Lionel Messi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barcelona scored 190 goals in 2011/12. Bayern scored 112 in 1971/72.

The numbers you are looking for are these..

Indeed,*

1972/73 Müller: 49 apps, 66 goals, ~7 assists** -- 1.35 gpg / 0.14 apg
2011/12 Messi: 60 apps, 73 goals, 29 assists -- 1.22 gpg / 0.48 apg


However,

1972/73 Bundesliga: 3.37 gpg
2011/12 La Liga: 2.76 gpg

1972/73 European Cup: 2.81 gpg (3.05 gpg in 1st & 2nd round / 2.00 gpg from QF onwards)
2011/12 Champs. Lge.: 2.76 gpg (2.65 gpg in group stage / 3.14 gpg in knockout stage)

1972/73 DFB-Pokal: 4.16 gpg (!)
2011/12 Copa del Rey: 2.96 gpg

1972/73 DFL-Ligapokal: 7.75 gpg (!!!)
2011/12 no equivalent competition


*I'm using their season totals because calendar totals would make this too hard
**I've only managed to find Bundesliga assist stats, so it's likely he'll have a few more from domestic and European cup games, but unlikely to be over 10-12.

I'm not sure what evidence to suggest that 2010s La Liga is better than 1970s Bundesliga, given both leagues produced the greatest club and national teams of their era (Barcelona/Spain and Bayern Munich/West Germany). And Muller's big-game record is unparalleled.

My opinion is that football in 2012 is better than football in the 1970s. Also IMO it was easier to score in 1970 than in 2012. Or to put it in another way, defense in 2012 is better than the defense in 1970.
 
I know what you mean but the crux of it for me is Messi gets more chances than Muller, even with all of his other responsibilities, because he creates more for himself and plays in a team that creates more for him.

How do we know that?
 
We don't know that, it's my opinion. It's the impression I got from watching Muller for Bayern/Germany in an assortment of games from the mid-60s to the mid-70s...you get a pretty reasonable impression of how good/creative a side are just from watching them a few times, in my experience. Particularly when you combine that with the goalscoring statistics available. You don't need to have watched Dortmund a lot over the last couple of years to know that they're a lethal counter-attacking team that are ruthless in front of goal without being a particularly creative side, for example. That's just my opinion though. You're naturally going to doubt that opinion because a) it goes against the idea that football was easier to play in for attackers back then and b) it doesn't support your Messi argument in any way. You naturally come into every argument with a pro-Messi and pro-modern football agenda every time and doubt anything that goes against it, for some reason. For what it's worth that Bayern team was a wonderful side that would be competing for every trophy if they played in this era, and any fan who loves the game would be delighted to watch them in action...

And of course on the other side of things this Barca side create more chances than almost any other team in history.
 
Mluller was very clinical but a la Defoe contributed little or nothing to overall team play.
 
I agree with Pete. Muller scored goals...man did he score goals...

but otherwise he was limited as a footballer.

having said that in no way is that belittling Mueller. His anticipation was amazing. A player like him would be worth more than a player who was a more 'complete' player.
 
We're all on the same page here, no-one's suggesting Muller's anything more than a goalscorer with a limited all-round game but for me that doesn't mean he isn't a 'great' player. Pete's idea of a great footballer (whether that be a great of his generation in regards to Ruud or an all-time great in regards to Muller) is more black-and-white than mine. He was so good at what he did that he is one of the few limited players who deserves to be called great. I still think Romario was a little genius and he's up there too as an all-time great. Had more to his game than Muller with his dribbling but limited all the same.
 
I'm with you on that. Not only was he unbelievably pointless in the build-up but he wasn't even that clinical a finisher, he just got into great positions time and again and eventually got his goal...but then he wasn't a fantastic goalscorer either. He only got over 25 goals in a season twice in his career. But yeah, any player that limited isn't worth the bother in my view.
 
