This is a good point.
The greed of FIFA and UEFA are pushing the amount of games to the limit.
There either needs to be a big push back by the player's unions or a new governing body needs to emerge with a breakaway form of football.
Football is boring and lacks real superstars
- Thread starter Scottynaldinho
- Start date
The greed of FIFA and UEFA are pushing the amount of games to the limit.
There either needs to be a big push back by the player's unions or a new governing body needs to emerge with a breakaway form of football.
As an Irishman, watching this weekends hurling was like the antidote to the poison of watching this Euros.
It's not just us becoming old neither, my parents loved the game up until the last few years too. As a spectacle, it's just far too low scoring compared to hurling or basketball. I don't know how you mend it. A similar thing is happening to Gaelic football here. Conservative passing, all men behind the ball and goalkeepers being sweepers, all tactics definitely being copied from soccer and replicated in our game.
A new gaelic football committee is testing different rules and one of them is 3 attackers having to stay up the pitch at all times so as to insentivize attacking play, I don't think you could use this in soccer unless you radically change the offside rule, but it would mean less Pep style playing out from the back.
It's not just us becoming old neither, my parents loved the game up until the last few years too. As a spectacle, it's just far too low scoring compared to hurling or basketball. I don't know how you mend it. A similar thing is happening to Gaelic football here. Conservative passing, all men behind the ball and goalkeepers being sweepers, all tactics definitely being copied from soccer and replicated in our game.
A new gaelic football committee is testing different rules and one of them is 3 attackers having to stay up the pitch at all times so as to insentivize attacking play, I don't think you could use this in soccer unless you radically change the offside rule, but it would mean less Pep style playing out from the back.
Euros and Copa (from what I’ve read) have been crap but the WC22 was an all timer - best international competition I’ve witnessed. These competitions don’t handle a candle to the WC - they are relatively second rate events tbf.
They need to start punishing playacting. It's reached a new low with the amount of face-clutching this tournament, it's unbearable. Why they refuse to utilize VAR is beyond me. Player gets brushed on the shoulder, fall to the ground as if their face has been dunked in burning acid which stops the play, wastes several minutes and possibly gets the opposing player booked. Fantastic.
Here's an idea; while they're writhing around on the ground like imbeciles, take all of 10 seconds to review the footage and determine whether or not they're faking it. If it's clear as day that they're acting, book them. More often than not, there's zero contact made anywhere near the player's face, so give them a yellow. It wouldn't delay the game any further because they already waste an eternity pretending they've been assaulted. Watch how quickly they'll cut the shit once they start getting booked (especially in a tournament setting where yellows are so detrimental). It's not complicated.
Here's an idea; while they're writhing around on the ground like imbeciles, take all of 10 seconds to review the footage and determine whether or not they're faking it. If it's clear as day that they're acting, book them. More often than not, there's zero contact made anywhere near the player's face, so give them a yellow. It wouldn't delay the game any further because they already waste an eternity pretending they've been assaulted. Watch how quickly they'll cut the shit once they start getting booked (especially in a tournament setting where yellows are so detrimental). It's not complicated.
Football is football, you guys are becoming old farts, still stuck with your nostalgia and a weird hatred for anything Pep/Barcelona/Spain.
We used to have open out and out games like that every week here in EPL. Man on man, going at it like its the end of it all. You can shift to any channel during game week and there will always be something happening after minute 70. Now it feels scripted.
I hate how the rules have changed over the last 20 years. It’s not far off being a non-contact sport and really favours players who are (typically) small and fast with their feet, switching the ball and rolling around at the smallest of contacts. It makes size and strength advantage completely redundant, and makes football one-dimensional as a result. It’s really one of, if not the thing that’s enabled the modern day “system”.
I used to love the physical battles you would get in football but it’s non-existent now. It’s all rolling around and tactical fouls and it’s shite and monotonous to watch.
I used to love the physical battles you would get in football but it’s non-existent now. It’s all rolling around and tactical fouls and it’s shite and monotonous to watch.
Ten Hag ball at Ajax was like this, just more technical. I hope he successfully replicates it this season.
