How physically fit are footballers?

[madras]

i'm looking forward to the "how mentally fit are footballers?" thread

[toonpete1892]

David Beckham is 1 of only 3 sportsmen/women who have completed the "BLEEP TEST" (If you can remember doing it in your schooldays).

 

As this tests both Aerobic and Anaerobic fitness, i suggest most Professionals are extremely cardiovascular fit.

Bleep test is quality, used to get pretty far when i was younger and a got x-country runner. What was that TV show on a Saturday night where the contestants had to do it?

 

Could have been the Krypton Factor but I'm too young to remember it properly.

[Jinky Jim]

It might have been BODY HEAT run by Sally Gunnell and Jeremy Guscott.

[Guest float one in]

Modern footballers are ridiculously fit. It is the reason why football is rubbish these days. I read a quote by Socrates in a brilliant book called 'Perfect 10' by Richard WIlliams where he said its more or less impossible to have beautiful football these days cos the players are so fit and do so much running, and run much faster. It makes sense - the pitches are the same size as always, but if footballers are running more and faster, there is less space on the pitch, so less space in which to find brilliant passes. Obviously footballers are adapting, and you have people like Fabregas and Rui Costa who can still use the space well, but its getting less and less like that.

As everyone knows, top level football is by and large rubbish, becoming more and more dominated by African players because they are physically superior. Even someone like Ronaldo - he is so effective because of pace and power, allied to a decent technique.

[Newcastle Fan]

Modern footballers are ridiculously fit. It is the reason why football is rubbish these days. I read a quote by Socrates in a brilliant book called 'Perfect 10' by Richard WIlliams where he said its more or less impossible to have beautiful football these days cos the players are so fit and do so much running, and run much faster. It makes sense - the pitches are the same size as always, but if footballers are running more and faster, there is less space on the pitch, so less space in which to find brilliant passes. Obviously footballers are adapting, and you have people like Fabregas and Rui Costa who can still use the space well, but its getting less and less like that.

As everyone knows, top level football is by and large rubbish, becoming more and more dominated by African players because they are physically superior. Even someone like Ronaldo - he is so effective because of pace and power, allied to a decent technique.

 

Hardley the case tbh..but agree with the general sentment of your post.

[Guest float one in]

Modern footballers are ridiculously fit. It is the reason why football is rubbish these days. I read a quote by Socrates in a brilliant book called 'Perfect 10' by Richard WIlliams where he said its more or less impossible to have beautiful football these days cos the players are so fit and do so much running, and run much faster. It makes sense - the pitches are the same size as always, but if footballers are running more and faster, there is less space on the pitch, so less space in which to find brilliant passes. Obviously footballers are adapting, and you have people like Fabregas and Rui Costa who can still use the space well, but its getting less and less like that.

As everyone knows, top level football is by and large rubbish, becoming more and more dominated by African players because they are physically superior. Even someone like Ronaldo - he is so effective because of pace and power, allied to a decent technique.

 

Hardley the case tbh..but agree with the general sentment of your post.

 

Aye, 'dominated' is probably too strong a word. 

[Karjala]

It might have been BODY HEAT run by Sally Gunnell and Jeremy Guscott.

thats the one

[steve_69]

Why do people think it's funny or original or witty or even f****** necessary to come out with such pathetically cliched lines when referring to taller people. It's just dull. Stop it.

 

Because it's fucking hilarious Killjoy. What a daft question.

[Guest Knightrider]

How fit? No more than most of us surprisingly. Conditioned however...

 

 

[Guest float one in]

How fit? No more than most of us surprisingly. Conditioned however...

 

 

 

What's the difference between fit and conditioned?

And how on Earth are they no more fit than most of us?

[Adam]

This is a comparison im making, not the most accurate but might give some insight.

 

Personally I remember when I was 13-14 and playing rugby and football, I was always far more tired playing rugby. Since then I have stopped playing rugby and now play hockey every weekend. I play 5 a side now and then but its mainly hockey. Anyways last week some of my mates i play hockey with asked if I could play for them in a local footy league they play in. Playing the whole game right wing/midfield I there were only a few times i was out of breath. Compare this to hockey on a saturday and I can play a whole game but the faster pace of play and less stoppages (goal kicks corners etc are taken lot quicker in hockey), i find it far more strenuous. I have a friend in portugla who plays for their national hockey team, portugal aren't a big hockey country yet the bleep test minimum  for the squad is 15, and nations like austrialia, spain it is higher at around 17.

 

Obviously there are players who are very fit, and others that aren't, I still think rugby players are all round a lot fitter than footballers, whilst I am unsure what to make of football/hockey comparison as they are different in nature.

