Cristiano Ronaldo

[Pogue Mahone]

Absolutely agree, but then again who knows how the likes of Pelè would turn out like if they were transferred into today's game. With the advanced training, nutrition, sports science etc.

That's being hypothetical to the point of absurdity though.

Comparing present and past players is a silly enough pastime but let's at least judge the players from previous eras for who they actually were, rather than who they might have been if they were born 50 years later.

 

[SirAF]

That's being hypothetical to the point of absurdity though.

Comparing present and past players is a silly enough pastime but let's at least judge the players from previous eras for who they actually were, rather than who they might have been if they were born 50 years later.

Yes, of course.

 

[Brophs]

Absolutely agree, but then again who knows how the likes of Pelè would turn out like if they were transferred into today's game. With the advanced training, nutrition, sports science etc.

I agree. But it's a hypothetical argument.

Why wouldn't Pele come close to Ronaldo in terms of technique? Seems an odd thing to say. Ronaldo is good technically but is hardly a genius in that area. Physicality is something at he'd have been great at in today's day and age if he wasn't then.

I don't think it's at all odd. In their time they maximised their abilities based on what they had available to them. But if you look at old footage it's not comparable. The speed the game's played at - which makes every technical exercise that much more difficult - and the physical demands involved mean that they are able to do things that those players wouldn't have been able to do without the benefit of modern coaching, physical coaching and diet and nutrition and so on. All IMHO, of course

 

[Gio]

The increased money and professionalism in football over the years makes comparing achievement for international teams then and now kind of redundant. Almost every national team nowadays will have a squad in which every player is a highly trained elite athlete. Which makes it all much more competitive and harder for any one individual to drag his team to the next level.

That would be very different to teams from decades ago, who will have had an awful lot of mediocre footballers in every team and much more scope for one really talented individual to influence results.

I reckon achievements in international football are a far more accurate way of comparing across generations as opposed to club football. The club game has transformed massively in the centralisation of resources around a handful of elite clubs and leagues. The international game is largely the same. Each team has the same pool it always had. The tournaments are still largely the same (save a bit of padding out with the advent of weaker teams in qualification and tournaments).

Let's be honest, in terms of technique and physicality the likes of Pele don't come anywhere near Ronaldo or Messi. They were playing a different game.

It was a slower game. But without the easy access to domestic football played in winter, often our perception of football back in the day is a World Cup in the sweltering conditions of mid-summer and high-altitude. See how quickly everything slowed up in the second half of Holland v Mexico at the World Cup for example. Or how pitches have improved the speed of the game. Mexico '86 showed how the best players managed to overcome tatty fields where the ball bobbled after every pass or dribble. Compare for instance how slow Milan v Barca was a couple of years ago when Milan didn't cut the grass to the minimum level. And quicker balls and boots that are now about half of the weight they were 30-40 years ago, and probably about a third of the weight of boots from half a century ago. There are so many material factors contributing to the speeding up of the game that it's hard to come to a conclusion that the top players from Pele's day were essentially inferior in their technique. A lot of the old pro's will say that the focus nowadays is too much on physique at the detriment of technique. I don't really buy that either as performing a technical skill at pace is the acid test. But there's also a significant test in performing technical skill with heavy boots, on shite pitches, with a flabby, unresponsive ball.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I agree. But it's a hypothetical argument.

I don't think it's at all odd. In their time they maximised their abilities based on what they had available to them. But if you look at old footage it's not comparable. The speed the game's played at - which makes every technical exercise that much more difficult - and the physical demands involved mean that they are able to do things that those players wouldn't have been able to do without the benefit of modern coaching, physical coaching and diet and nutrition and so on. All IMHO, of course

On the other hand, look at the difference in the tackling and roughing up players back then faced. They were showing clips on TV today bigging up tony adams. And most of them had him jumping around with two feet ploughed forwards. I can't even imagine what pele faced. Secondly, if pele played against less organised and slower oppositions, he must have also played in less organized and slower teams supporting him.

Peedonally I watch clips of George best and maradona and they look far better than Ronaldo on a purely technical level. And I really do believe that all time greats transcend eras. If pele was so ahead of his peers back then, so much so, to be considered possibly the greatest ever or at least among the top 3, there's no way he'd end up being the Ribery of this generation. He would be right up there. And from what I hear he was much more than a goalscorer, which isn't the case with Ronaldo.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I reckon achievements in international football are a far more accurate way of comparing across generations as opposed to club football. The club game has transformed massively in the centralisation of resources around a handful of elite clubs and leagues. The international game is largely the same. Each team has the same pool it always had. The tournaments are still largely the same (save a bit of padding out with the advent of weaker teams in qualification and tournaments).

