Entertainment value, 90s vs. Present

[Guest optimistic nit]

The game in general was better in my opinion. Players weren't paid the entirely obscene money they are now, like more for scoring a goal than My dad would get in a year. And they weren't totally unapproachable pricks on the most part. People like Zola encapsulate why the 90's was great.

 

oh yes and i remember waiting for bananas after ww2 had ended as well.

 

stop acting like you're 70 ffs. there's been plenty of skilful players in the past 8 years, players were still paid huge sums back then and were just as arrogant as they are now. rose tinted nostalgic bullshit.

 

top post!

 

 

what?

[Guest optimistic nit]

Far too much emphasis is placed upon fitness in the modern game iyam.

 

 

agree. especially at a younger age as well. you need to be fit, strong and quick, which can make the game loose out on some top talent.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Its going to be sky high for the 90s because back then we were one of the best and most entertaining teams out there, and now were not. Simple. I reckon you'd be best asking a Man United fan and my guess would be it would be pretty split.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There don't seem to be as many lobs as there were, that's always struck me as weird. Goals seem to be more smashed or whipped in rather than floated in the manner of a Cantona or Albert effort...

[Guest Howaythetoon]

The '90s were a great period in English football - arguably the best since Edwardian times which is regarded by historians as a true golden era. Teams were more evenly matched. There was no 4 leagues within the one league like there is today. There was far more honesty in terms of work ethic, commitment, loyalty and above all else the football played too. Teams played to their strengths and the football was as diverse as the managers that occupied the dugouts. Today most teams may field a different eleven but many of the games feel and play out the same with the same old tired and cliched tactics being deployed, especially by the lesser sides who do so in order to stay up basically. There was more ambition in those days too. Lets go for it! And they did try, some succeeding like KK and his Newcastle United for example, or Boro under Gibson and Robson with cup finals and the acquisition of Juninho and Ravanelli etc. And money of course wasn't such a dominant factor either. In short the whole general atmosphere around the game in all areas was something special at the time, captured by all who followed it, played it, managed it, reported it.

 

Of course at the time there was a feel good factor running through the country thanks to New Labour, British art in the shape of music (Brit Pop), literature (Irvine Welsh) and film (Trainspotting), Euro 96 and an economic boom.

 

Compare that with today and the country is a mess in several areas, there isn't anything really hip and happening is there and the economy is going bust.

 

In many ways football mirrors society or maybe society actually changes football.

 

The greed and celebrity culture that exists in society is none more so expressed than in the dressing rooms of our football clubs.

 

Me personally, I am bored with football and it has most certainly lost its magic and meaning to me. I can't be arsed with MOTD, SSN, Super Ford Sunday or whatever its called, the constant 24-7 coverage across the interactive mediums, the cheating and diving, the lack of competitiveness, the early and late kick-offs, midweek games, switched fixtures, the growing costs, the dumbing down of terrace culture, the money money money factor etc. etc.

 

The only thing that keeps me loosely plugged into all the bull s*** is NUFC but for how much longer I don't know.

 

I now get my football fix watching kids playing football, their honesty, the appetite they have for the game and the sheer fun they have playing it, is what football is really all about.

 

Sadly that too is being screwed with, in the shape of overbearing adult involvement.

 

The '90s for me represents a golden age in football, certainly in my years following it, that I don't think will be repeated any time soon.

 

Having said that I'm sure looking back now as an adult a lot of the magic had something to do with being a kid at the time too.

[Kaizero]

The '90s were a great period in English football - arguably the best since Edwardian times which is regarded by historians as a true golden era. Teams were more evenly matched. There was no 4 leagues within the one league like there is today. There was far more honesty in terms of work ethic, commitment, loyalty and above all else the football played too. Teams played to their strengths and the football was as diverse as the managers that occupied the dugouts. Today most teams may field a different eleven but many of the games feel and play out the same with the same old tired and cliched tactics being deployed, especially by the lesser sides who do so in order to stay up basically. There was more ambition in those days too. Lets go for it! And they did try, some succeeding like KK and his Newcastle United for example, or Boro under Gibson and Robson with cup finals and the acquisition of Juninho and Ravanelli etc. And money of course wasn't such a dominant factor either. In short the whole general atmosphere around the game in all areas was something special at the time, captured by all who followed it, played it, managed it, reported it.

