Cristiano Ronaldo

Status
Not open for further replies.
MJJ said:
I was comparing the senior partner in midfield for both sides hence modric with xavi and vice versa.

Di maria isnt there right now? So including him has no impact on this debate? Unless you want to includ the fact that messi played in one of the all time best teams tailored around is every need which ronaldo never did.

Xavi and Iniesta might have declined but not to the level where you say that madrid are blatantly better and iniesta is still better than james.
Click to expand...

Stop talking shit. I didnt include Di Maria as one of the players who would currently get the the Barca side because he isn't a Madrid player anymore.

And you're right, Ronaldo's only had the most expensive side ever assembled tailored to his every need.
 
Snake Plissken said:
Stop talking shit. I didnt include Di Maria as one of the players who would currently get the the Barca side because he isn't a Madrid player anymore.

And you're right, Ronaldo's only had the most expensive side ever assembled tailored to his every need.
Click to expand...

So why bring di maria into it?

So ronaldo settling into a new league with new teammates means he had it easy as compared to playing in one of the all time best xi with teammates whom you have known since the age of 13 not to mention that "most expensive side ever"(ignoring inflation in transfer fees) is actually worse than the barca side and even now both sides are almost equal.

:lol: And i am the one talking shit.
 
MJJ said:
So why bring di maria into it?

So ronaldo settling into a new league with new teammates means he had it easy as compared to playing in one of the all time best xi with teammates whom you have known since the age of 13 not to mention that "most expensive side ever"(ignoring inflation in transfer fees) is actually worse than the barca side and even now both sides are almost equal.

:lol: And i am the one talking shit.
Click to expand...

Go back, open your eyes, and read the thread again. I was referencing some of the great creative players he's had to feed off of during his Madrid career.

And Madrid's squad is better than Barcelona's now that's why they're European champions. I wouldn't even waste my time trying to debate it with anyone who disagreed. As for the last bit, you could quite easily turn that around and say staying in the same side for so long is now working against him now that they look stale and uninspired in comparison with that Guardiola team. But if you want to give Ronaldo extra points for settling into a Madrid team that's spent countless millions each season building a side around him then go ahead.

Your last line is spot on though so congratulations on getting that bit right :lol:
 
Revan said:
Why in every sport when the results can be exactly measured (sprinting, running, swimming, throwing things like javelin and other stuff, weights, jumping etc) all world records are within the last 10 years? But yet people somehow claim that footballers were better back then. Which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.
 
Snake Plissken said:
Go back, open your eyes, and read the thread again. I was referencing some of the great creative players he's had to feed off of during his Madrid career.

And Madrid's squad is better than Barcelona's now that's why they're European champions. I wouldn't even waste my time trying to debate it with anyone who disagreed. As for the last bit, you could quite easily turn that around and say staying in the same side for so long is now working against him now that they look stale and uninspired in comparison with that Guardiola team. But if you want to give Ronaldo extra points for settling into a Madrid team that's spent countless millions each season building a side around him then go ahead.

Your last line is spot on though so congratulations on getting that bit right :lol:
Click to expand...

See this is where you show your bias. You are comparing that with the current barca side. He had di maria at his peak for one/two season max but if you compare that to iniesta/xavi you spout shit like they are out of form/old/overrated(pedro). Why dont you decide whether you want to talk about the current side or through out their career?

And we are back about the current time which doesnt include di maria but you ahd to bring him in as james isnt to that level which hurts your argument.

:lol: Knowing your teammates is a bad thing now.
 
Revan said:
I think (not neccesarily better than Maradona but better than the other two from what I have seen). Not more talented, but better (a big part of that because of the conditions and infrastrucure where Ronaldo developed). The defenses on fifties were arguably as good as there are now the defenses on Sunday league. If we could somehow send this Ronaldo back then he would be scoring a hat-trick (or more) every match.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you focus so much on the 50's, where barely any footage is available, especially when you talk about Pele who was 20 years old in 1960 and faced some clearly strong and well organised defenses during the 60's and early 70's, which was the time, when the tactical development of the game made its biggest step forward. The Italian defense he tore apart in the World Cup final in 1970 had Facchetti and Burgnich in it. If you believe that would be a Sunday league defense today, then you know as much about defending in past decades as you seem to know about the development of world records in athletics, which doesn't seem to be a lot like Gio's post above shows.
 