Not sure I agree. You're still judging an entire career based on a tiny sample of games - all taking place over a period of a few weeks when they might be carrying niggling injuries or simply in bad form - which only happens once every four years and can be cut short for reasons over which they have no control (bad refereeing, bad management, incompetent team mates etc.).

Judging any individual based on their achievements in a team sport is inherently flawed, you can't possibly get a decent handle on how two players compare if you skew this assessment even further by putting such emphais on achievements in international tournaments.

 

[TheShedEnd]

I reckon achievements in international football are a far more accurate way of comparing across generations as opposed to club football. The club game has transformed massively in the centralisation of resources around a handful of elite clubs and leagues. The international game is largely the same. Each team has the same pool it always had. The tournaments are still largely the same (save a bit of padding out with the advent of weaker teams in qualification and tournaments).

Do you consider Iniesta to be a better player than Messi?

 

[Rafabio]

Best in the game and world at the moment, love it!

 

[Skorenzy]

Totally agree with you there but I guess one of the things held against Messi and Ronaldo is not winning the world cup. Cristiano will never win it imo, Messi still has one more chance and its more than possible I believe.

Its so hard for me to rate Pele hes never played in Europe, didnt do shit in his 2nd world cup win and in the other world cup wins he had REALLY good players with him in the team. Im not saying hes shit on the contrary he might have been the best player of that era 50s to 60s but the game now is so much faster, more tactical and there are more players with great technical ability.

Maradona on the other has far more compelling evidence to be called the best player of all time. He was absolutely unstoppable in his prime and carried his teams to glory but despite this, Messi and Ronaldo both have superior goal scoring records and club trophies than Maradona.

...

Pelé played 3 official games against European clubs (Intercontinental Cup, so all were v the reigning European champions fyi) and scored 7 goals.
Yeah, he was absolutely vital in only 2 World Cup wins, one of them as a teenager for god's sake. Injury prevented him from doing it in 1962 as well.

re: 2nd bold... eh? Maradona scored shitloads as a teenager in Argentina, then after a short detour to Spain went to ultra-defensive Serie A where he became defined as a playmaker and was still near the top of the goalscoring charts in most seasons anyway. It's with him that Napoli won the only league titles and only European title in their entire history.

 

[Gio]

Do you consider Iniesta to be a better player than Messi?

No, do you?

 

[Gio]

Not sure I agree. You're still judging an entire career based on a tiny sample of games - all taking place over a period of a few weeks when they might be carrying niggling injuries or simply in bad form - which only happens once every four years and can be cut short for reasons over which they have no control (bad refereeing, bad management, incompetent team mates etc.).

Judging any individual based on their achievements in a team sport is inherently flawed, you can't possibly get a decent handle on how two players compare if you skew this assessment even further by putting such emphais on achievements in international tournaments.

I suppose it's more about when other things being equal or hard to separate, international football is a good cross-generational barometer because it's not really influenced by the one key differentiating factor in club football: resource.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Not sure I agree. You're still judging an entire career based on a tiny sample of games - all taking place over a period of a few weeks when they might be carrying niggling injuries or simply in bad form - which only happens once every four years and can be cut short for reasons over which they have no control (bad refereeing, bad management, incompetent team mates etc.).

Judging any individual based on their achievements in a team sport is inherently flawed, you can't possibly get a decent handle on how two players compare if you skew this assessment even further by putting such emphais on achievements in international tournaments.

I agree that judging based on international completions only would be wrong for the reasons that you mention but then again don't you think being thrown into a competition like the World Cup which has unparalleled pressure attached to it and having to somehow make it work with a group of players who maybe aren't as much on the same wavelength as a club team that's always together at the very least poses a different challenge for a footballer, and says something about his abilities?

I think the world cup is relevant for judging a player. And I do agree that something like form, injuries or an imbalanced team can ruin that for a player, and that should be considered, but I'd expect any player with genuine claims of the "greatest ever" tag, to make some sort of impact on the sports biggest stage, even if it's within the constraints of his team (unless he plays for Wales or something). Messi is a good example. Didn't look all that fit this world cup and wasn't playing at his ridiculous peak Messi levels, and his team mates (Aguero, Di Maria) were laughably bad. But at least he made his impact. Created the most chances, won his team games, scored a lovely goal and most goals they scored he played a part in. At the very least, that should be possible for one of the greatest IMO. Simply because the world cup is that important, it's important how a great player performs in it bar extreme situations. IMO of course.