I'm with you on that. Not only was he unbelievably pointless in the build-up but he wasn't even that clinical a finisher, he just got into great positions time and again and eventually got his goal...but then he wasn't a fantastic goalscorer either. He only got over 25 goals in a season twice in his career. But yeah, any player that limited isn't worth the bother in my view.

Four times actually, I remember that from our Serie A draft!
 
We don't know that, it's my opinion. It's the impression I got from watching Muller for Bayern/Germany in an assortment of games from the mid-60s to the mid-70s...you get a pretty reasonable impression of how good/creative a side are just from watching them a few times, in my experience. Particularly when you combine that with the goalscoring statistics available. You don't need to have watched Dortmund a lot over the last couple of years to know that they're a lethal counter-attacking team that are ruthless in front of goal without being a particularly creative side, for example. That's just my opinion though. You're naturally going to doubt that opinion because a) it goes against the idea that football was easier to play in for attackers back then and b) it doesn't support your Messi argument in any way. You naturally come into every argument with a pro-Messi and pro-modern football agenda every time and doubt anything that goes against it, for some reason. For what it's worth that Bayern team was a wonderful side that would be competing for every trophy if they played in this era, and any fan who loves the game would be delighted to watch them in action...

And of course on the other side of things this Barca side create more chances than almost any other team in history.

Instead of that block of text I expected some goals/shot stats.

Also, I don't "somehow" doubt anything going against modern football being better than old football. I made it clear that I believe that that is the case, for the simple reason that football has developed a lot in the last 40 years, and is even more popular now and it's attracting more talent than back in the 1970s.

And like in any other field, when the competition grows, the quality grows. All the teams now are much better than the teams back in the 1970s, and if you bring that Bayern team now the modern teams will easily beat them. That Bayern team looked great against the teams of the 1970s.

In the 1970s a player can afford to drink, smoke, miss training, and still be the best player on the field. This is not possible in 2012, and the reason is obvious. Everything has developed since the 1970s till now. Basketball, volleyball, chess, computers, medicine, ... etc. I don't understand why football has to be the exception.
 
Instead of that block of text I expected some goals/shot stats.

Sorry to disappoint you yet again. As for the rest of the stuff as I said I can't be bothered debating all that again. I don't think it's a difficult thing to understand. If you were to teleport Messi as he is right now to 1970s German League football he'd scored twice as many goals as Muller. Likewise if you transported Muller as he was back then to modern day football now he wouldn't be able to keep up. It's about how much they stood above their peers when they had access to the same facilities and had the same drawbacks that are unique to each generation. It's about how Messi would do if he were to be born at the same time as Muller or vice-versa, and with the same training, equipment, pitches, scientific knowledge etc. etc. then how would they fare? And I think Muller would be the better goalscorer. If you don't like dealing in hypotheticals then yes, all modern top-level footballers are leagues above their 50s counterparts. Scott Parker would in fact be better than Alfredo Di Stefano because he's been conditioned in such a way thanks to his dietary advice, training etc. that the players from the 50s didn't have access to he can play at a pace well above what they're accustomed to and capable of. I'm not sure what that proves though.
 
Instead of that block of text I expected some goals/shot stats.

Also, I don't "somehow" doubt anything going against modern football being better than old football. I made it clear that I believe that that is the case, for the simple reason that football has developed a lot in the last 40 years, and is even more popular now and it's attracting more talent than back in the 1970s.

And like in any other field, when the competition grows, the quality grows. All the teams now are much better than the teams back in the 1970s, and if you bring that Bayern team now the modern teams will easily beat them. That Bayern team looked great against the teams of the 1970s.

In the 1970s a player can afford to drink, smoke, miss training, and still be the best player on the field. This is not possible in 2012, and the reason is obvious. Everything has developed since the 1970s till now. Basketball, volleyball, chess, computers, medicine, ... etc. I don't understand why football has to be the exception.