Rewatched the Milan-Barcelona CL final recently and a couple things struck me
- tactically, it was quite a modern game
- physically not as far behind as you might think, either, pace of the game was quite high
- technically and in terms of decision making, it was a League One game. These were the two best teams in europe....
- tactically, it was quite a modern game
- physically not as far behind as you might think, either, pace of the game was quite high
- technically and in terms of decision making, it was a League One game. These were the two best teams in europe....
Too much coaching, too many stats. Any hint of individualism is being stamped out early on in favour of pressing and carrying out a long list of instructions. I'm sure the teams are better but the players aren't.
Neymar was the last of a dying breed
The players are definitely much, much better than ever. That's the problem. It's harder to truly stand out, and then the level of coaching takes away some measure spontaneity
I’d say there’s something in it how he didn’t move to Europe until he had played 200 senior games in Brazilian football. A lot of the best Brazilians now go to Europe earlier and earlier and get coached in the European standard way, and don’t have the same flair.
Looks shit in lots of respects. On the other hand you never knew what was going to happen next, a possible miscontrol by a defender or a bad clerance could lead to a chance out of the blue. Is that Henry with the dribble there? He'd probably get castigated for that now but was cool in it's own way.
I see someone posted this as a bit of rebuttal in the same thread, even that involved a long ball after a more considered approach:
https://x.com/NoughtyFooty/status/1531593837570932744
I must admit I loved the era where we had Allardyce and Pulis in the league, Hughes to a degree too when he was at Stoke, Blackburn and Fulham. I liked the contrasts of managers employing a lot of varied tactics in an attempt to disrupt. Things do seem a bit samey nowadays in comparison. Mentioned it before, but 2 of SAF's closest mates in English football were Pulis and Big Sam, that makes me smile.
Last edited:
A very entertaining thread because it's all about perception...
This is probably the closest to the truth... Generally, I am, at 50, entertained, but I didn't grow up playing or watching the game.
This is bigger than many realize.
This may be the best statistic I have seen on the internet all year. I thank you.
MLS solidly qualifies in the "wtf" category every time I watch it. Having coached U12 through U17 here in the States, it never ceases to amaze me how many professionals still make the same mistakes.
They're fitter and faster than ever but I don't think the talent levels are better than ever, or at the very least any flair they have is coached out at a young age.
They are way way way better technically and in terms of decision making. I tend to agree with point about coaching though - it makes better players but part of that is achieved by discouraging flair, which is about improvisation and thus requires often suboptimal decisions
Lacks of:
1. Floating cross met with bullet header
2. True number 10
3. Hard man in midfield
By the way, football has always been boring for the neutral. Unlike any other sports, it's hard to enjoy football if you don't have a horse on the race.
1. Floating cross met with bullet header
2. True number 10
3. Hard man in midfield
By the way, football has always been boring for the neutral. Unlike any other sports, it's hard to enjoy football if you don't have a horse on the race.
Excuse the reply-fest, working on a Newbie post limit so have to be all-encompassing.
It's possible that you also never truly loved the sport, but rather everything that came with having that emotional attachment to something and being part of a tribe. I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I find that there are plenty of people who are like this.
Me, personally, I've watched more of City than I have United during the De Bruyne years. To me the sport itself is a bigger love than United. And I really enjoy watching it played at an extremely high level by creative players.
I don't watch much La Liga, so I've missed most of Messi's career, but my favourite players in the Premier League since SAF retired have been Hazard, David Silva, De Bruyne, Eriksen, Fabregas, Sanchez and, despite my general dislike of that club, Suarez.
I can only speak for myself, but the average game I turn on today is better than what was on offer 20 years ago. I don't feel to need to convince myself of anything. It's not recency bias either as I've watched enough classic matches from the past to compare fairly.
I would counter and say that some people are trying hard to convince themselves the sport was better when they were younger. What's changed is that, having watched decades of football, some are no longer as excited by it as they were when it was newer and fresher. That will happen whether you're watching football or eating vanilla ice-cream every day.
An Englishman who largely has only watched England matches would come away feeling like it's been an awful tournament. I've watched more or less every match, though mostly on demand where I can skip through the injury breaks, half-time and all the other time-wasting that goes on. It hasn't felt any different to most other major tournaments.
