This is what football looked like in 1958 (feat. Di Stefano, Kubala and Fontaine)

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Staff
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
26,155
Location
Inside right
There's a common misconception regarding the game from way back then, that everything was slow and easy. I thought this vid' would serve as a great tool to refute that as it's representative of most games I've seen from that era.

It's aggressive with constant closing down on players and space. I feel the absolute biggest evolution in the sport has been the the chasm between modern pitches and the bogs commonly seen all the way up to the 1990's. Even outside the changes to sports science, the rules or tactical improvements, the pitches are by far the biggest and most important change and improvement to the game, I would say.

Anyway, the game:



Well worth your time if you have any interest in the history of the game you've probably spent your entire sentient existence watching. ;)
 
Fortitude said:
There's a common misconception regarding the game from way back then, that everything was slow and easy. I thought this vid' would serve as a great tool to refute that as it's representative of most games I've seen from that era.

It's aggressive with constant closing down on players and space. I feel the absolute biggest evolution in the sport has been the the chasm between modern pitches and the bogs commonly seen all the way up to the 1990's. Even outside the changes to sports science, the rules or tactical improvements, the pitches are by far the biggest and most important change and improvement to the game, I would say.

Anyway, the game:



Well worth your time if you have any interest in the history of the game you've probably spent your entire sentient existence watching. ;)
Click to expand...

Some of those players move like my elderly dad.
 
Great thread Fortitude. You are 100% right. The pitches have made the biggest difference.
 
Pitches and the ball. Those old balls were so heavy, it’s really evident in the videos too.
 
Fortitude said:
2 things.

1. You haven’t watched the vid

2. I bet you’d move differently on pitches like those.
Click to expand...
I did watch the vid, it's slow paced and the players have to commit to things because they are lacking in athleticism.
 
It says it's a friendly, so a little hard to judge it I suppose, but it looks very much like most black and white games that I see - usually competitive ones like cup finals.

There's a huge difference in terms of player fitness, and so there's plenty of space in midfield. When a player picks it up in midfield, instead of having a number of opponents closing him down looking to win it back, there's acres of space and any opponent are jogging backwards into defensive position rather than charging towards him looking to win it.

And there's loads of one v ones all over the pitch, including out wide or inside the penalty box, rather than players having 2 or 3 around them all looking to foul. When a winger gets the ball in these old games, they just have a full back to contend with - no back tracking winger or covering CM or CB - and the FB often just jogs along side the winger making no body contact, rather than trying to foul him with pulls or trips or anything.

And when a player has a free shot inside the box, it's rare to see anyone charging towards the ball putting their body on the line, or diving in looking to block the shot. They mostly stay upright, often keeping their position and allowing the shot.

I know there's justifications for a lot of that - improvements in pitches, balls, boots, etc. But it doesn't change the above, just explains it. And the improvements and commitments to better diet and exercise, and becoming the body shape more like full time athletes than part time footballers is another huge reason for the increased running and closing down nowadays.
 
Surprised no one's talked about the boots yet. Even those in the early 90s were insanely heavy compared to what Adidas came up with in the late 90s.
 
Great footage. A bit unfortunate that the camera is zoomed in enough so that you can't really see how players move in relation to each other, but fun to watch nonetheless.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It says it's a friendly, so a little hard to judge it I suppose, but it looks very much like most black and white games that I see - usually competitive ones like cup finals.

There's a huge difference in terms of player fitness, and so there's plenty of space in midfield. When a player picks it up in midfield, instead of having a number of opponents closing him down looking to win it back, there's acres of space and any opponent are jogging backwards into defensive position rather than charging towards him looking to win it.

And there's loads of one v ones all over the pitch, including out wide or inside the penalty box, rather than players having 2 or 3 around them all looking to foul. When a winger gets the ball in these old games, they just have a full back to contend with - no back tracking winger or covering CM or CB - and the FB often just jogs along side the winger making no body contact, rather than trying to foul him with pulls or trips or anything.

And when a player has a free shot inside the box, it's rare to see anyone charging towards the ball putting their body on the line, or diving in looking to block the shot. They mostly stay upright, often keeping their position and allowing the shot.

