Munich air disaster - a fine example of where the media's loyalty lies

[Guest elbee909]

Everything seems better when you look back on it.  Your memory filters out the shite.  I doubt there's all that much difference between football then and now but if people want to argue about then fine, whatever.  It's completely impossible to prove one way or the other.

[Guest POWNATS]

They were great in their day but compare them to the top players in this day and age and i reckon todays players would walk all over them.

 

I only go back to the 70s, but 90% of todays players appear to have SO little genuine football ability, they would be unlikely to get into reserve teams from those days.

 

There is this "automatic" assumption made by many people (mainly the young-uns who have 'nowt' to compare it to!) that MODERN IS BETTER / NOW IS BETTER. Whereas the reverse is usually true!!

 

Todays players are "fitter" / "eat better" / "drink less" / "run a bit faster" . .  but better??  -  FAR from it!

 

Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that

 

Footballers in the 70's......who

 

Johan one turn Cruyff

Franz the statue Beckembaur

Bobby long shot Charlton

 

 

I'll take Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Zidane any day

Given a straight choice between Pele or Ronaldo its Ronaldo every time, ask Ferguson to choose might be interesting

 

Name me a better striker than Henry or Drogba or Kaka

 

This diggin up the past  ok for a bit of debate at the bar when the conversation dries up, everyone does it

 

Things move on we just got to accept it

 

 

Gert Muller

 

Brian Howard Cluff

 

Wor Jackie

 

and to suggestthat Ronaldo is better than Pele shows that you've never watched a single game of football ............    mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

Given you the whole of the past against today to choose from and thats your best shot 

 

Would anybody care to explain the point about statistical sport, seems to be getting brushed under the carpet

 

 

[Guest alex]

If we're talking stats Jimmy Greaves kicks the shit out of your lot.

[Guest POWNATS]

If we're talking stats Jimmy Greaves kicks the shit out of your lot.

 

Statistics without variables, you cant  quote stats for individuals in team games.

Depends too much on the quality of the opposition and team mates although tbf it is a pointer

Football is also a far different game today than in Greaves time, just because he had a good scoring record doesn't mean he was a brilliant player

 

Take darts for instance, without the scoring and finishing averages some might be tempted to say Eric Bristow would give Phil Taylor a run for his money but records show Taylor would hammer Bristow even on a real bad day

 

Tell me why all current record holders still perform, coincidense perhaps

[Guest alex]

If we're talking stats Jimmy Greaves kicks the shit out of your lot.

 

Statistics without variables, you cant  quote stats for individuals in team games.

Depends too much on the quality of the opposition and team mates although tbf it is a pointer

Football is also a far different game today than in Greaves time, just because he had a good scoring record doesn't mean he was a brilliant player

 

Take darts for instance, without the scoring and finishing averages some might be tempted to say Eric Bristow would give Phil Taylor a run for his money but records show Taylor would hammer Bristow even on a real bad day

 

Tell me why all current record holders still perform, coincidense perhaps

You were the one saying stats were relevant numbnuts. The idea Greaves wasn't a brilliant player says a lot for your knowledge. So do all your other posts though.

[Guest POWNATS]

If we're talking stats Jimmy Greaves kicks the shit out of your lot.

 

 

 

Statistics without variables, you cant  quote stats for individuals in team games.

Depends too much on the quality of the opposition and team mates although tbf it is a pointer

Football is also a far different game today than in Greaves time, just because he had a good scoring record doesn't mean he was a brilliant player

 

Take darts for instance, without the scoring and finishing averages some might be tempted to say Eric Bristow would give Phil Taylor a run for his money but records show Taylor would hammer Bristow even on a real bad day

 

Tell me why all current record holders still perform, coincidense perhaps

You were the one saying stats were relevant numbnuts. The idea Greaves wasn't a brilliant player says a lot for your knowledge. So do all your other posts though.

 

Are you older than 12... if you are then try acting it

You wanna throw opinion against fact and if that dont work try insults

Get back to the bar mate

[Guest alex]

Diddums.

[Guest POWNATS]

Ha Ha Ha grow up sunshine

[Guest TPIB]

How hard can it be to be quiet for 60 seconds 

[Guest alex]

Ok then, I'll play ball, as it were, POWNATS. How are these players from the present 'factually better' than those from the past? Because as I see it, fitness, training, etc., etc. is what sets players from different eras apart. But they aren't more gifted, they just happen to be born at a different time. You can't tell me that someone like Pele or Garrincha or Dixie Dean wouldn't have been brilliant were they around now. But it's a moot point anyway, you only have to be great amongst your peers. By the same token, Henry et al wouldn't be the same were they born then. In all honesty I'm not even sure what you mean by:

"Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that"

But I will say that denigratign the likes of Cruyff shows a huge degree of ignorance as to how good he actually was imo.