No one has argued otherwise. But you try to take away from their achievements when its FACT (rafa) that someone's achievements can only be assessed within the context of the era they occured in. You argue that Mullers goals is less of an achievement just because it happened in the 70s, and "there must have been development since the 70s". Why dont you see tenfold of random no-mark players who have ridiculous goal stats then, if getting those stats was so easy back then. You dont because it was and still is a huge achievement. Its obvious that its not just the era that he played in that made Muller score so many goals. He was a special player. Just as Messi is a special player in this era.

Do you make lists of "best players ever" and have Zico, Garrincha, Carlos Alberto, Di Stefano, Eusebio etc down on 1872nd place because James Milner would have shined back in the 50-60s? Thats where we end up with your line of logic.
 
Sorry to disappoint you yet again. As for the rest of the stuff as I said I can't be bothered debating all that again. I don't think it's a difficult thing to understand. If you were to teleport Messi as he is right now to 1970s German League football he'd scored twice as many goals as Muller. Likewise if you transported Muller as he was back then to modern day football now he wouldn't be able to keep up. It's about how much they stood above their peers when they had access to the same facilities and had the same drawbacks that are unique to each generation. It's about how Messi would do if he were to be born at the same time as Muller or vice-versa, and with the same training, equipment, pitches, scientific knowledge etc. etc. then how would they fare? And I think Muller would be the better goalscorer. If you don't like dealing in hypotheticals then yes, all modern top-level footballers are leagues above their 50s counterparts. Scott Parker would in fact be better than Alfredo Di Stefano because he's been conditioned in such a way thanks to his dietary advice, training etc. that the players from the 50s didn't have access to he can play at a pace well above what they're accustomed to and capable of. I'm not sure what that proves though.

It's not only down to the "conditioning". The field of talent to pick from is now much bigger than in the 1970s, partly because football is more popular now, and partly because the incentives are much bigger. This means that overall talent in the 2012 teams is higher than the 1970 teams, which in turn means that you'll need to be REALLY talented to be able to stand out nowadays. It's like the being the best player among 1000 players, and being the best player among 1000,000 players.
 
No one has argued otherwise. But you try to take away from their achievements when its FACT (rafa) that someone's achievements can only be assessed within the context of the era they occured in. You argue that Mullers goals is less of an achievement just because it happened in the 70s, and "there must have been development since the 70s". Why dont you see tenfold of random no-mark players who have ridiculous goal stats then, if getting those stats was so easy back then. You dont because it was and still is a huge achievement. Its obvious that its not just the era that he played in that made Muller score so many goals. He was a special player. Just as Messi is a special player in this era.

Do you make lists of "best players ever" and have Zico, Garrincha, Carlos Alberto, Di Stefano, Eusebio etc down on 1872nd place because James Milner would have shined back in the 50-60s? Thats where we end up with your line of logic.

My post above may help you get a better understanding.

When James Milner scores as many goals as Di Stefano then I'll rate Milner higher because of the era-correction factor.
 
My post above may help you get a better understanding.

When James Milner scores as many goals as Di Stefano then I'll rate Milner higher because of the era-correction factor.

Your post above doesnt contain any explanations at all to my questions. You just outright dodged one of them by setting up a hypothetical scenario.

1. Where are all the other players who scored 80 goals a season if it were so easy to score back then?

2. How good do you have to be today to surpass one of the all time greats like Di Stefano? Is Rooney a better all-time footballer? Adebayor? Bobby Zamora?
 
It's not only down to the "conditioning". The field of talent to pick from is now much bigger than in the 1970s, partly because football is more popular now, and partly because the incentives are much bigger. This means that overall talent in the 2012 teams is higher than the 1970 teams, which in turn means that you'll need to be REALLY talented to be able to stand out nowadays. It's like the being the best player among 1000 players, and being the best player among 1000,000 players.

It is. Special talents have existed throughout the generations. Special talents that would stand out in any generation. Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Platini et al are geniuses that would rip these leagues apart just as Messi is doing. They're not standing out above their generation, they still stand head and shoulders above the "1000,000" - that's a million by the way - players of today. Well, the 999,999 players. Messi might just sneak in there alongside them. If you watched enough of them you'd see that. If you have watched them and can't see that then you're better off sticking to basketball.
 