I know there's justifications for a lot of that - improvements in pitches, balls, boots, etc. But it doesn't change the above, just explains it. And the improvements and commitments to better diet and exercise, and becoming the body shape more like full time athletes than part time footballers is another huge reason for the increased running and closing down nowadays.
Click to expand...
Valid points, but how long do you think a concerted press would last on pitches that sap the energy out of you?

We’ve seen what world cups look like in extremely hot conditions, and suddenly we’re taken back decades as walking pace football becomes the mean.

You’d need more fitness to do the same things we see on pitches like those with cotton kits and heavy boots, wouldn’t you say?
 
Fortitude said:
Agree about the ball, especially when those old ones got wet!
Click to expand...
My dad thinks that might be a big reason why we see old players suffer from concussions, and that todays players will not have the same problems when heading the ball because the balls today are so much lighter.
 
As with every sport, the level has drastically increased over decades. The speed, technical ability, tactical organisation, fitness etc on display now is on a different level not to mention the pressure. Look at the keeper on the first goal in this clip itself.

On the other hand players today have the benefit of all of that being better including the benefits of fame and fortune.

At the same time, people have to be judged relative to their time. The likes of Stefano and Charlton would he geniuses in any era.
 
Fortitude said:
There's a common misconception regarding the game from way back then, that everything was slow and easy. I thought this vid' would serve as a great tool to refute that as it's representative of most games I've seen from that era.

It's aggressive with constant closing down on players and space. I feel the absolute biggest evolution in the sport has been the the chasm between modern pitches and the bogs commonly seen all the way up to the 1990's. Even outside the changes to sports science, the rules or tactical improvements, the pitches are by far the biggest and most important change and improvement to the game, I would say.

Anyway, the game:



Well worth your time if you have any interest in the history of the game you've probably spent your entire sentient existence watching. ;)
Click to expand...


You're right.

It always makes me laugh when you get people saying things like "the United champions league winning team(s)" would struggle in today's game because of the advances in sports science".

So they used the 100m in the paris olympics as an example of sports science improvements and compared it to 100 years ago. We've had improvements in track design, material, anti slip, shoe improvements, blocks (they used to dig into the dirt with their hands), nutrition, training etc etc....all of that? This years winner was 0.81 seconds faster than the winner of the games in the same event 100 years ago.

Next time someone tells you that a team with Giggs, Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney, vidic, rio, vds, evra, carrick, scholes etc would struggle because of said advances feel free to laugh in their face. Oh and Also, Beckham ran more each game on average than the highest distance recorded covered in one game (held by dedendocker) over an entire season since he moved to Madrid.
 
Plus they didn't have special medicine cabinets back then, not an inhaler in sight either.
 
I thought the ball used to be a coconut? that didn't look like a coconut for me...
 
Fortitude said:
Valid points, but how long do you think a concerted press would last on pitches that sap the energy out of you?

We’ve seen what world cups look like in extremely hot conditions, and suddenly we’re taken back decades as walking pace football becomes the mean.

You’d need more fitness to do the same things we see on pitches like those with cotton kits and heavy boots, wouldn’t you say?
Click to expand...
True.

Though I did acknowledge that in my final paragraph that began: "I know there's justifications for a lot of that - improvements in pitches, balls, boots, etc. But it doesn't change the above, just explains it..."

Given the later improvements to pitches and player clothing, it's understandable why the older games have more space and far less closing down, more one on ons duels so easier for attacking players to beat their man, the game played at a slower tempo by far less athletic players, etc. I'm sure most would acknowledge why there's a difference in the above then and now. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge difference, just gives some explanations for it.

It's attempts to "refute" the above as "misconceptions", as if it wasn't true - as the OP states - that I was disagreeing with. Switching now to acknowledging all the above is valid, but defending the older games for the later differences in 'pitches, boots, balls' is a more easier sell than trying to claim there was "constant closing down on players and space" as, again, the OP rather falsely claims. As you now say, you can't really expect to see that on those pitches and with those heavy kits. And the main point is, that you don't see it, no.
 