 

[Phil Duck]

Let's be honest, in terms of technique and physicality the likes of Pele don't come anywhere near Ronaldo or Messi. They were playing a different game.

 

[SirAF]

I don't think the physicality part is anything to laugh at to be fair.

 

[Mali_Zeus]

Ronaldo trying to look taller on photos.

 

[Phil Duck]

I don't think the physicality part is anything to laugh at to be fair.

The physicality is a myth, Pele used to play tons of games of over Brazil in the 60's, sure the advances have took football to another level of professionalism, but not that much as some people would like to think.

Good players would excell in any era.

 

[Stack]

The physicality is a myth, Pele used to play tons of games of over Brazil in the 60's, sure the advances have took football to another level of professionalism, but not that much as some people would like to think.

Good players would excell in any era.

You are wrong. Firstly the game wasnt played at the same pace back when Pele was playing. The pace today lasts the entire game, players on the ball are placed under pressure more often and faster than 40 years ago. We no longer have pass backs to the keeper that mean the ball can be picked up by the keeper. Those pass backs and pick ups by the keeper gave players frequent breaks for example. The game would slow right down when teams defended a 1-0 lead in the last 10 minutes by using this.
Players at the top clubs now have their weight recorded before and after training, their fluid intake monitored at every training. They wear GPS and heart rate monitors at every training. Different positions have different fitness regimes tailored to the different requirements on their bodies of their respective positions. Look up periodization training. Its not new but it has become more common among clubs and when combined with controlled diets, controlled fluid intake, controlled and monitored rest as well as blood sampling it has helped increase player fitness. The players have to be fitter now simply because of the pace and demands of the game.

40 years ago you had some super fit players but now every player has to hit levels that their clubs measure. A player cant hide when the numbers are showing him up. In the last 5 years sports scientists have got to the point where they believe they can tell if a player is about to go into a spell of por form based on the blood work, urine samples, recoding of the training data etc. Utd a couple of years ago had 12 full time sports scientists working for them, I have no idea what the setup now is but things at the big clubs especially have changed massively in just the last decade. Even when Big Sam was at Blackburn a few years ago he had a big team of sports scientists involved with his setup.

None of this is a slight on the players of past era's, if they had the same facilities available to them they would have hit these new fitness levels.

The pace of the game has been one of the big drivers of the sport science influence in fitness etc but also improved technical abilities of players has helped drive this as well.

The skill level of the average players is a big step up from what it was 40 years ago and the fitness levels have jumped up as well. The fittest players of 40 years ago would be blowing hard by the 60th minute if suddenly transported to todays era.

Anyone of my age who played 30-40 years ago and is involved in coaching now knows that we never trained anywhere near as effectively then as players do now.

 

[Skorenzy]

The increased money and professionalism in football over the years makes comparing achievement for international teams then and now kind of redundant. Almost every national team nowadays will have a squad in which every player is a highly trained elite athlete. Which makes it all much more competitive and harder for any one individual to drag his team to the next level.

That would be very different to teams from decades ago, who will have had an awful lot of mediocre footballers in every team and much more scope for one really talented individual to influence results.

How exactly is this logic supposed to work? In the simplest terms: are you saying that (1) the average player nowadays has improved massively compared to the average player of the past, but the top players nowadays have only improved a little bit (or insignificantly) compared to the top players of the past -- in which case being a top player in one's own era means one is likely to be that in any era -- or that (2) the average player nowadays has improved massively compared to the average player of the past and so have the top players vis-à-vis their past counterparts -- in which case there isn't really an excuse for why the former can't replicate what the latter did.

Personally, I'm all for option (1) and consequently I don't see comparing all-time greats as impossible (or futile for that matter), just incredibly complex, inevitably never-ending and eventually inconclusive -- even though some meaningful conclusions could be drawn from it.

Not sure I agree. You're still judging an entire career based on a tiny sample of games - all taking place over a period of a few weeks when they might be carrying niggling injuries or simply in bad form - which only happens once every four years and can be cut short for reasons over which they have no control (bad refereeing, bad management, incompetent team mates etc.).

Judging any individual based on their achievements in a team sport is inherently flawed, you can't possibly get a decent handle on how two players compare if you skew this assessment even further by putting such emphais on achievements in international tournaments.