Balu said:
I'm not sure why you focus so much on the 50's, where barely any footage is available, especially when you talk about Pele who was 20 years old in 1960 and faced some clearly strong and well organised defenses during the 60's and early 70's, which was the time, when the tactical development of the game made its biggest step forward. The Italian defense he tore apart in the World Cup final in 1970 had Facchetti and Burgnich in it. If you believe that would be a Sunday league defense today, then you know as much about defending in past decades as you seem to know about the development of world records in athletics, which doesn't seem to be a lot like Gio's post above shows.
Click to expand...

Preach it, man - preach it.

I'd add that even in the 50s football had seen over half a century worth of tactical and technical development (a slower development, granted, than the one which started rollin' for real in the 60s) on the professional level (professionalism dates back to the 1880s in England - even the famous Preston side that walked the first ever football league weren't simply jolly Victorian amateurs, nevermind Sunday league clowns). It was a huge, worldwide sport by the time Hungary humiliated England at Wembley, with players and managers who were deadly serious about their game.

The idea that defensive nous and football tactics in general is an invention of the modern era is, well - it's just plain wrong.
 
Gio said:
That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.
Click to expand...

Hehe. Just grinning a bit at some of them records. Your point stands solidly - don't get me wrong. But poor Flo-Jo and some of them East German, ahem, ladies...You know what I mean.

Still, Bolt's probably at it too (he said cynically).
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Hehe. Just grinning a bit at some of them records. Your point stands solidly - don't get me wrong. But poor Flo-Jo and some of them East German, ahem, ladies...You know what I mean.

Still, Bolt's probably at it too (he said cynically).
Click to expand...
What are you talking on about? Flo-Jo's 100m record is perfectly legit :wenger:

Yeah, I suppose the point is that most of Bolt's sub 9.8 challengers these days have been testing positive, so it's hard to say it's necessarily a much cleaner era. Obviously it's not a level playing field on the women's side.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Preach it, man - preach it.

I'd add that even in the 50s football had seen over half a century worth of tactical and technical development (a slower development, granted, than the one which started rollin' for real in the 60s) on the professional level (professionalism dates back to the 1880s in England - even the famous Preston side that walked the first ever football league weren't simply jolly Victorian amateurs, nevermind Sunday league clowns). It was a huge, worldwide sport by the time Hungary humiliated England at Wembley, with players and managers who were deadly serious about their game.

The idea that defensive nous and football tactics in general is an invention of the modern era is, well - it's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
As a completely different approach to the discussion. Do you (and anyone else who watched full games from the 60's up to the 80's on tv) also have the impression that the game 'appears' to be way more dynamic today than it did back then, because of how it's filmed. More cuts, different camera angles, changes between point of views make the game look faster and more interesting on tv today than it was back then, when you had one point of view somewhere in a middle position on the sideline and the camera moving slowly left and right and that's it. I'm not saying the game hasn't changed, of course the intensity is higher today and it's played on a higher pace than ever before, no doubt about it. But our perception of the game or at least mine is definitely influenced by the broadcasting technique today. Back in the 80's when I went to a game in the stadium, it felt like it was the same as on tv. Nowadays when I'm in the stadium I always wonder a bit that it appears to be slower than on tv.

Does that make sense or am I completely imagining things here? And before someone asks, it's not meant as criticism, it's a great development and makes watching games more entertaining, no doubt. I just think it plays a part when people only used to the games today go back and watch some of the old footage.
 
Last edited:
Gio said:
That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.
Click to expand...

Gio talks sense. Again.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Preach it, man - preach it.

I'd add that even in the 50s football had seen over half a century worth of tactical and technical development (a slower development, granted, than the one which started rollin' for real in the 60s) on the professional level (professionalism dates back to the 1880s in England - even the famous Preston side that walked the first ever football league weren't simply jolly Victorian amateurs, nevermind Sunday league clowns). It was a huge, worldwide sport by the time Hungary humiliated England at Wembley, with players and managers who were deadly serious about their game.

The idea that defensive nous and football tactics in general is an invention of the modern era is, well - it's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
exactly chester. it's stupid
 
Balu said:
As a completely different approach to the discussion. Do you (and anyone else who watched full games from the 60's up to the 80's on tv) also have the impression that the game 'appears' to be way more dynamic today than it did back then, because of how it's filmed. More cuts, different camera angles, changes between point of views make the game look faster and more interesting on tv today than it was back then, when you had one point of view somewhere in a middle position on the sideline and the camera moving slowly left and right and that's it. I'm not saying the game hasn't changed, of course the intensity is higher today and it's played on a higher pace than ever before, no doubt about it. But our perception of the game or at least mine is definitely influenced by the broadcasting technique today. Back in the 80's when I went to a game in the stadium, it felt like it was the same as on tv. Nowadays when I'm in the stadium I always wonder a bit that it appears to be slower than on tv.

