boots and better protection offered by referees would mean that the best players from the 60s would compere with today's best players.

By the same token put today's players back in the 60s with rudimentary training, up the pub after training, steak and chips as a pre match meal, hefty great boots a ball that weighed a ton when. Wet. Pitches resembling Weston beach with the tide out out and defenders more than willing to apply GBH as excuses for tackling and they wouldn't look so good.

[Davefevs]

26 minutes ago, TBW said:

And this is exactly why I can't take anyone seriously when they compare players from the 60s to players today. The memory of them might be great but the game has evolved so much that an average player from today would have been a world-beater back then.

But that’s discounting how a player from one era might adapt to another era.  If you’re talking about just parachuting them into an era 50 years ago, then yes…but that’s not comparing them fairly Is it?

Its not just memories, it’s taking lots of other things into consideration too.  Give Bobby Charlton the environment and technology of today, and he’d still be a world class player in all likelihood (and he’s 84 ).

Edited September 20, 2022 by Davefevs

[slartibartfast]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Evolution of diet, sports science, lifestyles,  medical techniques, improved training regimes, better pitches, better boots and better protection offered by referees would mean that the best players from the 60s would compere with today's best players.

By the same token put today's players back in the 60s with rudimentary training, up the pub after training, steak and chips as a pre match meal, hefty great boots a ball that weighed a ton when. Wet. Pitches resembling Weston beach with the tide out out and defenders more than willing to apply GBH as excuses for tackling and they wouldn't look so good.

Can't really agree with  the highlighted points. As my old man said even back then ".................playing in slippers with a beach ball" So things had changed from the 50's They used to call the "new boots" .........continental style !

[Leveller]

Our players look poor, but there's some good play from the Man City side. In fact they were champions that season and within 2 years were League Champoins in the 1st Division, with quite a few of the same side. You can already see the potential of Summerbee and Neil Young.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But that’s discounting how a player from one era might adapt to another era.  If you’re talking about just parachuting them into an era 50 years ago, then yes…but that’s not comparing them fairly Is it?

Its not just memories, it’s taking lots of other things into consideration too.  Give Bobby Charlton the environment and technology of today, and he’d still be a world class player in all likelihood (and he’s 84 ).

Well yes and no.  If you put the Bobby Charlton who played in 1966 in present day football he wouldn’t stand a chance.  He would have to be ten times fitter; to have a range of skills he didn’t have then; and to have a different mindset and lifestyle.  So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton?  You can only compare what you know, and sadly it’s probably true that footballers from the 1960s would struggle in today’s game.  I’ve always felt that the standard of football in the heady Division 1 days of 1976-1980 probably equates to no higher than the average Championship standard today.  I suspect that the Lee Johnson team of 2017 would have done very well in Division 1 in 1976.  Today’s Man City team would annihilate the 1966 England team.

[Kid in the Riot]

The pitch looks dreadful, but honestly reckon the standard is below the National League. Loads of heavy touches, missed tackles, and frankly aimless balls/passes. Certainly nowhere near Championship standard.

[Steve Watts]

Some of the commentary was great in the first few minutes.  "He's their dangerman - he's 6ft 1 and 13st.  And Young is Manchester Citys biggest player at over 6ft...."(words to that effect), followed by "And all the Manchester City forwards have their shirts outside their pants"!

Will watch the full video later, so thanks for sharing Slart

[jj77]

1 hour ago, TBW said:

And this is exactly why I can't take anyone seriously when they compare players from the 60s to players today. The memory of them might be great but the game has evolved so much that an average player from today would have been a world-beater back then.

To be fair to them they probably had a fry up, 10 pints and smoked 20 cigarettes before the game.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Well yes and no.  If you put the Bobby Charlton who played in 1966 in present day football he wouldn’t stand a chance.  He would have to be ten times fitter; to have a range of skills he didn’t have then; and to have a different mindset and lifestyle.  So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton?  You can only compare what you know, and sadly it’s probably true that footballers from the 1960s would struggle in today’s game.  I’ve always felt that the standard of football in the heady Division 1 days of 1976-1980 probably equates to no higher than the average Championship standard today.  I suspect that the Lee Johnson team of 2017 would have done very well in Division 1 in 1976.  Today’s Man City team would annihilate the 1966 England team.