 

Of course at the time there was a feel good factor running through the country thanks to New Labour, British art in the shape of music (Brit Pop), literature (Irvine Welsh) and film (Trainspotting), Euro 96 and an economic boom.

 

Compare that with today and the country is a mess in several areas, there isn't anything really hip and happening is there and the economy is going bust.

 

In many ways football mirrors society or maybe society actually changes football.

 

The greed and celebrity culture that exists in society is none more so expressed than in the dressing rooms of our football clubs.

 

Me personally, I am bored with football and it has most certainly lost its magic and meaning to me. I can't be arsed with MOTD, SSN, Super Ford Sunday or whatever its called, the constant 24-7 coverage across the interactive mediums, the cheating and diving, the lack of competitiveness, the early and late kick-offs, midweek games, switched fixtures, the growing costs, the dumbing down of terrace culture, the money money money factor etc. etc.

 

The only thing that keeps me loosely plugged into all the bull s*** is NUFC but for how much longer I don't know.

 

I now get my football fix watching kids playing football, their honesty, the appetite they have for the game and the sheer fun they have playing it, is what football is really all about.

 

Sadly that too is being screwed with, in the shape of overbearing adult involvement.

 

The '90s for me represents a golden age in football, certainly in my years following it, that I don't think will be repeated any time soon.

 

Having said that I'm sure looking back now as an adult a lot of the magic had something to do with being a kid at the time too.

 

Top post :clap:

[Guest Heneage]

Couldn't agree more.

[johnnypd]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were fucking shit and in today's game would be playing in the championship. technique amongst british players has risen rapidly too because of the foreign effect. whenever i watch the old games on sky it is odd how the first touch of many players back then was so poor compared to now. the top players then - le tissier, cantona, beardsley are no less skilful than the top players now - Berbatov, Ronaldo, Deco but the lower level players were a lot worse.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

the biggest change though is the athleticism which was inevitable, today's players are bigger, stronger and faster. however despite the common misconception this hasn't caused the quality of the football to diminish - while we bemoan mourinho's chelsea, big sam's bolton or pulis' stoke, sides like that were just as common back then - O'Neil's Leicester, Kinnear's Wimbledon, george graham's arsenal. furthermore we've seen a move away from direct, long ball football which was commonplace back then, with strikers who had no all round game whose only task was to score and orthodox wingers who just ran forward and crossed it into the box. nowadays strikers are more creative, work harder and have better all round games while wingers have more to their game, can cut inside to dribble and score more goals than they used to. the exception back then is now the norm.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test, spurs fined £1.5m and deducted points for financial irregularities, collymore (fine upstanding gent typical of the time) sues forest over pay.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

[Guest Heneage]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were f***ing s*** and in today's game would be playing in the championship.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

 

What ? British players shit? Sorry but those are rose tinted specs, to suggest that the foreign invasion is good is a total dis-respect to those who went prior, there are a lot of foreign players that come over and are just as good if not worse than British options. Yes its good to get the worlds best but not to the point where Arsenal were using one English man in their entire team. And to say all those imports of 90's were average is totally wrong as well. Ginola average was he? Past his prime was he? Albert? Overmars?Petit?  there's just a couple of examples, even Vialli despite being old had enough class to succeed. Can I ask how old you are? I don't mean it offensively just curious how much of the league at that time you'll have seen.

 

Cantona was a one off, where as post millennium we've had Diouf spitting, Drogba's coin throw. Incidents and "Problematic" players are far more frequent these days, as kids like Dyer were getting 80k a week in his twenty's its expected.

 

But the main problem is the fact the league has broken off into mini -leagues like I said Newcastle of the 90's wouldn't happen.

 

[Dave]

He's older than you.

[johnnypd]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were f***ing s*** and in today's game would be playing in the championship.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

 

What ? British players shit? Sorry but those are rose tinted specs, to suggest that the foreign invasion is good is a total dis-respect to those who went prior, there are a lot of foreign players that come over and are just as good if not worse than British options. Yes its good to get the worlds best but not to the point where Arsenal were using one English man in their entire team. And to say all those imports of 90's were average is totally wrong as well. Ginola average was he? Past his prime was he? Albert? Overmars?Petit?  there's just a couple of examples, even Vialli despite being old had enough class to succeed. Can I ask how old you are? I don't mean it offensively just curious how much of the league at that time you'll have seen.