Cristiano (and Messi) will have played in at least 7 or 8 international tournaments in their careers... in the context of the average player (past and present)'s amount of participations in int. tournaments and in the context of their own total of international caps that is not a "tiny" sample size anymore. While still relatively small, I feel it's significant enough to at least arrive at some sort of meaningful conclusion or identify a pattern.

There are also a couple of double standard issues I have with this argument:
*1. influence of so-called big games (finals, derbies, title-deciders, etc.) at club level, which are probably about an equal sized sample relative to int. tournaments, yet it is a commonly accepted criterium in determining a player's level.
*2. different contexts are frequently used as additional proof in assessing players (e.g. Cristiano succeeding in both the PL and La Liga), why is int. football then not considered?

A recurring point in this debate is usually how CL is widely seen as the "highest good" ahead of the WC nowadays, often cited is the notion that CL football is of a higher standard, has better teams which means more difficult opponents, harder to win, etc. Then what exactly is the problem for these players? It doesn't make sense to refuse to acknowledge the importance of int. football, the simple fact that it takes players out of their comfort zone can only be helpful in judging the individual further -- but then I'm guessing that's what people are afraid of and why they discredit int. football?... maybe they fear their favourite players will be exposed as being a lot more reliant on the teams they play for than their own actual skill?

Re: assessing an individual in a team sport, sure it is flawed, but that has nothing to do with international football specifically. It remains flawed (I'd rather say 'complex') in club football.

 

[SirAF]

You are wrong. Firstly the game wasnt played at the same pace back when Pele was playing. The pace today lasts the entire game, players on the ball are placed under pressure more often and faster than 40 years ago. We no longer have pass backs to the keeper that mean the ball can be picked up by the keeper. Those pass backs and pick ups by the keeper gave players frequent breaks for example. The game would slow right down when teams defended a 1-0 lead in the last 10 minutes by using this.
Players at the top clubs now have their weight recorded before and after training, their fluid intake monitored at every training. They wear GPS and heart rate monitors at every training. Different positions have different fitness regimes tailored to the different requirements on their bodies of their respective positions. Look up periodization training. Its not new but it has become more common among clubs and when combined with controlled diets, controlled fluid intake, controlled and monitored rest as well as blood sampling it has helped increase player fitness. The players have to be fitter now simply because of the pace and demands of the game.

40 years ago you had some super fit players but now every player has to hit levels that their clubs measure. A player cant hide when the numbers are showing him up. In the last 5 years sports scientists have got to the point where they believe they can tell if a player is about to go into a spell of por form based on the blood work, urine samples, recoding of the training data etc. Utd a couple of years ago had 12 full time sports scientists working for them, I have no idea what the setup now is but things at the big clubs especially have changed massively in just the last decade. Even when Big Sam was at Blackburn a few years ago he had a big team of sports scientists involved with his setup.

None of this is a slight on the players of past era's, if they had the same facilities available to them they would have hit these new fitness levels.

The pace of the game has been one of the big drivers of the sport science influence in fitness etc but also improved technical abilities of players has helped drive this as well.

The skill level of the average players is a big step up from what it was 40 years ago and the fitness levels have jumped up as well. The fittest players of 40 years ago would be blowing hard by the 60th minute if suddenly transported to todays era.

Anyone of my age who played 30-40 years ago and is involved in coaching now knows that we never trained anywhere near as effectively then as players do now.

Pretty much this. Top post.

 

[Phil Duck]

You are wrong. Firstly the game wasnt played at the same pace back when Pele was playing. The pace today lasts the entire game, players on the ball are placed under pressure more often and faster than 40 years ago. We no longer have pass backs to the keeper that mean the ball can be picked up by the keeper. Those pass backs and pick ups by the keeper gave players frequent breaks for example. The game would slow right down when teams defended a 1-0 lead in the last 10 minutes by using this.
Players at the top clubs now have their weight recorded before and after training, their fluid intake monitored at every training. They wear GPS and heart rate monitors at every training. Different positions have different fitness regimes tailored to the different requirements on their bodies of their respective positions. Look up periodization training. Its not new but it has become more common among clubs and when combined with controlled diets, controlled fluid intake, controlled and monitored rest as well as blood sampling it has helped increase player fitness. The players have to be fitter now simply because of the pace and demands of the game.