But I’m not talking about taking a 1966 Bobby Charlton and dropping him into 2022. That becomes a pointless exercise / debate.

I’m saying that the players who evolved to be the best in the 60s, or whatever era, would more than likely have evolved in another era too, whether that be going forward or backward in time.  They adapted / utilised their skills to become the best in that era….and most would’ve done the same in another era.  And I’m sure if Bobby Charlton had been born 50 years later, he’d have evolved to be a top player in an era half a decade later.

[RedRock]

A fraction before I joined the Bristol City ‘family’, which must have been around 67-68 as I don’t recall that stand on the far side.

Brings back some memories though, aside from the players, the bus drivers walking around the pitch about 5 minutes before the end so they could rev up the ‘Specials’ and those classic light blue invalid carriages - though must have been just before they came truly in vogue. 
 

Thanks for posting - and, yes, the standard of the football (and pitch) looks appalling, nearly as bad as the late LJ years. 

[downendcity]

24 minutes ago, jj77 said:

To be fair to them they probably had a fry up, 10 pints and smoked 20 cigarettes before the game.

Before the game?

A fair few smoked a fag or two at half time.

[Leveller]

51 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

The pitch looks dreadful, but honestly reckon the standard is below the National League. Loads of heavy touches, missed tackles, and frankly aimless balls/passes. Certainly nowhere near Championship standard.

Sounds a lot like the football we were watching twelve months ago!

[Out of his pie crust]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

  So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton?

Yes…..but he’d probably have a better haircut

[TinMan's left peg]

Not just as far back as the 60s either - take a look at the ‘crap 90s football’ Twitter account

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Well yes and no.  If you put the Bobby Charlton who played in 1966 in present day football he wouldn’t stand a chance.  He would have to be ten times fitter; to have a range of skills he didn’t have then; and to have a different mindset and lifestyle.  So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton?  You can only compare what you know, and sadly it’s probably true that footballers from the 1960s would struggle in today’s game.  I’ve always felt that the standard of football in the heady Division 1 days of 1976-1980 probably equates to no higher than the average Championship standard today.  I suspect that the Lee Johnson team of 2017 would have done very well in Division 1 in 1976.  Today’s Man City team would annihilate the 1966 England team.

Central midfielders in Charlton time generally ran sub five miles, it’s now frequently beyond six, that is not x 10. Skill isn't overtly physical, it’s the result of deliberate practice and its neural, humans create muscle memory via training and repetition.  To have the skill set Charlton possessed the player has to have a growth mindset to create his skill level. Skill is a nurtured talent that can be performed on demand.

To state a exceptional player then wouldn’t be now is a rather odd argument because the driver of why these players were exceptional is being removed.

If the player was advanced across aspects of technical, tactical, physical, psychological well they would still be advanced now. Todays human is not a new species.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Cowshed

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

But I’m not talking about taking a 1966 Bobby Charlton and dropping him into 2022. That becomes a pointless exercise / debate.

I’m saying that the players who evolved to be the best in the 60s, or whatever era, would more than likely have evolved in another era too, whether that be going forward or backward in time.  They adapted / utilised their skills to become the best in that era….and most would’ve done the same in another era.  And I’m sure if Bobby Charlton had been born 50 years later, he’d have evolved to be a top player in an era half a decade later.

Yes, I realise that, but your comparison becomes so hypothetical it doesn’t really tell us anything.  Who knows who might be able to succeed these days, given modern training methods, etc?  Who knows whether there was a limit to Bobby Charlton’s potential which he had already reached?  We can only make valid comparisons with the Bobby Charlton we know.

[SecretSam]

I recall someone years ago saying that the (then) current England team would batter the 1966 team, because the modern player is fitter, technically better and the game is so much faster now.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Yes, I realise that, but your comparison becomes so hypothetical it doesn’t really tell us anything.  Who knows who might be able to succeed these days, given modern training methods, etc?  Who knows whether there was a limit to Bobby Charlton’s potential which he had already reached?  We can only make valid comparisons with the Bobby Charlton we know.

Yep, but then back to @TBWand the OP, why bother comparing in the first place…both methods are futile in that respect as well, aren’t they?