You use a too absolute way of defining the best Danny. Whilst I see the logic behind it, it makes any discussion as the "best ever" totally pointless. By that reasoning, the best player ever will always be a player of the modern era, just like the best sprinter ever is Usain Bolt.

I do think football is more complex and beautiful than that, and no comparison is valid without the appropriate context (and therefore definite conclusions will never be reached - just more or less informed opinions).

I for once would think if we were to summarize the best footballers ever and put in there 9 out of 10 guys from the 00's (because the likes of Eto'o would probably match or better Pele if he was teleported to those games) we would end up with a very poor picture of the sport.

In the same way I won't admit that Schumacher is better than Fangio or Senna. I'm happy to know that they were the three best pilots of their respective eras and leave it at that.
 
Your post above doesnt contain any explanations at all to my questions. You just outright dodged one of them by setting up a hypothetical scenario.

1. Where are all the other players who scored 80 goals a season if it were so easy to score back then?

2. How good do you have to be today to surpass one of the all time greats like Di Stefano? Is Rooney a better all-time footballer? Adebayor? Bobby Zamora?

It actually hits the core of your question, you just don't seem/want to understand it.

1. Playing in Brazil? Didn't even play football because they weren't discovered? Didn't even like football even though they possessed the talent?
It was easier to do back then than now, but that doesn't mean it can be done more often, because like I said, the overall talent was also lower.

2. That's debatable, and difficult to assess. I don't know the exact correction factor to be able to compare inferior players nowadays to superior players back then, but what I know is when two players from different eras achieve the same feat, then I know whom I rate higher.
 
It is. Special talents have existed throughout the generations. Special talents that would stand out in any generation. Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Platini et al are geniuses that would rip these leagues apart just as Messi is doing. They're not standing out above their generation, they still stand head and shoulders above the "1000,000" - that's a million by the way - players of today. Well, the 999,999 players. Messi might just sneak in there alongside them. If you watched enough of them you'd see that. If you have watched them and can't see that then you're better off sticking to basketball.

How would you know??

May I ask you a question? How many full games (full 90 minutes) did you watch for Muller? Honestly.
 
You use a too absolute way of defining the best Danny. Whilst I see the logic behind it, it makes any discussion as the "best ever" totally pointless. By that reasoning, the best player ever will always be a player of the modern era, just like the best sprinter ever is Usain Bolt.

Not necessarily. Ronaldo was probably the best striker in his era (at his peak), but I still can't say he's better than Muller from a statistical point of view, because, well, he didn't score 85 goals in a year (or didn't score as many goals as Muller generally). But when he does it (in our days!) then it will be easier for me to say who is the better scorer.
 
You use a too absolute way of defining the best Danny. Whilst I see the logic behind it, it makes any discussion as the "best ever" totally pointless. By that reasoning, the best player ever will always be a player of the modern era, just like the best sprinter ever is Usain Bolt.

I do think football is more complex and beautiful than that, and no comparison is valid without the appropriate context (and therefore definite conclusions will never be reached - just more or less informed opinions).

I for once would think if we were to summarize the best footballers ever and put in there 9 out of 10 guys from the 00's (because the likes of Eto'o would probably match or better Pele if he was teleported to those games) we would end up with a very poor picture of the sport.

In the same way I won't admit that Schumacher is better than Fangio or Senna. I'm happy to know that they were the three best pilots of their respective eras and leave it at that.

Exactly what I have always felt regarding these ridiculious debates.One just cannot say that Messi is THE best ever.It's just impossible
 
How would you know??

May I ask you a question? How many full games (full 90 minutes) did you watch for Muller? Honestly.

Why do you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to? I don't know, it's my opinion. (deja-vu)

About 25 games from the ages of 21-30. Seen him score back-to-back hat-tricks in a World Cup, seen him score back-to-back goals in International tournament finals, seem him score back-to-back goals in European Cup finals...the list goes on and on. He was special. In the same way people in 50 years time will be able to tell Ronaldo was a special player from just watching him in WC '98, or Zidane from watching him in Euro '00, or Messi from simply watching him in his European Cup finals or...well, the point's pretty clear. It doesn't take someone with incredible insight into the game to watch these players and see that they're special.