Korwas said:
My dad thinks that might be a big reason why we see old players suffer from concussions, and that todays players will not have the same problems when heading the ball because the balls today are so much lighter.
Click to expand...
I've also read the opposite though, that while the balls are lighter they tend to be moving much faster, so it might end up just as bad or even worse in terms of concussions. I'm not sure it's something we'll know for certain, or at least not for some time anyway (until players start showing symptoms).
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It says it's a friendly, so a little hard to judge it I suppose, but it looks very much like most black and white games that I see - usually competitive ones like cup finals.

There's a huge difference in terms of player fitness, and so there's plenty of space in midfield. When a player picks it up in midfield, instead of having a number of opponents closing him down looking to win it back, there's acres of space and any opponent are jogging backwards into defensive position rather than charging towards him looking to win it.

And there's loads of one v ones all over the pitch, including out wide or inside the penalty box, rather than players having 2 or 3 around them all looking to foul. When a winger gets the ball in these old games, they just have a full back to contend with - no back tracking winger or covering CM or CB - and the FB often just jogs along side the winger making no body contact, rather than trying to foul him with pulls or trips or anything.

And when a player has a free shot inside the box, it's rare to see anyone charging towards the ball putting their body on the line, or diving in looking to block the shot. They mostly stay upright, often keeping their position and allowing the shot.

I know there's justifications for a lot of that - improvements in pitches, balls, boots, etc. But it doesn't change the above, just explains it. And the improvements and commitments to better diet and exercise, and becoming the body shape more like full time athletes than part time footballers is another huge reason for the increased running and closing down nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think fitness has improved, but for me that space is about tactics. Or more specifically it’s about compactness. It wasn’t a tactical concept until the 1970s as we can see by the big distances between the defence and the attack. Visionaries like Michels, Cruyff and Sacchi changed that. They wanted to squeeze their off-the-ball game into a 20m x 20m box. Merge that with Pep’s possession principles and that makes the game appear vastly different today.


Pronewbie said:
Surprised no one's talked about the boots yet. Even those in the early 90s were insanely heavy compared to what Adidas came up with in the late 90s.
Click to expand...
Aye the weight of boots has made a huge difference to the agility on show. Boots in the 1990s were between 300 and 400g. Today most are less than 200g.
 
Only watched a bit.

What I always find interesting about these games is how the players play 1 and 2 touch football on those heavy pitches with those heavy balls.
 
MadDogg said:
I've also read the opposite though, that while the balls are lighter they tend to be moving much faster, so it might end up just as bad or even worse in terms of concussions. I'm not sure it's something we'll know for certain, or at least not for some time anyway (until players start showing symptoms).
Click to expand...
Well what actually does damage is the impulse, which is the product of mass and speed
 
Korwas said:
My dad thinks that might be a big reason why we see old players suffer from concussions, and that todays players will not have the same problems when heading the ball because the balls today are so much lighter.
Click to expand...
It's horrible that they're developing those brain issues later in life. Though, nowadays, you seem to hear of a lot more players with heart issues in their playing career - and more collapsing / dying on the pitch in their 20's and 30's.

I know the world's 'smaller' now that there's blanket news footage covering everything, so maybe you wouldn't have heard of some of them in the old days - but it definitely feels like it's more of an increased worry and occurrence nowadays.

I'm assuming that's to do with the much higher levels of running players have had to do in the last 30 years or so - and therefore the amount of off-pitch work they also have to do in order to be able to get through all that increased running.
 
Gio said:
I think fitness has improved, but for me that space is about tactics. Or more specifically it’s about compactness. It wasn’t a tactical concept until the 1970s as we can see by the big distances between the defence and the attack. Visionaries like Michels, Cruyff and Sacchi changed that. They wanted to squeeze their off-the-ball game into a 20m x 20m box. Merge that with Pep’s possession principles and that makes the game appear vastly different today.