 

Cantona was a one off, where as post millennium we've had Diouf spitting, Drogba's coin throw. Incidents and "Problematic" players are far more frequent these days, as kids like Dyer were getting 80k a week in his twenty's its expected.

 

But the main problem is the fact the league has broken off into mini -leagues like I said Newcastle of the 90's wouldn't happen.

 

 

oh the irony of nixon asking someone how old they are.

 

i never said ginola or those players listed were average - as i said the best players then are just as good as the best now, but it's more common for the very top players to come here now whereas back then it was more of an exception. even bergkamp was a serie a reject, cantona a pariah in french football (ginola too in the national squad), vialli and zola both into their 30s by the time they arrived in england. albert was top class but even then paired with the likes of peacock or howey, a comparable player in a title challenging side nowadays would be paired alongside someone like ferdinand, carvalho, agger.

 

cantona clearly was not a one-off as demonstrated by the other examples listed. i suppose jody morris, dennis wise, vinnie jones, justin fashnu, duncan ferguson and so on were also one-offs. collymore was dead nice too, would always talk to old grannies on the bus and was even a plumber in the off-season, or was that stanley matthews? come on you sound like a pensioner talking about how things were so much better in the olden days yet i'd imagine your still at uni.

[Guest Heneage]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were f***ing s*** and in today's game would be playing in the championship.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

 

What ? British players s***? Sorry but those are rose tinted specs, to suggest that the foreign invasion is good is a total dis-respect to those who went prior, there are a lot of foreign players that come over and are just as good if not worse than British options. Yes its good to get the worlds best but not to the point where Arsenal were using one English man in their entire team. And to say all those imports of 90's were average is totally wrong as well. Ginola average was he? Past his prime was he? Albert? Overmars?Petit?  there's just a couple of examples, even Vialli despite being old had enough class to succeed. Can I ask how old you are? I don't mean it offensively just curious how much of the league at that time you'll have seen.

 

Cantona was a one off, where as post millennium we've had Diouf spitting, Drogba's coin throw. Incidents and "Problematic" players are far more frequent these days, as kids like Dyer were getting 80k a week in his twenty's its expected.

 

But the main problem is the fact the league has broken off into mini -leagues like I said Newcastle of the 90's wouldn't happen.

 

 

oh the irony of nixon asking someone how old they are.

 

i never said ginola or those players listed were average - as i said the best players then are just as good as the best now, but it's more common for the very top players to come here now whereas back then it was more of an exception. even bergkamp was a serie a reject, cantona a pariah in french football (ginola too in the national squad), vialli and zola both into their 30s by the time they arrived in england. albert was top class but even then paired with the likes of peacock or howey, a comparable player in a title challenging side nowadays would be paired alongside someone like ferdinand, carvalho, agger.

As I said I wasn't trying to be offensive, I genuinely wasn't, I don't want to have a go or get personal, remember its just a bit of fun.

 

Bergkamp yes was a reject from Inter, but what did he go on to be? He didn't work at Inter for a number of reasons few were his own, I even think to say just because Zola was in his 30's when he came, he was 30 when he arrived, and went on to play for 8 more years, so hardly "Seeing out final days." As for Cantona being "A Pariah" do you know many Pariahs with nigh 50 caps for his country?

 

You had players like Wanchope as a prime example, look what happened when he arrived he was an ok prospect from Costa Rica, but he went and destroyed Man Utd at Old Trafford.

 

And in relation to your "Rejects/End of career players" statement. I raise you;

 

Schevchenko

Ballack

Deco

Blanc

Mancini

Pellegrino

Kluivert

Babbel

Guivarch

 

 

[johnnypd]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were f***ing s*** and in today's game would be playing in the championship.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

 

What ? British players s***? Sorry but those are rose tinted specs, to suggest that the foreign invasion is good is a total dis-respect to those who went prior, there are a lot of foreign players that come over and are just as good if not worse than British options. Yes its good to get the worlds best but not to the point where Arsenal were using one English man in their entire team. And to say all those imports of 90's were average is totally wrong as well. Ginola average was he? Past his prime was he? Albert? Overmars?Petit?  there's just a couple of examples, even Vialli despite being old had enough class to succeed. Can I ask how old you are? I don't mean it offensively just curious how much of the league at that time you'll have seen.