The fundamental qualities of a great player has always been and always will be the same. Intelligence (vision, awareness), technique (first touch, passing, close control, dribbling, shooting, finishing), physique (pace, power, balance, leap), mentality (composure, big-game performances, consistency). Most of these things are easy to see after just watching a few games of any player, past or present, no matter what conditions he's playing in.

I've no idea why you'd want to fiercely debate something like this without having even watched the player in question. I guarantee you'd have a lot less questions. It's axiomatic. Yet your whole argument has nothing to do with the actual players, it's just some strange argument based on loose logic which adds nothing to the debate. You have people who know the game inside-out who have watched all of these players across generation after generation and they all say that these were unbelievable players, players that would excel in any generation because their talent just isn't seen very often, even with a 1000x bigger talent pool. It's great that you're one for sticking to your own opinions but when your opinions are based on such loose arguments...well, at what point does it just become blind ignorance? Honestly, if you care that much then just watch them. Otherwise I don't see the point in even involving yourself in argument.
 
Why do you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to? I don't know, it's my opinion. (deja-vu)

If it is YOUR opinion, then why do feel the need to tell me that I should stick to basketball if I don't agree with you??

It is. Special talents have existed throughout the generations. Special talents that would stand out in any generation. Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Platini et al are geniuses that would rip these leagues apart just as Messi is doing. They're not standing out above their generation, they still stand head and shoulders above the "1000,000" - that's a million by the way - players of today. Well, the 999,999 players. Messi might just sneak in there alongside them. If you watched enough of them you'd see that. If you have watched them and can't see that then you're better off sticking to basketball.

About 25 games from the ages of 21-30. Seen him score back-to-back hat-tricks in a World Cup, seen him score back-to-back goals in International tournament finals, seem him score back-to-back goals in European Cup finals...the list goes on and on. He was special. In the same way people in 50 years time will be able to tell Ronaldo was a special player from just watching him in WC '98, or Zidane from watching him in Euro '00, or Messi from simply watching him in his European Cup finals or...well, the point's pretty clear. It doesn't take someone with incredible insight into the game to watch these players and see that they're special.

The fundamental qualities of a great player has always been and always will be the same. Intelligence (vision, awareness), technique (first touch, passing, close control, dribbling, shooting, finishing), physique (pace, power, balance, leap), mentality (composure, big-game performances, consistency). Most of these things are easy to see after just watching a few games of any player, past or present, no matter what conditions he's playing in.

If you think you know how a player would fare in another era by watching him for 25 games, then you know nothing about football, or you're the best da*n scout the history of football ever knew. Anyway, after watching you describe Muller in a way that makes him look like the impossible player, let me show you those 14 goals Muller scored in the world cup..



Just three words, are you serious?! :lol: What did Muller do there that Van Nistelrooy can't do?? Dare I say Inzaghi? :nervous:

I appreciate that those were the best players in that generation, and I appreciate if you're a 60 year old who watched them live at the time (which I doubt) and got attached to them which makes it difficult for you to accept that the modern players are better than them. But, come on! You can't call ME blind!

I've no idea why you'd want to fiercely debate something like this without having even watched the player in question.

You think I haven't watched him play??? :lol:

I guarantee you'd have a lot less questions. It's axiomatic. Yet your whole argument has nothing to do with the actual players, it's just some strange argument based on loose logic which adds nothing to the debate. You have people who know the game inside-out who have watched all of these players across generation after generation and they all say that these were unbelievable players, players that would excel in any generation because their talent just isn't seen very often, even with a 1000x bigger talent pool. It's great that you're one for sticking to your own opinions but when your opinions are based on such loose arguments...well, at what point does it just become blind ignorance? Honestly, if you care that much then just watch them. Otherwise I don't see the point in even involving yourself in argument.