40 years ago you had some super fit players but now every player has to hit levels that their clubs measure. A player cant hide when the numbers are showing him up. In the last 5 years sports scientists have got to the point where they believe they can tell if a player is about to go into a spell of por form based on the blood work, urine samples, recoding of the training data etc. Utd a couple of years ago had 12 full time sports scientists working for them, I have no idea what the setup now is but things at the big clubs especially have changed massively in just the last decade. Even when Big Sam was at Blackburn a few years ago he had a big team of sports scientists involved with his setup.

None of this is a slight on the players of past era's, if they had the same facilities available to them they would have hit these new fitness levels.

The pace of the game has been one of the big drivers of the sport science influence in fitness etc but also improved technical abilities of players has helped drive this as well.

The skill level of the average players is a big step up from what it was 40 years ago and the fitness levels have jumped up as well. The fittest players of 40 years ago would be blowing hard by the 60th minute if suddenly transported to todays era.

Anyone of my age who played 30-40 years ago and is involved in coaching now knows that we never trained anywhere near as effectively then as players do now.

I dissagree with everything you say, I think you are overstating facts and taking a lot of things for granted. I don't think average players are better these days, on the contrary, on some aspects football "unevolved".


Your experience on coaching and your general experience working in football must be oriented according to the country you worked in. In other countries football as regressed in a lot of aspects thanks to the "modern" aspects of the game and the need now is to take a step back to the basics.

South America, the place where the best players in history were born, has a huge different experience with the "evolution" of football coaching. History is not always linear.

 

[Gio]

You are wrong. Firstly the game wasnt played at the same pace back when Pele was playing. The pace today lasts the entire game, players on the ball are placed under pressure more often and faster than 40 years ago. We no longer have pass backs to the keeper that mean the ball can be picked up by the keeper. Those pass backs and pick ups by the keeper gave players frequent breaks for example. The game would slow right down when teams defended a 1-0 lead in the last 10 minutes by using this.
Players at the top clubs now have their weight recorded before and after training, their fluid intake monitored at every training. They wear GPS and heart rate monitors at every training. Different positions have different fitness regimes tailored to the different requirements on their bodies of their respective positions. Look up periodization training. Its not new but it has become more common among clubs and when combined with controlled diets, controlled fluid intake, controlled and monitored rest as well as blood sampling it has helped increase player fitness. The players have to be fitter now simply because of the pace and demands of the game.

40 years ago you had some super fit players but now every player has to hit levels that their clubs measure. A player cant hide when the numbers are showing him up. In the last 5 years sports scientists have got to the point where they believe they can tell if a player is about to go into a spell of por form based on the blood work, urine samples, recoding of the training data etc. Utd a couple of years ago had 12 full time sports scientists working for them, I have no idea what the setup now is but things at the big clubs especially have changed massively in just the last decade. Even when Big Sam was at Blackburn a few years ago he had a big team of sports scientists involved with his setup.

None of this is a slight on the players of past era's, if they had the same facilities available to them they would have hit these new fitness levels.

The pace of the game has been one of the big drivers of the sport science influence in fitness etc but also improved technical abilities of players has helped drive this as well.

The skill level of the average players is a big step up from what it was 40 years ago and the fitness levels have jumped up as well. The fittest players of 40 years ago would be blowing hard by the 60th minute if suddenly transported to todays era.

Anyone of my age who played 30-40 years ago and is involved in coaching now knows that we never trained anywhere near as effectively then as players do now.

Agree with a lot of this. What I found interesting was a study on Brazilian international players from 1970 compared with the late 1990s. While the modern players covered a lot more distance and at greater intensity, their VO2 max figures were relatively unchanged. And then you also have the example of the players who have adapted within the course of their careers to more demanding environments, even in spite of the debilitating factor of age. See the Premiership players who do more high intensity running now than they did 10 years ago yet can adapt easily enough with the right training.

At the same time it's a bit frustrating when the likes of Pele are diminished for some apparent lack of physicality. Pele was a sub-11s 100m runner with a fantastic spring, agility and good upper-body strength. Or Eusebio whose power and pace would stand out a mile in any era.

 

[Stack]

I dissagree with everything you say, I think you are overstating facts and taking a lot of things for granted. I don't think average players are better these days, on the contrary, on some aspects football "unevolved".


Your experience on coaching and your general experience working in football must be oriented according to the country you worked in. In other countries football as regressed in a lot of aspects thanks to the "modern" aspects of the game and the need now is to take a step back to the basics.

South America, the place where the best players in history were born, has a huge different experience with the "evolution" of football coaching. History is not always linear.