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Central midfielders in Charlton time generally ran sub five miles, it’s now frequently beyond six, that is not x 10. Skill isn't overtly physical, it’s the result of deliberate practice and its neural, humans create muscle memory via training and repetition.  To have the skill set Charlton possessed the player has to have a growth mindset to create his skill level. Skill is a nurtured talent thatb can be performed on demand.

To state a exceptional player then wouldn’t be now is a rather odd argument because the driver of why these players were exceptional is being removed.

If the player was advanced across aspects of technical, tactical, physical, psychological well they would still be advanced now. Todays human is not a new species.

 

 

I agree to an extent, but then that seems to assume that all good players had room for further improvement, and we simply don’t know that.  It’s quite possible that a player who was good in a previous era would fail in this because it is a very different game - weight of ball, different type of boots, better surfaces, etc. etc.  

Just now, Davefevs said:

Yep, but then back to @TBWand the OP, why bother comparing in the first place…both methods are futile in that respect as well, aren’t they?

Exactly!!

[Cowshed]

Just now, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I agree to an extent, but then that seems to assume that all good players had room for further improvement, and we simply don’t know that.  It’s quite possible that a player who was good in a previous era would fail in this because it is a very different game - weight of ball, different type of boots, better surfaces, etc. etc.  

Exactly!!

Charlton was not a good player. He was a great one. 

You appear to be saying that a player at the zenith of the game could not make it now because humans are now different? 

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Might like to check out the lyrics/songs/philosophy of Devo ! 

[Robbored]

14 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Charlton was not a good player. He was a great one. 

You appear to be saying that a player at the zenith of the game could not make it now because humans are now different? 

Homo Sapiens aren’t different but professional footballers these days have the benefits of today’s technology. Most have state of the art training facilities, led by well trained managers and coaches who have access to all the imaginable scientific data and statistics - the game is vastly different to 60 years ago and not just the pitches either!

Had Bobby Charlton had access to all of modern day methods he’d have been even more wonderful than he was. The same could apply to all the earlier generations of professional footballers. Can you imagine if Bobby Moore, Alan Ball, Roger Hunt, Jimmy Greaves were playing these days?

It hardly bears thinking about.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Robbored

[richwwtk]

18 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Charlton was not a good player. He was a great one. 

You appear to be saying that a player at the zenith of the game could not make it now because humans are now different? 

 

 

Ummm no, what people are saying is that you really don't know how Charlton's game and mentality would have adapted to modern football and training methods so, whilst it is quite possible he would still be amongst the greats, it is also possible that he may have been one of the ones that fall by the wayside because he just wasn't suited to it. 

[Oh Louie louie]

Social  media means all for some players over the pitch and the loudest preachers at man utd over the last few years won sweet fa. Brian clough quote say nothing till you win then talk your head

head off.

[Super]

What's with the car behind the goal?

[chinapig]

40 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Might like to check out the lyrics/songs/philosophy of Devo ! 

Q: Are we not men?

[Cowshed]

42 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Homo Sapiens aren’t different

Exactly. 

42 minutes ago, Robbored said:

but professional footballers these days have the benefits of today’s technology. Most have state of the art training facilities, led by well trained managers and coaches who have access to all the imaginable scientific data and statistics - the game is vastly different to 60 years ago and not just the pitches either!

 

Thats an external factor, Humans have not changed.

42 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Had Bobby Charlton had access to all of modern day methods he’d have been even more wonderful than he was. 

 He would still possess the characteristics of what made him exceptional. The keystone qualities have not altered. Our understanding of training methodology has. 

Charlton exceptional talent would be accentuated with modern football training, as would be any other individual.   

42 minutes ago, Robbored said:

 The same could apply to all the earlier generations of professional footballers.

Yes the characteristics of what made them professional footballers has not changed. Their qualities would still be vital to their progress.

42 minutes ago, Robbored said:

 Can you imagine if Bobby Moore, Alan Ball, Roger Hunt, Jimmy Greaves were playing these days?

It hardly bears thinking about.

The players would be improved further. These players created their great. The extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of what made them great remains in any era. 

What we see is people dont think think about how players became great. Its not arbitrary dictated by an age. Great players have distinguishing factors that transend any era, growth mindset, fight response, how humans acquire and create their skills , how axons work, myelination occurs doesnt change. 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Cowshed