Aye the weight of boots has made a huge difference to the agility on show. Boots in the 1990s were between 300 and 400g. Today most are less than 200g.
Click to expand...
And I forgot to mention traction and control, also how they'd double in weight during wet weather. It makes you appreciate the power, pace and trickery on display in the 50s - 60s by the likes of Pele, Eusebio, Best etc.
 
Korwas said:
My dad thinks that might be a big reason why we see old players suffer from concussions, and that todays players will not have the same problems when heading the ball because the balls today are so much lighter.
Click to expand...
Bertie Wooster said:
It's horrible that they're developing those brain issues later in life. Though, nowadays, you seem to hear of a lot more players with heart issues in their playing career - and more collapsing / dying on the pitch in their 20's and 30's.

I know the world's 'smaller' now that there's blanket news footage covering everything, so maybe you wouldn't have heard of some of them in the old days - but it definitely feels like it's more of an increased worry and occurrence nowadays.

I'm assuming that's to do with the much higher levels of running players have had to do in the last 30 years or so - and therefore the amount of off-pitch work they also have to do in order to be able to get through all that increased running.
Click to expand...

Again, the difference in ball weight even comparing the 1990/'94 World Cup balls vs the '98 was huge. The '98 ball is still one of my favourites. Truly revolutionary for its era (even compared to the Nike one which looked good but was still hefty).

And I agree the younger players should have fewer issues with concussions because of this alone.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
True.

Though I did acknowledge that in my final paragraph that began: "I know there's justifications for a lot of that - improvements in pitches, balls, boots, etc. But it doesn't change the above, just explains it..."

Given the later improvements to pitches and player clothing, it's understandable why the older games have more space and far less closing down, more one on ons duels so easier for attacking players to beat their man, the game played at a slower tempo by far less athletic players, etc. I'm sure most would acknowledge why there's a difference in the above then and now. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge difference, just gives some explanations for it.

It's attempts to "refute" the above as "misconceptions", as if it wasn't true - as the OP states - that I was disagreeing with. Switching now to acknowledging all the above is valid, but defending the older games for the later differences in 'pitches, boots, balls' is a more easier sell than trying to claim there was "constant closing down on players and space" as, again, the OP rather falsely claims. As you now say, you can't really expect to see that on those pitches and with those heavy kits. And the main point is, that you don't see it, no.
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m not trying to hoodwink nor make false claims; football from those times tends to be summarily dismissed, especially so in terms of pressures, which the video clearly shows is a false claim as there is pressure to the man and ball the moment they breach certain areas of the pitch, particularly for 1on1 battles as posters are stating. As @Gio stated, the collective press wasn’t a thing then as a man was supposed to take care of his direct opponent, and only when beaten all ends up, is someone supposed to come over and take on another’s duties.

Still, a collective press on such pitches would have been a disaster, imo. Just as I think if we played on those bogs now, there’d be very little of that seen because of the energy sapping of the pitch (leaving kit, boots and ball out of it, but adding them in, the cumulative fatigue would be unworkable). I just find it interesting that conditions determine so much more than we care to admit - unbearably hot summer tournaments have us witness a game far removed from the club campaign, for example.

It’d never be sanctioned by the clubs, but it would be an interesting game to watch modern players in old clobber on a godawful pitch. I’d put money on them not looking like they’re playing much of a different game to that vid!
 
Any links to other full matches like this one? Maybe some WC or CC finals?
 
Where are the patterns of play, space attacking and transitions
 
iHicksy said:
You're right.

It always makes me laugh when you get people saying things like "the United champions league winning team(s)" would struggle in today's game because of the advances in sports science".

So they used the 100m in the paris olympics as an example of sports science improvements and compared it to 100 years ago. We've had improvements in track design, material, anti slip, shoe improvements, blocks (they used to dig into the dirt with their hands), nutrition, training etc etc....all of that? This years winner was 0.81 seconds faster than the winner of the games in the same event 100 years ago.