[Guest alex]

Well, that shut him up.

[Guest TPIB]

Ok then, I'll play ball, as it were, POWNATS. How are these players from the present 'factually better' than those from the past? Because as I see it, fitness, training, etc., etc. is what sets players from different eras apart. But they aren't more gifted, they just happen to be born at a different time. You can't tell me that someone like Pele or Garrincha or Dixie Dean wouldn't have been brilliant were they around now. But it's a moot point anyway, you only have to be great amongst your peers. By the same token, Henry et al wouldn't be the same were they born then. In all honesty I'm not even sure what you mean by:

"Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that"

But I will say that denigratign the likes of Cruyff shows a huge degree of ignorance as to how good he actually was imo.

 

Well said

 

Having seen both, I much prefer the older version of the game tbh Watching someone with skill bamboozling someone who's trying to kick lumps out of him and making him look a total prick was a great pleasure. Of course the opposite was true and seeing someone with skill, who was a danger to your team, finding out how fast he could limp after your meathead kicked him was canny too.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Gerd Muller's goal scoring record was out of this world, simply amazing.

[Guest alex]

Pele's and Puskas' were too.

[Guest POWNATS]

Ok then, I'll play ball, as it were, POWNATS. How are these players from the present 'factually better' than those from the past? Because as I see it, fitness, training, etc., etc. is what sets players from different eras apart. But they aren't more gifted, they just happen to be born at a different time. You can't tell me that someone like Pele or Garrincha or Dixie Dean wouldn't have been brilliant were they around now. But it's a moot point anyway, you only have to be great amongst your peers. By the same token, Henry et al wouldn't be the same were they born then. In all honesty I'm not even sure what you mean by:

"Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that"

But I will say that denigratign the likes of Cruyff shows a huge degree of ignorance as to how good he actually was imo.

 

The original point i made was in sports that have world records, running , swimming etc theres no argument about who the best was or is

Also in single sports where there are records of performance that can show a direct relation to quality

as in darts or snooker etc

You cant use team or combat sport stats because it then depends on the opposition, team mates etc.

Football, boxing,cricket, but i agree with what you say about Greaves his goals make him stand out, but all the players in these type of sports are stuck with opinion

I appreciate what your saying about training, diet, lifestyle sure these  all factors that make a big difference

 

The point im making is that in every sport you can use these records the person with the best stats is still performing today, for me this cant be coincidence

So then logically the truth is your probably seeing the best players that theres ever been today, thing is we wont appreciate them until our times up

 

People tend to protect mythical legend like figures, these myths just grow and grow until they cant be questioned

 

If you check the posts i made on here you'll see i never said factually about any of the players i've chosen, they are the best  only imo

 

As for the remarks about Cruyff i was being flippant, of course he was class(got alotta milage out of one turn though), maybe not as good as van Basten

 

Just think its an interesting point Alex thats all, got nothing against players from the past

 

Any time you can say for definate he or she's the best ever there still active in their sport

 

 

 

[Guest TPIB]

It's always a fun argument but you can't really compare sportsmen of different era's even by world records, everything has moved on from the training regime (and importantly the time spent training) to the equipment. Take running for example, they used to run on cinder tracks wearing shoes heavier than todays football boots and they were amateurs and therefore spare time trainers.

[Guest POWNATS]

It's always a fun argument but you can't really compare sportsmen of different era's even by world records, everything has moved on from the training regime (and importantly the time spent training) to the equipment. Take running for example, they used to run on cinder tracks wearing shoes heavier than todays football boots and they were amateurs and therefore spare time trainers.

 

Thats a fair point

 

Swimmers, water aint changed much i dont think

[pinkeye]

Man Utd will be wearing a Retro strip for their match with Man City on Sunday in memory of the Munich deaths:

 

http://cache2.gettyimages.com/xc/79641178.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1935121260197D6DE78B4252DB80F08C6AB

 

I think that, while the sad event is worthy of rememberence, people from Manchester seem to expect the rest of the world to feel as passionately about it as they do.  To be honest, in my opinion there has been far worse events occured before and since that are more worthy of rememberence that that one.

[matta]

They were great in their day but compare them to the top players in this day and age and i reckon todays players would walk all over them.

 

I only go back to the 70s, but 90% of todays players appear to have SO little genuine football ability, they would be unlikely to get into reserve teams from those days.