This debate is not pointless. It's a legitimate comparison between football across the generations. You got mad because you seem to feel strongly about the older generation (for some reason), and while you stress that you must have an opinion of your own, you call other people having other opinions "ignorant" or "blind".

I gave my opinion about the comparison between football now and back then, I gave you the reason why it's much better now than back then.. I showed you a clip of the Magic Muller, in which he didn't look really all that "magic", while all you did was repeat silly statements like "players that would excel in any generation because their talent just isn't seen very often, even with a 1000x bigger talent pool."

And since you once again consult the opinion of other people, then I tell you, of course they will only have words of praise for the older generation, out of respect, and because they want to give football a better picture (sports live off its legends!). In fact, I'm not even belittling what those great players achieved in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that football now is much better, and it's much more difficult now to score 80+ goals in one year than back then..
 
Jesus.... RvN and Inzaghi couldnt hold a candle to Muller. All you have done is show a video of his world cup goals only and then use that as your basis for your opinion.
 
If you think you know how a player would fare in another era by watching him for 25 games, then you know nothing about football, or you're the best da*n scout the history of football ever knew. Anyway, after watching you describe Muller in a way that makes him look like the impossible player, let me show you those 14 goals Muller scored in the world cup..

Errrr....25 games is about the same amount as those who have lived through his era have seen of him, Germans aside. So all opinions of him are invalid other than those that lived in Germany at the time? I guess this debate is pointless.

Just three words, are you serious?! :lol: What did Muller do there that Van Nistelrooy can't do?? Dare I say Inzaghi? :nervous:

Yes, you should go back to basketball I'm afraid. Talk about missing the point. Is this how you've seen Muller? These clips? Hmm. It's the mentality that puts Muller on a pedestal few others of his type have even come close to. FWIW, I loved Muller's goals in the final replay v Atletico more than any other. Two days after that first final, just 10 days after a gruelling league season...and he still has that composure and ability to turn it on in the big games.



And since you once again consult the opinion of other people, then I tell you, of course they will only have words of praise for the older generation, out of respect, and because they want to give football a better picture (sports live off its legends!). In fact, I'm not even belittling what those great players achieved in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that football now is much better, and it's much more difficult now to score 80+ goals in one year than back then..

Ugh. Out of respect? That's unbelievably disrespectful and at the same time hilariously stupid. 1000s of people like me have went back and watched these games and completely agreed with their opinions. I guess we're just being respectful too. Or just agreeing with the mass opinion just so we can fit in. Yes, blind ignorance. I have no idea why I've even gone this far with the debate. There's nothing to be gained. We're so far apart in every way. I have no time for someone who has so little respect for other people's opinion.
 
No-one's disrespecting basketball. I could just as easily have said Rugby, Golf, Tennis or any number of sports and it wouldn't have changed the point - namely, this sport isn't for you so perhaps you're better off with another one. It has nothing to do with the complexity or quality of the sport. In my experience those who spread out their time between various sports do come to bizarre conclusions because there's no substitute for fully immersing yourself in one sport (as is true of any profession, hobby etc. of course).
 
Ok Brwned, clearly there is no point of debating you. I'm not going to stop watching football. You should go back to that Muller club with all those 1000s, so you can completely avoid people disagreeing with you. Muller is a great player, one of the best of his generation. I stand by my points.
 
must admit looking at his world cup goals I didnt see anything that made me think 'wow'. Just a ruthless poacher who took the chances given to him
 
must admit looking at his world cup goals I didnt see anything that made me think 'wow'. Just a ruthless poacher who took the chances given to him

You don't need to think 'wow', the 'wow' factor in football doesn't mean feck all as long as you put the ball in the back of the net.
 
It's not only down to the "conditioning". The field of talent to pick from is now much bigger than in the 1970s, partly because football is more popular now, and partly because the incentives are much bigger. This means that overall talent in the 2012 teams is higher than the 1970 teams, which in turn means that you'll need to be REALLY talented to be able to stand out nowadays. It's like the being the best player among 1000 players, and being the best player among 1000,000 players.