Sadly you are simply completely out of touch. Horribly so.
About 7 or 8 years ago I was in Europe doing my UEFA badges (which I have never completed due to work/life etc).My experience of coaching is based largely on that experience and the various coaching qualifications that I have from my own country. The thing here is that because of the internet and ease of sharing of information, as well as the ease of travel means that a coach in Fiji can be very well versed in what is going on at Barcelona.

In what aspects has football regressed in some countries as you mention?. Also what are the basics that the step back is needed to head to?

 

[Stack]

Agree with a lot of this. What I found interesting was a study on Brazilian international players from 1970 compared with the late 1990s. While the modern players covered a lot more distance and at greater intensity, their VO2 max figures were relatively unchanged. And then you also have the example of the players who have adapted within the course of their careers to more demanding environments, even in spite of the debilitating factor of age. See the Premiership players who do more high intensity running now than they did 10 years ago yet can adapt easily enough with the right training.

At the same time it's a bit frustrating when the likes of Pele are diminished for some apparent lack of physicality. Pele was a sub-11s 100m runner with a fantastic spring, agility and good upper-body strength. Or Eusebio whose power and pace would stand out a mile in any era.

I think the big mistake is when people compare great players from different era's they dont make the comparison within the context of the players era. Pele for example would still have been an unbelievably great player to day if he was born in this era.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Agree with a lot of this. What I found interesting was a study on Brazilian international players from 1970 compared with the late 1990s. While the modern players covered a lot more distance and at greater intensity, their VO2 max figures were relatively unchanged. And then you also have the example of the players who have adapted within the course of their careers to more demanding environments, even in spite of the debilitating factor of age. See the Premiership players who do more high intensity running now than they did 10 years ago yet can adapt easily enough with the right training.

At the same time it's a bit frustrating when the likes of Pele are diminished for some apparent lack of physicality. Pele was a sub-11s 100m runner with a fantastic spring, agility and good upper-body strength. Or Eusebio whose power and pace would stand out a mile in any era.

I don't doubt they were quick and strong but - as you point out - they wouldn't have been able to produce that power and pace over the same kind of distances and intensities that modern elite footballers do. Which is a really big deal in a sport that lasts 90 minutes in each event.

Then you have the advances in nutrition and recovery that allow players like Ronaldo to play two games a week at a level of consistent peak (or near peak) physical performance that would have been unheard of 40 years ago.

Football isn't a sport that exists in isolation. Every single athletic pursuit you can think of has seen world records repeatedly smashed over the same period of time. There's absolutely no doubt that the very best contemporary professional footballers are much more finely tuned and effective athletes than the likes of Pele or Eusebio, magnificent physical specimens that they no doubt were.

We can go down the path of speculating how good they might be with the benefit of the latest sport science but that's just far too hypothetical. What we're comparing with Ronaldo, Zidane, Messi et al is the output on the football pitch when they were actually playing the game.

 

[Brwned]

The question is what makes a great athlete? Is Asafa Powell a greater athlete than Jesse Owens because he ran 0.4 seconds quicker than Jesse Owens? It sounds like a stupid question but it cuts straight to the heart of the point - athletes are "better" because they can perform at higher levels thanks to significant improvements in technology, but does the fact they were lucky enough to play in more favourable conditions make them a greater athlete? I'm not so sure it does, personally.

Some good points are made here - David Epstein: Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

To summarise a couple of the key points...

• Jesse Owens' world record in 1936 was 10.2 seconds, 0.43 seconds slower than Bolt. On the face of it the gap is massive but when you add context it muddies the water in a big way. Bolt ran out of blocks on soft carpet made for the sole purpose of allowing athletes to run as quickly as humanly possible, whereas Owens ran out of a hole on a track made of soft cinders. Some analysis suggests Owens would have finished 2nd in the 2013 race if he simply played on the same surface.

• Eddy Merckx set the record for the longest distance cycled in one hour in 1972 at 30 miles, 3774 feet. As bike technology improved this record was beaten over and over and over again up until 1996 when the record was set at 35 miles, 1531 feet. A full five miles extra was gained in just under 25 years. In 2000 the International Cycling Union then decided that anyone who wanted to challenge this record had to do it on essentially the same technology Merckx was using in 1972, and since then the record has been set at 30 miles 4657 feet...so without these favourable conditions the athletes of today were able to just 883 feet farther than Merckx cycled over 40 years earlier. Even with these massive advances in sports science, professionalism, training etc. that's all that was managed in over 4 decades.