 

There is this "automatic" assumption made by many people (mainly the young-uns who have 'nowt' to compare it to!) that MODERN IS BETTER / NOW IS BETTER. Whereas the reverse is usually true!!

 

Todays players are "fitter" / "eat better" / "drink less" / "run a bit faster" . .  but better??  -  FAR from it!

 

Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that

 

Footballers in the 70's......who

 

Johan one turn Cruyff

Franz the statue Beckembaur

Bobby long shot Charlton

 

 

I'll take Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Zidane any day

Given a straight choice between Pele or Ronaldo its Ronaldo every time, ask Ferguson to choose might be interesting

 

Name me a better striker than Henry or Drogba or Kaka

 

This diggin up the past  ok for a bit of debate at the bar when the conversation dries up, everyone does it

 

Things move on we just got to accept it

 

 

Gert Muller

 

Brian Howard Cluff

 

Wor Jackie

 

and to suggestthat Ronaldo is better than Pele shows that you've never watched a single game of football ............    mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

Given you the whole of the past against today to choose from and thats your best shot 

 

Would anybody care to explain the point about statistical sport, seems to be getting brushed under the carpet

 

 

 

Id take Ronaldo at his peak against any other player in the history of football. Easy.

[Shak]

Id take Ronaldo at his peak against any other player in the history of football. Easy.

 

Like anyone could possibly know that.

[Guest Sniffer]

George Best was better at his peak.

[Guest TPIB]

It's always a fun argument but you can't really compare sportsmen of different era's even by world records, everything has moved on from the training regime (and importantly the time spent training) to the equipment. Take running for example, they used to run on cinder tracks wearing shoes heavier than todays football boots and they were amateurs and therefore spare time trainers.

 

Thats a fair point

 

Swimmers, water aint changed much i dont think

 

Slippyer chlorine  tbh 

[Guest alex]

Ok then, I'll play ball, as it were, POWNATS. How are these players from the present 'factually better' than those from the past? Because as I see it, fitness, training, etc., etc. is what sets players from different eras apart. But they aren't more gifted, they just happen to be born at a different time. You can't tell me that someone like Pele or Garrincha or Dixie Dean wouldn't have been brilliant were they around now. But it's a moot point anyway, you only have to be great amongst your peers. By the same token, Henry et al wouldn't be the same were they born then. In all honesty I'm not even sure what you mean by:

"Why is it then any sport that has records or performance stats the best are still performing now.

explain that"

But I will say that denigratign the likes of Cruyff shows a huge degree of ignorance as to how good he actually was imo.

 

The original point i made was in sports that have world records, running , swimming etc theres no argument about who the best was or is

Also in single sports where there are records of performance that can show a direct relation to quality

as in darts or snooker etc

You cant use team or combat sport stats because it then depends on the opposition, team mates etc.

Football, boxing,cricket, but i agree with what you say about Greaves his goals make him stand out, but all the players in these type of sports are stuck with opinion

I appreciate what your saying about training, diet, lifestyle sure these  all factors that make a big difference

 

The point im making is that in every sport you can use these records the person with the best stats is still performing today, for me this cant be coincidence

So then logically the truth is your probably seeing the best players that theres ever been today, thing is we wont appreciate them until our times up

 

People tend to protect mythical legend like figures, these myths just grow and grow until they cant be questioned

 

If you check the posts i made on here you'll see i never said factually about any of the players i've chosen, they are the best  only imo

 

As for the remarks about Cruyff i was being flippant, of course he was class(got alotta milage out of one turn though), maybe not as good as van Basten

 

Just think its an interesting point Alex thats all, got nothing against players from the past

 

Any time you can say for definate he or she's the best ever there still active in their sport

 

 

 

I still have no idea what this bit in bold means or is meant to prove. Also, name me one player playing now who is better than Maradona was.

[Guest Phil K]

If we're talking stats Jimmy Greaves kicks the s*** out of your lot.

Agree. Talent is talent. I'd place Greaves above 95% of modern day strikers - at his best of course - and you'd have to remember he would benefit too from better medical and training facilities.

[Guest Slippery Sam]

Cruyff 'got a lot from one turn'. What absolute shite. Mind-numbing shite. To think he is remembered for one turn is just crass stupidity. 'Maybe not as good as Van Basten'. Lord preserve us!

 

These players were exceptional players in an age when football wasn't played on bowling greens as it is now. They played with a ball much heavier than it is now. They played at a time when the near-assault-type 'tackle' was part of the game - yet still shone above the rest; that shows how class these people were.