Most of the worst matches have involved one of the big nations, and quite often England, France or Italy was involved. Since the average punter will gravitate toward watching big nations over a clash between minnows, they come away thinking it's all been drab.
I believe you're right. Most football fans only watch their team play. That's always been the case, and it's never going to change. There are not nearly as many purists that can enjoy any contest as some seem to think.
I'd go a step further and suggest that most people who follows sports are more interested in what they get emotionally out of watching their team than they are in the sports themselves.
David Villa was sensational at Euro 2008. Comfortably the most important player on that team, despite the wealth of talent.
My thoughts as well. The average midtable game today compared to back then is night-and-day.
People are older and they've eaten the same meal for decades... you can forgive them for feeling a bit disenchanted with it.
Only one opinion but I watch most major sports, and football is better than all of them even as a neutral. If you prefer to watch another sport over football as a neutral, that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
In reality most people who watch any kind of sport are doing so with a horse in the race. It's not as if football has few neutrals watching while in other sports they're lining up to watch teams they have no interest in. It simply doesn't happen.
The fact that football is vastly more popular than any other sport is a testament to the value it holds as entertainment. There's no reason to delineate between those who watch as neutrals and those who have a stake in the game.
Choosing to make a commitment to watching football is already half the battle won. If the other sports were so superior, they'd be as popular or even more popular than football, which isn't the case.
It's possible that you also never truly loved the sport, but rather everything that came with having that emotional attachment to something and being part of a tribe. I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I find that there are plenty of people who are like this.
Me, personally, I've watched more of City than I have United during the De Bruyne years. To me the sport itself is a bigger love than United. And I really enjoy watching it played at an extremely high level by creative players.
I don't watch much La Liga, so I've missed most of Messi's career, but my favourite players in the Premier League since SAF retired have been Hazard, David Silva, De Bruyne, Eriksen, Fabregas, Sanchez and, despite my general dislike of that club, Suarez.
I can only speak for myself, but the average game I turn on today is better than what was on offer 20 years ago. I don't feel to need to convince myself of anything. It's not recency bias either as I've watched enough classic matches from the past to compare fairly.
I would counter and say that some people are trying hard to convince themselves the sport was better when they were younger. What's changed is that, having watched decades of football, some are no longer as excited by it as they were when it was newer and fresher. That will happen whether you're watching football or eating vanilla ice-cream every day.
An Englishman who largely has only watched England matches would come away feeling like it's been an awful tournament. I've watched more or less every match, though mostly on demand where I can skip through the injury breaks, half-time and all the other time-wasting that goes on. It hasn't felt any different to most other major tournaments.
Most of the worst matches have involved one of the big nations, and quite often England, France or Italy was involved. Since the average punter will gravitate toward watching big nations over a clash between minnows, they come away thinking it's all been drab.
I believe you're right. Most football fans only watch their team play. That's always been the case, and it's never going to change. There are not nearly as many purists that can enjoy any contest as some seem to think.
I'd go a step further and suggest that most people who follows sports are more interested in what they get emotionally out of watching their team than they are in the sports themselves.
David Villa was sensational at Euro 2008. Comfortably the most important player on that team, despite the wealth of talent.
My thoughts as well. The average midtable game today compared to back then is night-and-day.
People are older and they've eaten the same meal for decades... you can forgive them for feeling a bit disenchanted with it.
Only one opinion but I watch most major sports, and football is better than all of them even as a neutral. If you prefer to watch another sport over football as a neutral, that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
In reality most people who watch any kind of sport are doing so with a horse in the race. It's not as if football has few neutrals watching while in other sports they're lining up to watch teams they have no interest in. It simply doesn't happen.
The fact that football is vastly more popular than any other sport is a testament to the value it holds as entertainment. There's no reason to delineate between those who watch as neutrals and those who have a stake in the game.
Choosing to make a commitment to watching football is already half the battle won. If the other sports were so superior, they'd be as popular or even more popular than football, which isn't the case.
On point. I'd add that the tactical trend to relationism could create more opportunities to improvise again in the near future.