Does that make sense or am I completely imagining things here? And before someone asks, it's not meant as criticism, it's a great development and makes watching games more entertaining, no doubt. I just think it plays a part when people only used to the games today go back and watch some of the old footage.
Click to expand...

You ain't crazy. Well, you're a bit crazy - but not when it comes to this. It's definitely a factor. I remember visiting my cousin a couple of years ago - she and her husband lived in Italy for a year, somewhere in the alps but still a manageable drive from Milan. So, long story short - we're at the San Siro watching Milan play Roma, hardly a pub match, and the woman is visibly unimpressed, for precisely the reason you state. This is a woman who isn't deeply into the football but who likes to watch the big CL matches and such on TV - and the real thing just comes off as a disappointment to her. Not enough action, not enough colours and instant replays...and, of course, it's understandable in a sense.

I grew up watching football live, so for me it's a completely different thing - but even I get struck by the contrast sometimes, especially when I go and see a low level match somewhere.

And the contrast between the amount of cameras, angles, all manner of "dynamic" filming which is essentially air-brushing the reality of a football match in our day and age - and the old footage from back then...it's staggering when you look at it side by side.

It's like any sort of moving images, though, served up in any form or medium - you have to get into it. If you lose yourself in the match, you soon forget about the cosmetics. Same thing if you go watch a match down the leagues - if you get into it, it's...football. It's the game you know - just in a slightly different package.
 
Just watching some highlights from the game vs Liverpool. Found myself looking at Ronnie and thinking let's give him whatever he wants and get him back here! He's absolutely sensational! We could really use his energy and will to win now...
 
Revan said:
I said from what I have seen. Obviously I didn't follow their careers and could be wrong.

I also didn't said that for Maradona with whim could be made a better comparison. In fact, when Maradona played the defenses were better than they are now (or football was more defensive). Just look at the treatment Gentile did to Maradona, which would have been enough for him to get sent off 5 times on a single game if the game was played now.

However on fifties and sixties, the defenses were shit. Absolutely awful.

I think that a completely unaltered Messi/Ronaldo send back to fifties would have been able of scoring 200 goals per season. A Messi/Ronaldo borned back then, obviously not.

It is the same things like in other sports. Usain Bolt would have won by a second or more margin on 200m, 60 years ago. Just that we can't measure football on that way. But it is a natural thing. Better facilities, better medical stuff, better education on football, better professionals will certainly result on better players. Now players know exactly what to eat and how much, when to go to sleep. Back then this wasn't the case. Players drank alcool all the time. It is completely impossible that players back then were better than now. It just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I'm curious to know what that judgement is based on if I may ask? Have you extensively watched full matches or even just highlight/goal footage of that period? Have you read contemporary match reports describing loads of DF errors leading to goals? Have you concluded this based on the opinions of experts, if so which ones? Etc.

On point, 1950s/60s DFs were very obviously a product of their time and space, meaning they were operating within tactical schemes that by today's standards would seem imbalanced to say the least, common formations of that period would have a minimum of 4 or 5 forwards and only 3 defenders (and 2 or 3 additional bodies in MF to shuffle across and try to connect the whole) until the late 50s/early 60s at least (until Brazil "introduced" the 4-2-4 and its derivative 4-3-3). In such a context the high-scoring nature of the average match becomes more reasonably explainable than just a token "DFs were shit" comment borne out of ignorance of said period. It's very clear to note a correlation between the evolution of the average gpg ratio and the evolution of the tactical set-up, formation & mindset throughout the years, which you could reasonably suggest to be causally connected: there is a gradual decline in most leagues' gpg ratio following the shift from a (nominal) 3-man DF to 4-man DF.

Looking at the historically most high-profile professional national league championships,

1950s La Liga: 3.65
1950s First Division: 3.42
1950s Serie A: 2.79

1960s La Liga: 2.76
1960s First Division: 3.16
1960s Serie A: 2.21

1970s La Liga: 2.45
1970s First Division: 2.54
1970s Serie A: 2.06


Did defenders and goalkeepers improve so drastically? Or did forwards turn to shit? Or both? Or is it perhaps more likely that it has (while still a factor) less to do with the specifics of the talent pool in certain positions in this or that decade and much more so with an overarching mentality shift to a more defensively-natured type of football in the mid-1960s (catenaccio anyone?) and 1970s which has largely, though far more evenly balanced from the late 80s/early 90s onwards, lasted up until the late 2000s at least (some exceptions such as the Bundesliga and Eredivisie aside). Cf. the whole debate about the standard of DFs nowadays -- as mentioned I tend to ascribe greater significance to tactics & mentality shifts. As for the whole classic v modern, nostalgia v progress debate, I subscribe to an idea along the lines of a relative "steady state" (with variances here and there), certainly for the post-WWII era, where the advantages and disadvantages mostly cancel each other out so we're left with a clean slate to compare players from different eras based on their actual performances and achievements and not some randomly or selectively concluded valuation of their eras and by extention those players themselves.
 