[Guest alex]

Part of the beauty of football is that it isn't all down to who is the fittest/strongest/quickest. It's a shame, in a way, that that is changing imo.

[Guest float one in]

Part of the beauty of football is that it isn't all down to who is the fittest/strongest/quickest. It's a shame, in a way, that that is changing imo.

Amen

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Part of the beauty of football is that it isn't all down to who is the fittest/strongest/quickest. It's a shame, in a way, that that is changing imo.

 

I agree in a way, same is true of rugby union (more so in fact) - 10 years ago the players looked like normal people, now they look more like body builders.

 

Just hope it doesn't eventually breed out the skill and we don't see any more Beardsleys and Waddles.

[The College Dropout]

Now you have to be more "complete". 1 of the differences between Kaka and Riquelme is that Kaka is a far superior athelete. He looks pretty tall and he's deceptively strong and quick.

 

Fabregas isn't particularly quick but he's not slow either and has increased his strength ten-fold.

 

Players like Ronaldo and Richards look "brolic" and a fair deal of their success on the pitch comes from their physical attributes.

[The College Dropout]

Part of the beauty of football is that it isn't all down to who is the fittest/strongest/quickest. It's a shame, in a way, that that is changing imo.

 

I agree in a way, same is true of rugby union (more so in fact) - 10 years ago the players looked like normal people, now they look more like body builders.

 

Just hope it doesn't eventually breed out the skill and we don't see any more Beardsleys and Waddles.

 

It won't bread out the skill. It wasn't like Beardsley or Waddle were slow and weak.

 

Who is that South African Rugby Union player who has the chest width of a train? My God he looks like a beast.

[Keefaz]

Part of the beauty of football is that it isn't all down to who is the fittest/strongest/quickest. It's a shame, in a way, that that is changing imo.

Amen

 

Yep, I hope so too. I think there are managers around with so many different philosophies on the game, that the sport will be OK. There is still a place for a classy defender, imo, they don't all have to be 6'6" hoofers (I know Rozehnal has done his best to prove me wrong on this, like), just as there is a place for a slower, more skillful forward, as long as a manager can use him effectively.

[Guest Knightrider]

It won't bread out the skill. It wasn't like Beardsley or Waddle were slow and weak.

 

It will make fielding 11 quality predominantly homegrown players more difficult because at the very base of the game (kids' football), your skillful talented players with not much pace or strength (attributes that may appear when they hit their teens) are being left out for bigger, quicker and more athletic kids and a kid will only stand on the touchlines playing a few minutes here and there for only so long before they become completely despondent with football, lost to the game forever both as a participant and a supporter.

 

The reason why we are getting faster, less technical, but stronger, more athletic and more physical players over skilful players is because at the base of the game right through to academy level, that's what's coming through, due to the modern game demanding such attributes from players. If you want the skill, you import it as Arsenal are doing, but even then they don't want the skill if there is no physical strengths with it.

 

It's actually very easy or rather a very simplistic thing to develop a footballer out of a physical specimen. You can't however develop someone physically if they don't have the attributes in the first place. And in football the quick fix is the norm, especially when "time is money" is added on. It's basically easier to develop modern day footballers working with kids with physical attributes but who have no skills over kids who have lots but don't have any physical attributes. Obviously the holy grail is to find kids that do have it all and to work with them but those kids are rare, your Wayne Rooneys of the world who come along once in a blue moon.

 

Another disadvantage for our kids and our game in terms of self development is the demise of street football in this country, the skills, tricks and flair early learning center if you will, which is impacting kids' skills levels in this country. Abroad, not only are they physically more tailor made, especially in Africa, they are also more skillful and therefore more technically tailor made due to having a street football environment. But the biggest appeal or decider is cost, it's cheaper to import. This is a huge problem for us and our game.

 

There are more issues too, which is linked to the lack of street football in our country. Kids wanting to play football more often than not end up in the hands of "coaches" playing for teams, where they are then handed a position that they tend to have to stick to, meaning our kids are being pigeonholed into roles or forced to become specific type players rather than individuals who can play anywhere.

 

Matt Le Tisser reckons he wouldn't make it today, even Gazza wondered if he would, Waddle likewise. Beardsley has also asked the question. These were great players our game produced. Imagine if they didn't make it? How many future Gazzas, Beardsley and Waddles is the game losing due to the type of footballer that has become the norm today and the football environment these players are brought up in and developed by?