It's physiologically and psychologically very dubious to suggest that players from one generation are much better at decision-making than another, especially when they're only separated by 20–30 years of marginal rule changes. What you're actually seeing is that the granular and refined coaching of the "data science and easy access to global info" era is reducing the amount of difficult improvisatory decision-making needed for the average player, something that is more likely to be a requirement to make the difference (or keep possession) the more positionally unpredictable, chaotic, and tactically broad-strokes a game is. Also, players now are more likely to be well-drilled on what simple combinations and sorts of passes, shots, and dribbles work better and are easier to execute percentage-wise. Coaches and managers should know more about when formations and stylistic approaches to positions are best used because they have a much longer reference book to study, though I do think we've already seen 95% of the low-hanging fruit picked in terms of fitness, improving the average player's technical level, and refining what tactics work best. There's only so far you can take an old sport without significant rule changes. The fact that, for all the refinements we have gone through, we haven't moved beyond organized team pressing and controlling space on the pitch as being the big game-changer (concepts first introduced at least half a century ago) is pretty telling of the limitations of the sport.
Different time periods have things that are easier to do for players and stuff that is tougher...and that impacts the aesthetics, though I don't see it changing significantly in the future anymore. More efficient, consistent off the ball structure has made keeping possession with effective short/medium passes easier for the generic "technically solid player" (relative to their era) than it was decades ago (and easier 20 years ago than 40, etc.), when that required more improvisation/quicker thinking because your own team's positioning was looser and the opposition's pressing was an unpredictable melee. This has allowed the better metronomic passers and deeper-lying playmakers to rise in importance instead of sometimes being undervalued as cautious square-ball merchants that don't really manage to impact games enough. However, plenty of people don't enjoy watching cautious, intricate buildup duels compared to end to end slugfests; even if no one disagrees it's more efficient. The off the ball advancements have also made it tougher to regularly damage teams with the moments of improvised, creative dribbling/passing magic we all love; there's just not as many positional gaps and moments of space opening up that are big enough to tempt trying something "hollywood" for those with the sort of vision/technique to do so.
However, having said this, I do think the extent to which some go to in pointing out differences often ends up exaggerated...probably this is when other considerations come into play, like getting older and losing interest and energy in general as life relentlessly grinds you down. There's plenty of older games that weren't end to end entertainment or that can be surprisingly organized, just as hardly every modern game is a positional masterclass with everyone moving in perfect synch, making the right choices, and rarely losing the ball.
Different time periods have things that are easier to do for players and stuff that is tougher...and that impacts the aesthetics, though I don't see it changing significantly in the future anymore. More efficient, consistent off the ball structure has made keeping possession with effective short/medium passes easier for the generic "technically solid player" (relative to their era) than it was decades ago (and easier 20 years ago than 40, etc.), when that required more improvisation/quicker thinking because your own team's positioning was looser and the opposition's pressing was an unpredictable melee. This has allowed the better metronomic passers and deeper-lying playmakers to rise in importance instead of sometimes being undervalued as cautious square-ball merchants that don't really manage to impact games enough. However, plenty of people don't enjoy watching cautious, intricate buildup duels compared to end to end slugfests; even if no one disagrees it's more efficient. The off the ball advancements have also made it tougher to regularly damage teams with the moments of improvised, creative dribbling/passing magic we all love; there's just not as many positional gaps and moments of space opening up that are big enough to tempt trying something "hollywood" for those with the sort of vision/technique to do so.
However, having said this, I do think the extent to which some go to in pointing out differences often ends up exaggerated...probably this is when other considerations come into play, like getting older and losing interest and energy in general as life relentlessly grinds you down. There's plenty of older games that weren't end to end entertainment or that can be surprisingly organized, just as hardly every modern game is a positional masterclass with everyone moving in perfect synch, making the right choices, and rarely losing the ball.
Very eloquently put. That is the point I was making with @11101
Coaching is improving decision making at the cost of off the cuff improvisation. Incidentally we've seen the one team that consistently prizes improvisation(and fitness) above everything else dominate the CL over the last decade
while at the same time making it more important than ever
Great post!
No superstar needed, look at Spain
Lamine Yamal is the best player the sport has seen since Messi. Arguably at his best he's already the best player in the world...at the very least he shared the same pitch with most of the guys in that conversation and generally looked BETTER than them in those games
Part of the problem with Spain is that many of their players would be lauded as superstars among fans of less-endowed countries.