Gio said:
That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.
Click to expand...

Yep, I was wrong saying that the records were within the last 10 years. Still, if you look all these records have been made in 'the modern time'. You see some like on 1988 but still that is relatively recent (compared to fifties). For the same reason, I didn't put Maradona on the level Pele/Di Stefano because on Maradona's time there was a much higher level of professionality and much better conditions.

Balu said:
I'm not sure why you focus so much on the 50's, where barely any footage is available, especially when you talk about Pele who was 20 years old in 1960 and faced some clearly strong and well organised defenses during the 60's and early 70's, which was the time, when the tactical development of the game made its biggest step forward. The Italian defense he tore apart in the World Cup final in 1970 had Facchetti and Burgnich in it. If you believe that would be a Sunday league defense today, then you know as much about defending in past decades as you seem to know about the development of world records in athletics, which doesn't seem to be a lot like Gio's post above shows.
Click to expand...

Because Di Stefano played back then, and it was the Ronaldo-Di Stefano comparisons.

Also, Pele's '1281' goals were mostly scored on Brazilian regional leagues, not against Italy. I really doubt that the defenses back then were near as good as now. Doubling (don't know if I am using the right term but I mean having two defenders on a player) great players didn't exist back then for a start.

Chesterlestreet said:
Preach it, man - preach it.

I'd add that even in the 50s football had seen over half a century worth of tactical and technical development (a slower development, granted, than the one which started rollin' for real in the 60s) on the professional level (professionalism dates back to the 1880s in England - even the famous Preston side that walked the first ever football league weren't simply jolly Victorian amateurs, nevermind Sunday league clowns). It was a huge, worldwide sport by the time Hungary humiliated England at Wembley, with players and managers who were deadly serious about their game.

The idea that defensive nous and football tactics in general is an invention of the modern era is, well - it's just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

On what level were those tactics though? Wasn't Helenio Herrera the first manager who was really into tactics (we're talking for sixties) and the first manager who actually looked at what people eat and when do they go to sleep? Which at that time was something really weird.

Skorenzy said:
Disagree. I'm curious to know what that judgement is based on if I may ask? Have you extensively watched full matches or even just highlight/goal footage of that period? Have you read contemporary match reports describing loads of DF errors leading to goals? Have you concluded this based on the opinions of experts, if so which ones? Etc.

On point, 1950s/60s DFs were very obviously a product of their time and space, meaning they were operating within tactical schemes that by today's standards would seem imbalanced to say the least, common formations of that period would have a minimum of 4 or 5 forwards and only 3 defenders (and 2 or 3 additional bodies in MF to shuffle across and try to connect the whole) until the late 50s/early 60s at least (until Brazil "introduced" the 4-2-4 and its derivative 4-3-3). In such a context the high-scoring nature of the average match becomes more reasonably explainable than just a token "DFs were shit" comment borne out of ignorance of said period. It's very clear to note a correlation between the evolution of the average gpg ratio and the evolution of the tactical set-up, formation & mindset throughout the years, which you could reasonably suggest to be causally connected: there is a gradual decline in most leagues' gpg ratio following the shift from a (nominal) 3-man DF to 4-man DF.

Looking at the historically most high-profile professional national league championships,