It's not as easy to make an argument like that in football because there's no objective measure of what a great player is, but the points are obviously still relevant here. The pitches, the shoes and the balls were all massive hindrances to performance that current players simply don't have. This has been done a thousand times and ultimately the consensus is there are pros and cons in every era and there are too many variables here to make any reasonable comparison. I just think it's very easy to dismiss older players/athletes when the reality isn't quite so simple.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In answer to your first question yes, absolutely.

Obviously you need to ask follow up questions about for how long and how consistently he ran that quickly but the basic premise is very simple. The best 100m sprinter of all time is the man who can run 100m quicker than any other man ever ran 100m.

The idea that any athlete was "lucky to live in his era" just doesn't make sense. Every individual is a product of their era and environment. That's what makes them who they are. If you try to talk about a different version of them, born in a different era, you're discussing someone that never actually existed. GOAT discussions are unmanageable if you're allowed to consider fictional athletes.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

Ronaldo trying to look taller on photos.

Is that a vanity thing?

 

[RooneyLegend]

Why do people keep perpetuating this myth that the skill level has improved?

 

[Brwned]

In answer to your first question yes, absolutely.

Obviously you need to ask follow up questions about for how long and how consistently he ran that quickly but the basic premise is very simple. The best 100m sprinter of all time is the man who can run 100m quicker than any other man ever ran 100m.

So the "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" that suggests Owens would have ran as quickly as Asafa Powell if he ran on the same surface is irrelevant, then? It's not about the raw power generated by the athlete, it's simply about the numbers? I have no idea how credible the analysis actually is but let's assume they are for the purposes of the discussion.

If Asafa Powell has ran that much quicker purely because of the surface he ran on then why is he a greater athlete? We're measuring the about the amount of power they generate while running - that's the athleticism here. The fact that some of that power is sapped away by the surface they ran on says absolutely nothing about the athleticism of the runner...and that's what we're looking at when we're comparing them, surely.

You can compare the numbers directly now because they're all on a level playing field and it's a simple case of the best athlete is the one who passes the finish line first. When you're comparing across generations it's really not that simple because there are obstacles holding them back from passing that finish line. It's like attaching a set of weights to Usain Bolt, him losing half a second because of them and then saying that whoever came first is clearly a much better athlete. You have to ask yourself what exactly you're measuring then because it's not certainly not athletic performance.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So the "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" that suggests Owens would have ran as quickly as Asafa Powell if he ran on the same surface is irrelevant, then? It's not about the raw power generated by the athlete, it's simply about the numbers? I have no idea how credible the analysis actually is but let's assume they are for the purposes of the discussion. If Asafa Powell has ran that much quicker purely because of the surface he ran on then why is he a greater athlete? We're measuring the about the amount of power they generate while running - that's the athleticism here. The fact that some of that power is sapped away by the surface they ran on says absolutely nothing about the athleticism of the runner...and that's what we're looking at when we're comparing them, surely. You can compare the numbers directly now because they're all on a level playing field and it's a simple case of the best athlete is the one who passes the finish line first. When you're comparing across generations it's really not that simple.

All sound ridiculously speculative, to be honest. If you take a step back and think about how big a role recent innovations in sports science have played in getting elite athletes to perform at their very best (with oodles of data to confirm this) then you'll realise you're stretching to try and put down the dramatic improvements in sprint times to lighter shoes or better surfaces alone.

Besides, sprinting is only one element in being a great footballing athlete. Look at how much quicker people are running marathons these days. Do you put that down to different footwear or road surfaces?

 

[Gio]

But equally a lot of records haven't improved since the 1980s and 1990s. Especially the distance ones. Some of them have seen 20-30 years of stagnation. Or if move away from running and into the jumps - well the men's long jump (1991), high jump (1993) and triple jump (1995) records were all set a long time ago. Most disciplines see the fat chewed off at some point - athletics it was probably largely during the 1970s and 1980s, swimming is ongoing, football it's hard to say because it's not easily quantifiable.

 

[Phil Duck]

Sadly you are simply completely out of touch. Horribly so.
About 7 or 8 years ago I was in Europe doing my UEFA badges (which I have never completed due to work/life etc).My experience of coaching is based largely on that experience and the various coaching qualifications that I have from my own country. The thing here is that because of the internet and ease of sharing of information, as well as the ease of travel means that a coach in Fiji can be very well versed in what is going on at Barcelona.

In what aspects has football regressed in some countries as you mention?. Also what are the basics that the step back is needed to head to?