Looking at players who have featured heavily at this Euro, I'd mark Rodri as phenomenal, even if we've learned nothing new about him. Ruiz is quality and won a match on his own, arguably two. Pedri to me is fast becoming one of the most interesting players to watch in world football. Olmo is inconsistent but on his day is unplayable (I thought Spain might suffer when Pedri went down but he's stepped up big-time). Nico Williams would start for any PL club, City, Arsenal and Liverpool included. And Yamal is playing at Saka's level at 16.
While I wouldn't go that far, his decision-making and execution is everything you want to see from a €100m player at 25, let alone one at 16. His game isn't built on athleticism, and he's not selfish. Those are characteristics that bode well for the long run. If he can stay healthy, your proclamation might not be far off.
So you don't rate him?
This is the golden era everyone is crying out for?
The ball was in the air for the whole clip except for situationally unaware players driving the ball down blind allies and losing it.
Seriously?
The difference to me is the refereeing. The stated case they have made for NEEDing parity.
They flagrantly allow much less talented teams to foul at a much higher rate and in a more serious manner than more talented teams. I don’t know if anyone has done an actual study in this, but I personally made a study of several Chelsea games last year. Against “bad” teams, the pattern was generally foul, foul with warning, yellow card for Chelsea players. For Forest players they could be on their 6th or 7th foul before the yellow came out. We had one player who just kept getting studs raked on the back of his calf late … and it kept happening without a foul called at all. He complained and showed the blood; yellow card for dissent.
One of the most mild Chelsea teams ever, that set an all time injury record for the Premiere league, surpassed the yellow card total of one of the most physical, dirty Leeds teams ever assembled.
This is not just about Chelsea: when, say, Madrid lines up against a bottom La Liga team and the slug out a 1-0 win at the death with half their players limping: glorious parity.
How is it you will have a team win 7-0 in a closed door friendly , and end up in a bloody 1-1 draw against at the same team a few weeks later? The primary difference is they call the friendly tight against both teams in the friendly, by agreement, to try and limit injuries.
In the real game they want “parity”
Where have stars gone? They are limping off fields with their socks shredded.
And referees with over inflated heads have their names printed on the back of their jerseys. Because everyone wants to leave a completely unentertaining game talking about the referees, right?
They flagrantly allow much less talented teams to foul at a much higher rate and in a more serious manner than more talented teams. I don’t know if anyone has done an actual study in this, but I personally made a study of several Chelsea games last year. Against “bad” teams, the pattern was generally foul, foul with warning, yellow card for Chelsea players. For Forest players they could be on their 6th or 7th foul before the yellow came out. We had one player who just kept getting studs raked on the back of his calf late … and it kept happening without a foul called at all. He complained and showed the blood; yellow card for dissent.
One of the most mild Chelsea teams ever, that set an all time injury record for the Premiere league, surpassed the yellow card total of one of the most physical, dirty Leeds teams ever assembled.
This is not just about Chelsea: when, say, Madrid lines up against a bottom La Liga team and the slug out a 1-0 win at the death with half their players limping: glorious parity.
How is it you will have a team win 7-0 in a closed door friendly , and end up in a bloody 1-1 draw against at the same team a few weeks later? The primary difference is they call the friendly tight against both teams in the friendly, by agreement, to try and limit injuries.
In the real game they want “parity”
Where have stars gone? They are limping off fields with their socks shredded.
And referees with over inflated heads have their names printed on the back of their jerseys. Because everyone wants to leave a completely unentertaining game talking about the referees, right?
Yes, every single game of professional football across every league 20-30 years ago played out exactly in the style of football on display in that 20 second clip.
I kind of miss this
Did you all also freak out when a GK eventually diceded to pass short to a CB in open play instead of hoofing it forward?
That clip is really missing the high octane knocking the ball slowly back and forth between defenders for five minutes before getting forward. The stuff that really gets people off their seats.
I want to hang myself
The loss of superstar players isn't a bad thing, if it alienates from the game those incomprehensibly highly entertained by the Messi vs Ronaldo 'debate'. As interesting as if Blur vs Oasis had divided opinion and been a topic of conversation for 15 fecking years.