1950s La Liga: 3.65
1950s First Division: 3.42
1950s Serie A: 2.79

1960s La Liga: 2.76
1960s First Division: 3.16
1960s Serie A: 2.21

1970s La Liga: 2.45
1970s First Division: 2.54
1970s Serie A: 2.06


Did defenders and goalkeepers improve so drastically? Or did forwards turn to shit? Or both? Or is it perhaps more likely that it has (while still a factor) less to do with the specifics of the talent pool in certain positions in this or that decade and much more so with an overarching mentality shift to a more defensively-natured type of football in the mid-1960s (catenaccio anyone?) and 1970s which has largely, though far more evenly balanced from the late 80s/early 90s onwards, lasted up until the late 2000s at least (some exceptions such as the Bundesliga and Eredivisie aside). Cf. the whole debate about the standard of DFs nowadays -- as mentioned I tend to ascribe greater significance to tactics & mentality shifts. As for the whole classic v modern, nostalgia v progress debate, I subscribe to an idea along the lines of a relative "steady state" (with variances here and there), certainly for the post-WWII era, where the advantages and disadvantages mostly cancel each other out so we're left with a clean slate to compare players from different eras based on their actual performances and achievements and not some randomly or selectively concluded valuation of their eras and by extention those players themselves.
Click to expand...
What are those stats telling? That even from sixties to seventies the amount of goals significantly decreased. Which is exactly my point (at defenses were shit on fifties/sixties). Playing with 3 defenders against 4 attackers means that those attackers had more chances of scoring. Which means that scoring 50 goals per season on fifties is far less impressive than doing it now.
 
Revan said:
Because Di Stefano played back then, and it was the Ronaldo-Di Stefano comparisons.

Also, Pele's '1281' goals were mostly scored on Brazilian regional leagues, not against Italy. I really doubt that the defenses back then were near as good as now. Doubling (don't know if I am using the right term but I mean having two defenders on a player) great players didn't exist back then for a start.
Click to expand...
Well the first part wasn't clear from your post at all, you mentioned both Pele and di Stefano being weaker and went on to use the defenses in the 50's to dismiss their achievements. Anyway, none of them was just a goalscorer. Di Stefano was arguably the most complete player of all time, he was a tough midfielder, a playmaker and a goalscorer in one, he defended, assisted and scored. I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying he's one of the greatest because of his goal record.

And regarding Pele, no one really cares that much about his pure goalscoring record either, well no one besides himself. What lifted him to that greatest of all time level was the transformation late in his career towards a playmaker with the role defining performances as a number 10 in the greatest nationalteam of all time. While he indeed played most of his games in the Sao Paulo state championship, it wasn't just a regional league. There were 2 or 3 important state championships in Brazil and many great Southamerican players moved to those leagues, which meant they were actually on a very high level and not just full of players from that region. Then there's the fact, that he also scored lots of goals in continental and intercontinental competitions. For example, Pele scored 6 goals in the 2 games of the Intercontinental Cup against Benfica in '62 and 4 more in the games against Milan in '63. Pele made those exhausting trips to Europe and showed the best European teams on their homeground how far above their level he is.

Regarding defenses in the 60's. The goals per game average last season in La Liga was 2.74 as far as I know, I google the website that has those numbers later or you can just look yourself. It's more or less the same as it was in the 60's if you look at @Skorenzy 's post (maybe he can provide stats for the past 5 years as well, so that we have a comparison). How do you explain that if defending was such a huge joke back then?
 
Balu said:
Well the first part wasn't clear from your post at all, you mentioned both Pele and di Stefano being weaker and went on to use the defenses in the 50's to dismiss their achievements. Anyway, none of them was just a goalscorer. Di Stefano was arguably the most complete player of all time, he was a tough midfielder, a playmaker and a goalscorer in one, he defended, assisted and scored. I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying he's one of the greatest because of his goal record.

And regarding Pele, no one really cares that much about his pure goalscoring record either, well no one besides himself. What lifted him to that greatest of all time level was the transformation late in his career towards a playmaker with the role defining performances as a number 10 in the greatest nationalteam of all time. While he indeed played most of his games in the Sao Paulo state championship, it wasn't just a regional league. There were 2 or 3 important state championships in Brazil and many great Southamerican players moved to those leagues, which meant they were actually on a very high level and not just full of players from that region. Then there's the fact, that he also scored lots of goals in continental and intercontinental competitions. For example, Pele scored 6 goals in the 2 games of the Intercontinental Cup against Benfica in '62 and 4 more in the games against Milan in '63. Pele made those exhausting trips to Europe and showed the best European teams on their homeground how far above their level he is.