South American worked in a completely different logic, "modern game" helped countries who where tecnically less gifted in the first place, harmed south america a lot. Now is recovering, but is a slow transition.

 

[Brwned]

All sound ridiculously speculative, to be honest. If you take a step back and think about how big a role sports science plays in getting elite athletes to perform at their best and how much that's been refined and perfected over the years then you'll realise you're stretching to try and put down the dramatic improvements in sprint times to lighter shoes or better surfaces.

Besides, sprinting is only one element in being a great footballing athlete. Look at how much quicker people are running marathons these days. Do you put that down to different footwear or road surfaces?

The non-speculative part of the point was illustrated in the Eddy Merckx example. Merckx's record was broken over and over again in a 20 year period which peaked when someone went 16% further in the same amount of time which is absolutely incredible on the face of it. When the very same athletes were forced to use the much more primitive bikes that Merckx had to deal with the improvements were minimal - just 883 feet which equates thoroughly 0.3% (in over 4 decades). So while the improvement in sport science did indeed have an impact on performance, it paled in comparison to the impact of the technology. And Gio made an excellent point earlier in this thread about the dramatic improvements across the board in athletics which I had no idea about:

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.

 

[Phil Duck]

Why do people keep perpetuating this myth that the skill level has improved?

Who knows, it has regressed in countries like Argentina or Brazil for example. Physicality and modern game killed the spontaneity factor of football.

Football has more to do with senses and intelligence than atletism.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But equally a lot of records haven't improved since the 1980s and 1990s. Especially the distance ones. Some of them have seen 20-30 years of stagnation. Or if move away from running and into the jumps - well the men's long jump (1991), high jump (1993) and triple jump (1995) records were all set a long time ago. Most disciplines see the fat chewed off at some point - athletics it was probably largely during the 1970s and 1980s, swimming is ongoing, football it's hard to say because it's not easily quantifiable.

Do you think? Obviously there are outliers but surely the vast majority of athletic records were set in the last 10-20 years? Genuine question here. I don't know the answer!

 

[Shamwow]

Why do people keep perpetuating this myth that the skill level has improved?

Do you not think it has improved in the past 100 years?

 

[JPRouve]

Why do people keep perpetuating this myth that the skill level has improved?

It is weird because it is well known that the main difference is that players are better athletes today not better technicians. If i only take the french example, the national teams in the 80s were a lot more skilled than today but the game is faster.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The non-speculative part of the point was illustrated in the Eddy Merckx example. Merckx's record was broken over and over again in a 20 year period which peaked when someone went 16% further in the same amount of time which is absolutely incredible on the face of it. When the very same athletes were forced to use the much more primitive bikes that Merckx had to deal with the improvements were minimal - just 883 feet which equates thoroughly 0.3% (in over 4 decades). So while the improvement in sport science did indeed have an impact on performance, it paled in comparison to the impact of the technology. And Gio made an excellent point earlier in this thread about the dramatic improvements across the board in athletics which I had no idea about:

Come on you can't bring the impact of an improvement in technology in bike racing into a discussion about football!

I also think any study involving sticking modern cyclists onto out-dated bikes and comparing their times with someone who spent his whole career on similar machines is inherently flawed.

 

[Brwned]

Come on you can't bring the impact of an improvement in technology in bike racing into a discussion about football!

I also think any study involving sticking modern cyclists onto out-dated bikes and comparing their times with someone who spent his whole career on similar machines is inherently flawed.

The impact of technology on cycling is obviously considerably higher but I think it illustrates an interesting point all the same.

As for running being only one aspect of football, that's of course true but then again the fact that football is as much about technique as it is about athletics is one of the main reasons why I don't think it's that outrageous to suggest the improvements between now and, say, 30 years ago aren't as dramatic as people like to suggest. I'm going to bring in another poster much more well versed on the wider sporting world to make the point better than I could....

Like you said with the doping point mate, if we're discussing tennis then we've got to discuss superior rackets. Just like in powerlifting the numbers have soared, but take off the gimp suits and the unequipped standards haven't really improved at all (assuming of course any sad bastard other than me actually follows powerlifting at any level). If we look at olympic lifting, where the equipment has remained static (ie there is none) numbers have actually went backward. There's very little to support an assertion that athletes are necessarily getting better across the board. In a sport where sport-specific skill still reigns supreme, there's no reason to assume we'll improve from generation to generation.

 

[The Man Himself]

Ronaldo trying to look taller on photos.

Maybe he likes to be "on the toes" all the time