Easily one of the least enjoyable things about football since the mid 2000's has been this misguided belief that individual awards and achievements are on par with actual trophies.
I've never given a single shite if a United player wins golden boot, PFA Player of the Year, goal of the season, Man of the Match, Rear of the Year, Cycling Proficiency or the Ballon d'Or - and never will. I'm irritated by the prestige these individual awards seem to enjoy in the minds of fans; many of them seem to come worryingly close to putting them on par with actual silverware.
Easily one of the least enjoyable things about football since the mid 2000's has been this misguided belief that individual awards and achievements are on par with actual trophies.
I've never given a single shite if a United player wins golden boot, PFA Player of the Year, goal of the season, Man of the Match, Rear of the Year, Cycling Proficiency or the Ballon d'Or - and never will. I'm irritated by the prestige these individual awards seem to enjoy in the minds of fans; many of them seem to come worryingly close to putting them on par with actual silverware.
I was actually quite entertained by that one minute clip. It’s a lot more entertaining than watching a football match nowadays.
You think a cherry-picked minute of football on Twitter is representative of an entire era of football?
Seriously?
Even if it was, it’s irrelevant to the discussion because the argument is that the current game is more boring. Nobody is saying it was technically higher quality back then, just that it was more entertaining to watch.
I also believe the lack of superstars has to do with oversaturation of football related content. At least I can feel zero connection to any player that's competing at the top, top level today and one of the reasons is that I simply get tired of seeing them.
When I was a child and/or teenager and wanted to see my favourite players I had to turn on the TV on the weekend and that was practically it. Occasionally there would be some articles about them in a sports newspaper that got published once a week and was not really serious journalism. That means there was some kind of mystery around them which made it more exciting to actually watch them, even if it was only during a highlights show more than a day after the game was over.
Nowadays, players share their lifes on Social Media with the whole world, clubs are posting weekly clips from their training sessions or upload quizzes, challenges or Q&As starring their players and managers of which 90% is not football-related and completely irrelevant and uninspiring drivel. For example, I don't find it that interesting what Salah's favourite coffee is or how many pair of sneakers Musiala has in his locker (just two examples I recall of some videos I recently watched just to understand the extent of football content that's out today).
The actual games are only a fraction of the total football related content the average fan today consumes, the rest revolves around analysis, discussing rumours, bashing your own team and/or abusing your rival's team and fans on Social Media.
And I don't think it only has to do with me and us getting older. I remember my father still getting excited to watch players like Iniesta, Xavi, Messi, Zidane and R9 when he was in his 40s and even 50s, I don't think I'll feel the same in 10-20 years about the coming generation of players.
When I was a child and/or teenager and wanted to see my favourite players I had to turn on the TV on the weekend and that was practically it. Occasionally there would be some articles about them in a sports newspaper that got published once a week and was not really serious journalism. That means there was some kind of mystery around them which made it more exciting to actually watch them, even if it was only during a highlights show more than a day after the game was over.
Nowadays, players share their lifes on Social Media with the whole world, clubs are posting weekly clips from their training sessions or upload quizzes, challenges or Q&As starring their players and managers of which 90% is not football-related and completely irrelevant and uninspiring drivel. For example, I don't find it that interesting what Salah's favourite coffee is or how many pair of sneakers Musiala has in his locker (just two examples I recall of some videos I recently watched just to understand the extent of football content that's out today).
The actual games are only a fraction of the total football related content the average fan today consumes, the rest revolves around analysis, discussing rumours, bashing your own team and/or abusing your rival's team and fans on Social Media.
And I don't think it only has to do with me and us getting older. I remember my father still getting excited to watch players like Iniesta, Xavi, Messi, Zidane and R9 when he was in his 40s and even 50s, I don't think I'll feel the same in 10-20 years about the coming generation of players.
Last edited:
Blame the system. Individualism has been beaten out of players. It's boring but let's hope football has a change of direction.
Football is not as good as virtual football. Virtual football never loses air or goes to the toilet. Football actually has living organic grass and beings that whisper unpredictable things behind hands that viewer
perator cannot lip read.
perator cannot lip read.