Regarding defenses in the 60's. The goals per game average last season in La Liga was 2.74 as far as I know, I google the website that has those numbers later or you can just look yourself. It's more or less the same as it was in the 60's if you look at @Skorenzy 's post (maybe he can provide stats for the past 5 years as well, so that we have a comparison). How do you explain that if defending was such a huge joke back then?
Click to expand...
This is the reason why I doubt Ronaldo will be in that discussion ever or possibly in the periphery of it. He isn't a poacher but mostly about goals which I don't think should be the case for the absolute greatest ever players. Di stefano's fascinates me. I've heard he was as complete as they come as yet he has a 4 in 5 goal ratio.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
This is the reason why I doubt Ronaldo will be in that discussion ever or possibly in the periphery of it. He isn't a poacher but mostly about goals which I don't think should be the case for the absolute greatest ever players. Di stefano's fascinates me. I've heard he was as complete as they come as yet he has a 4 in 5 goal ratio.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd love to see much more from him, but the footage is rather limited. He often doesn't get the credit he deserves for changing the fate of what we know now as greatest club in the world. And while that Real Madrid side became a Galactico team full of superstars at the end of the 50's, it really wasn't like that, when di Stefano went there.

That's more or less a fitting picture of Real in the first European Cup final in '56:

Real-Madrid-1956.png


There really aren't enough arrows to describe di Stefano's role in that team. And before someone comes around and says it isn't possible in the game today to play like that, well no one else did it back then either.
 
Revan said:
On what level were those tactics though? Wasn't Helenio Herrera the first manager who was really into tactics (we're talking for sixties) and the first manager who actually looked at what people eat and when do they go to sleep? Which at that time was something really weird.
Click to expand...

Herrera certainly wasn't the first manager who was heavily into tactics. He was a great tactician, obviously - and his system was infused with tactics from A to Z to a degree which made him stand out among contemporary managers - but Herrera didn't spring out of a vacuum anymore than Maureen or Pep did. You can trace Herrera's "philosophy" (as a certain man would say) back to the thirties in some ways in terms of how his infamous brand of catenaccio evolved.

Football has developed from the dawn of professionalism - and even before that, sometimes slowly, at other times in huge leaps. It's far too simplistic to say that "proper" football wasn't played until the sixties, although certain aspects we recognize today (such as a clear focus on the, say, athletic side of things, including diet and whatnot) definitely became more pronounced during that era, not least because of frontrunners like yer man Herrera.
 
MJJ said:
See this is where you show your bias. You are comparing that with the current barca side. He had di maria at his peak for one/two season max but if you compare that to iniesta/xavi you spout shit like they are out of form/old/overrated(pedro). Why dont you decide whether you want to talk about the current side or through out their career?

And we are back about the current time which doesnt include di maria but you ahd to bring him in as james isnt to that level which hurts your argument.

:lol: Knowing your teammates is a bad thing now.
Click to expand...

You should be a politician, you're great at spinning things.

Bias? that's rich from you :lol:
 
MJJ said:
Your shit team is leading right now, upset of the season coming up right here.
Click to expand...

my team? I couldn't give a shit about Barcelona personally.

I don't expect a prompt response to this anyway seeing as you'll have your cock in hand after Ronaldo's penalty.
 
Snake Plissken said:
my team? I couldn't give a shit about Barcelona personally.

I don't expect a prompt response to this anyway seeing as you'll have your cock in hand after Ronaldo's penalty.
Click to expand...

Awww, someone is butthurt because his team are losing

Spends half his time in this thread arguing for barca=doesnt give a shit about them.

Would hate to see the level of fanboyism you would reach if you did give a shit, so what is it? You just dream of giving miessi blowjobs?
 
He's been the worst player for Madrid today. Decision making has been atrocious.
 
Yeah he was poor today in an otherwise excellent team peformance. Good penalty, though.
 
Wasn´t his best game (specially in the last ball) but he was unselfish, scored a goal and did his part in Madrid's third goal. Now i´m off before the Ronaldo vs Messi debate restarts again (it probably won´t because Messi had a poor game tonight)
 
Looked like he was trying too hard second half. Should've just had a few shots rather than attempting a pass that wouldn't work, completely the opposite to a normal Ronaldo criticism.
 
Sly said:
Wasn´t his best game (specially in the last ball) but he was unselfish, scored a goal and did his part in Madrid's third goal. Now i´m off before the Ronaldo vs Messi debate restarts again (it probably won´t because Messi had a poor game tonight)
Click to expand...

Must be because of injury he had million years ago :rolleyes:
 
Gio said:
That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.
Click to expand...

A second less is a massive reduction. Also the average timings have been reduced by some bit from what my friends (who run) tell me.
 
akash02 said:
He's been utterly shite today especially in the 2nd half.
Click to expand...
akash02 said:
He's been the worst player for Madrid today. Decision making has been atrocious.
Click to expand...


Stupid exaggeration. He wasn't the best player but was probably the 4th best player for Real today. Played as a team guy.

Also he turned in the Penalty...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.