To suggest that there is x1000 as much competition to make it as a footballer nowadays would only be relevant if it was previously a minority sport that exploded in popularity during the last generation or so. Which is ridiculous given the regular 100,000+ crowds during the middle of the century, the fabric of the game rooted in industrial, working-class society, and the current frustration in Western countries of the Playstation/Xbox generation meaning there is a smaller pool of youngsters spending sufficient time with a ball at their feet.

Aside from the environment within which players operate (pitches, balls, boots) and developments in training and nutrition, I'm not sure where the evidence to support the idea that football is so much stronger now. Equally how many great talents did we lose in the 1960/70s because they weren't getting paid enough? Ultimately nobody here is suggesting that football was better back in the day, but that the talent pool was broadly the same from era to era, subject to occasional variations in different positions.
 
must admit looking at his world cup goals I didnt see anything that made me think 'wow'. Just a ruthless poacher who took the chances given to him

That's all he was. He was just so much better at it than anyone else to play the role that he deserves credit for it. His touch v Holland in the WC Final there is very clever and there's a couple of great headers in there but the rest are goal-poaching goals. It's just he did that against every opposition at every level and was responsible for so much success for his club and country. "Without Muller, there would be no World Cup or European Championship for Germany and no European Cups for Bayern" - Karl-Heinz Rummenigge. Plus you can see from the Atletico goals he had class in him too when it was needed. There's very little that's aesthetically pleasing about his game and he didn't contribute a whole lot in the build-up, but he did the role asked of him better than anyone could have hoped for.

12 goals in 6 European Cup games in 72-73, scoring in every round before Bayern get put out in the QFs - including a goal v Cruyff's Ajax in that QF. 8 goals in 9 European Cup games in 73-74, scoring in every round including 2 goals in the final. He's beginning to lose his acceleration and sharpness and needs Hoeness to do most of the running up front by 74-75 (just 30, perhaps early stages of his alcoholism cutting his career short?) but he gets his customary goal in the final to steal the win against a Leeds' side that arguably outperformed them.

And that's the beauty of Muller, he'd always get you a goal regardless of how the team played because even as limited as he was and reliant on service as he was, he'd sniff out that chance and he'd put it away with consummate ease. Just 4 European Cup campaigns, one of which they went out of in the first round (was he injured/suspended? no goals in either leg doesn't sound like him), and he scored 4 EC Final goals. 3 International tournament semi-finals (well, the 1974 WC equivalent) - 5 goals. Two international tournament finals - 3 goals. And it's not like they were spread out throughout his career, they're just one after another. That's a phenomenal achievement no matter how unspectacular and limited his overall game was.

Wayyyyyyy off topic.
 
To suggest that there is x1000 as much competition to make it as a footballer nowadays would only be relevant if it was previously a minority sport that exploded in popularity during the last generation or so. Which is ridiculous given the regular 100,000+ crowds during the middle of the century, the fabric of the game rooted in industrial, working-class society, and the current frustration in Western countries of the Playstation/Xbox generation meaning there is a smaller pool of youngsters spending sufficient time with a ball at their feet.

Aside from the environment within which players operate (pitches, balls, boots) and developments in training and nutrition, I'm not sure where the evidence to support the idea that football is so much stronger now. Equally how many great talents did we lose in the 1960/70s because they weren't getting paid enough? Ultimately nobody here is suggesting that football was better back in the day, but that the talent pool was broadly the same from era to era, subject to occasional variations in different positions.

The football academies were nowhere as much developed back then as they are now.. I have no doubt that more kids have the ball now at their feet with scouts watching than in 1970s.

Also, players coming from other continents (which was a rare occurrence back then in the 1970s) is also raising the level of competition and the overall talent in Europe nowadays.

Everybody is actively searching for new talents now, inside and outside Europe (because of monetary incentives), so it's natural that they will be able to find more of them..

Talents that could have been missed back in the 1970s? How about Messi?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.