Next time someone tells you that a team with Giggs, Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney, vidic, rio, vds, evra, carrick, scholes etc would struggle because of said advances feel free to laugh in their face. Oh and Also, Beckham ran more each game on average than the highest distance recorded covered in one game (held by dedendocker) over an entire season since he moved to Madrid.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the bolded can't be right. If his average is higher than the highest distance, he must have at least one match that is higher than the record. Unless I've misunderstood
 
I always thought old football was known for being fast paced and lacking control as opposed to slow and easy. And thats kinda what that video shows. Teams rushing end to end on dodgy pitches. Theres no patience and its all tactically naive. Hugely entertaining though.
 
babablue said:
I agree with you, but the bolded can't be right. If his average is higher than the highest distance, he must have at least one match that is higher than the record. Unless I've misunderstood
Click to expand...
No it is - there's a great youtube piece on it that last about 20minutes that goes into the statistics - and hence why I said Since. e.g since beckham left the highest distance recorded was less than his average over a season. Maybe the wording was confusing.
 
I watched 5 mins and it was awful. Players running into each other, miss placed passes and general scrappiness. I’ll watch more when I get chance
 
Just some notes regarding other periods from football in general and others more in particular to the period and match posted here.

In those days they didn't knew how to properly film a match, I once made a vid of a current match filmed as an old one and looked like a mess. I mean. where to position the camera, the lack of estability, the edition, etc. this cretes a bad vid that heavy influences our perception.
Also there will always be a mismatch in terms of FPS (frames per second), sometimes this vid are kind of ralentized, others accelerated.
So this stuff would always affect the way we can "witness" some matches from certain periods.

All in all, it doesn't take aside that there was more time on the ball, that players in general were prepared with older methods. That if you where a freak like Pele or Alfredo, you had even a bigger advantage against the rest. That depending on the period, but mostly compare to very current tendencies, players tend to risk the ball more, etc...a funny side of this aspect it's that we can read even on the 40's (and on every decade) articles complaining of the lack of soul and downfall of offensive football, in comparison with even recent older periods.

In the end there isn't a gap that an Oldie Great all timer couldn't adapt to current game (if he applies to it, that is another matter, some personalities just are what they are on any era/period).
The game on every period was different, it improves in general in terms of stamina, athletism, but also in some areas due to some tendencies can become less attractive, or better say more pragmatic than in other periods.
On the other hand this adaptation to the current game a Pele, Di Stefano can easily do, does not mean in a very silly way that they would run the 100 metres in 9 seconds, jump 5 metres or anything, they'll have similar traits, some even improved, but mostly they already had the talent and athletism to adapt in an easir way that the regular dud from their periods.

At the end of the day it's always a two side of a coin thing, being the star of star studded team it's great, like it's great to be one of the few ones in a more mediocre side, they are diff. secnarios, not one clearly harder or better, both are true good things.
There were harder, more criminal fouls, in other periods, but there was more time on the ball...players nowadays have less permission to repeat fouls and be reckless, but there is better teamwork, more aid from your mates when comes to defend in numbers or make tactical fouls constantly...some roles had to improve with no excuses, like keepers with the ball at their feet due to newer rules and a large etc...on every sport athletes tend to be faster, more durable, but since this is football, it changes the scenario, but not in the same sense a 100 metres competition does.
There are other aspects involve that doesn't make intrinsecally way better a modern player than older ones, nor viceversa. It' s more of a grey area, where also tendencies, philosophies of how to play the game come to play.
Also football is a contact sport, but it ain't Rugby where clearly the development of many current beasts affect the game more than it can happen in football where there is more room from more various skillsets and body types.

PD: Regarding the ball, I always find it funny that people tend to go to extremes with such things. yes current and modern balls are better, but for certain aspects, if go too far like the Jabulani it becomes uncontrolable like a birthday balloon (give me a 70's Tango all the way before this one for instance, I've played with both).
A heavier ball, it's always easier to dominate (hence futsal ones, smaller and heavier in order to control it easier ina way more constrain space to operate), but becomes harder to strike/header if gets extremely heavy and a rock like some of the very old ones. We tend to simplfy everything in these sorts of arguments about older peridos, modern ones, etc...nothing it's that simply and always is in some sort of greay area where sometimes two ideas, arguments, that might look opposite ones, actually live at the same time with each other without cancelling the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.