 

In my opinion the Premier League was far more exciting and natural 10 years ago than it is today, a game where players like Rob Lee who without wanting to be critical, was a fairly ordinary player skills wise, was a star. The technique is better today, but it's so controlled, almost robot like. Where is the loose individualism? Where are all the playmakers and unique players? Only a handful exist today and most of them have been imported from abroad. You couldn't imagine a Man City fave like Kinkladze or Juninho at Boro taunting teams up and down the country today like they did then. A 6.2 beast will eat them up for fun. Likewise Rob Lee perhaps? Today he'd have to be either a box to box player only, or a defensive midfielder only. KK's team of the 90s wouldn't work today. For Rob Lee to score the goals he did today, he'd need a Makalele behind him and a Drogba up front. A Beardsley may be considered a luxury. No-one can tell today's players are any better, they aren't. The game itself has changed so much though, many shifts in thinking, tactics and other things have dulled the game to the point where outside of Arsenal and Man Utd, the rest of the league is pretty ordinary to watch, even top sides like Liverpool and Chelsea. Never before have we had so many fine players playing in our game yet how many classic games do you see? How many top players shine every week? Only your very best and they have to be in a top top team to do that. The game today is unimaginative and samey samey and progressively getting less enjoyable and less natural.

[Dave]

Haha.

[madras]

HTT................A rob lee would more than survive today, how, because of his movement. you think the game now is massivly different, i don't see it. a bit quicker granted but no sciesmic changes. you say a 6'2 would eat up a juninho type player now as if viera or keane didn't exist then.

 

as for temas being pretty ordinary to watch outside of man utd and arsenal..who was good to watch when we finished 2nd twice ?...us and man utd (even that 2nd time we were very hit and miss). when we langushed under guillit how many teams were good to watch.

 

tell you what portsmouth's away early performances were very good (not just up here),villa on occasion can be good to watch when young and agbonlahor are firing.

 

 

i agree that we aren't getting as many kids through because they aren't playing as much as we did.

[Cronky]

HTT - I first started following football in the late 60's, and even though we'd just won the World Cup, you heard journos complaining that the players were like robots and we weren't producing great individuals any more like Stanley Matthews, Tom Finney, Tommy Lawton etc

 

I can't agree that the football is less entertaining or skilful today. Teams like Man U and Arsenal are brilliant to watch, and right the way down the league, standards have improved. All subjective of course.

[Guest nufc_geordie]

I have a major problem with the whole argument of players being tired after playing supposedly too many games. Go back 20 years and the league consisted of 46 games, there were unlimited replays in the FA cup (Newcastle v Forest- about 4 I think), and all European games were two legs so getting to the final meant you probably only played two games less than the winners of this seasons UEFA cup / Champiuon league. On top of that the players were on the drink most of the time and they certainly had never thought of dieticians in those days.

 

Yet one thing stands out, there wasn't calls for a Winter break, nobody complained they were tired and the squads were generally smaller.

 

Todays footballers are far too soft, mollycoddled and the sooner they realise they are in exceptionally privelidged positions the better otherwise the game will continue to be overtaken by rugby. I for one am not an egg-chasing fan but in recent years I have moved to prefer to watching that the premiership football as I respect the players more.

[madras]

I have a major problem with the whole argument of players being tired after playing supposedly too many games. Go back 20 years and the league consisted of 46 games, there were unlimited replays in the FA cup (Newcastle v Forest- about 4 I think), and all European games were two legs so getting to the final meant you probably only played two games less than the winners of this seasons UEFA cup / Champiuon league. On top of that the players were on the drink most of the time and they certainly had never thought of dieticians in those days.

 

Yet one thing stands out, there wasn't calls for a Winter break, nobody complained they were tired and the squads were generally smaller.

 

Todays footballers are far too soft, mollycoddled and the sooner they realise they are in exceptionally privelidged positions the better otherwise the game will continue to be overtaken by rugby. I for one am not an egg-chasing fan but in recent years I have moved to prefer to watching that the premiership football as I respect the players more.

it isn't that they are too tired as much as they are not in as good condition as someone who hasn't played as much

[sparta]

i have done about 5 or 6 of those test, most of them developed in norway (role model tests made by clubs like rosenborg)

ive done the "bleep" test as weel, 4 years ago, scored quite high, oxygen uptake of  63%o2 max capacity, wich should be about level 15-16...

the standars in the Norwegian Tippeliga is between 60-70% and our highest ever scoring (in football) is Øyvind Leonhardsen (if ya can remember him)

he scored between 85-90, wich is about as high as you can possibly get.... so yes, they are fit...

 

[Guest alex]

Haha.

I agree. The crock of shit at the end of HTT's footballing rainbow.