 

Cantona was a one off, where as post millennium we've had Diouf spitting, Drogba's coin throw. Incidents and "Problematic" players are far more frequent these days, as kids like Dyer were getting 80k a week in his twenty's its expected.

 

But the main problem is the fact the league has broken off into mini -leagues like I said Newcastle of the 90's wouldn't happen.

 

 

oh the irony of nixon asking someone how old they are.

 

i never said ginola or those players listed were average - as i said the best players then are just as good as the best now, but it's more common for the very top players to come here now whereas back then it was more of an exception. even bergkamp was a serie a reject, cantona a pariah in french football (ginola too in the national squad), vialli and zola both into their 30s by the time they arrived in england. albert was top class but even then paired with the likes of peacock or howey, a comparable player in a title challenging side nowadays would be paired alongside someone like ferdinand, carvalho, agger.

As I said I wasn't trying to be offensive, I genuinely wasn't, I don't want to have a go or get personal, remember its just a bit of fun.

 

Bergkamp yes was a reject from Inter, but what did he go on to be? He didn't work at Inter for a number of reasons few were his own, I even think to say just because Zola was in his 30's when he came, he was 30 when he arrived, and went on to play for 8 more years, so hardly "Seeing out final days." As for Cantona being "A Pariah" do you know many Pariahs with nigh 50 caps for his country?

 

You had players like Wanchope as a prime example, look what happened when he arrived he was an ok prospect from Costa Rica, but he went and destroyed Man Utd at Old Trafford.

 

And in relation to your "Rejects/End of career players" statement. I raise you;

 

Schevchenko

Ballack

Deco

Blanc

Mancini

Pellegrino

Kluivert

Babbel

Guivarch

 

i don't dispute that old players still come here, as they do any other league, but they, and marginal players, made up a greater proportion of imports in the 90s. sguivarch was from the 90s anyway as he signed just before france 98 and wasnt that old when he come (though he was spectacularly bad). and markus babbel is hardly fair as he was 27 when he came here and contracted some sort debilitating disease which finished him off iirc.

[Guest Heneage]

Ah well ok then, we shall just agree to disagree. 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

the players are far better now than they were. you only had 1-3 foreigners in the starting eleven of most clubs with the rest made up of british players, many of whom were f***ing s*** and in today's game would be playing in the championship. technique amongst british players has risen rapidly too because of the foreign effect. whenever i watch the old games on sky it is odd how the first touch of many players back then was so poor compared to now. the top players then - le tissier, cantona, beardsley are no less skilful than the top players now - Berbatov, Ronaldo, Deco but the lower level players were a lot worse.

 

I disagree. The standard of English or British player in terms of technique, skill and ability has diminished I'd say - and across the board. Looking at English strikers today there is a dearth of genuine diversity and talent and the same applies to midfield and in goal. This lack of diversity is partly down to the lack of diversity in our teams, systems and tactics which however dressed by various managers, TV coverage and so on is pretty much like for like especially outside of the top 4. The average English or British footballer back then would be playing in the Championship today more than likely I agree but only because their place in starting XIs or squads even has been taken by foreign players, most of whom are average too but cost less and are easier to transfer between clubs than English or British players hence their popularity. For some reason regardless of their ability English/British players seem to cost more money with their transfers often protracted just for good measure.

 

the imported players were not as good nor as numerous, they used to be marginal players or those past their prime, whereas the last 8 or 9 years have seen the best foreigners in their prime move here when they wouldnt in the 90s.

 

I agree our game has imported top players from the continent, but still a big majority of those top foreign players of today were not so much top foreign players when they first arrived. I'd say our game has improved their game far more than they themselves have improved our game, but at a cost because now everyone is out there looking for the next Ronaldo or the next Henry hence why a majority of reserve and academy sides today often include upwards of 3 or more players born from outside of these Isles. But that's a different issue.

 

the biggest change though is the athleticism which was inevitable, today's players are bigger, stronger and faster. however despite the common misconception this hasn't caused the quality of the football to diminish

 

Again I have to disagree. For me athleticism and fitness has not only had an effect on the technical ability of our players but also the quality of the football. Most Premier League games these days although scoring high in drama often score little in quality. La Liga wipes the floor with it in terms of technical ability and style. Today passes don't have to be so accurate and to feet due to how quick players are while the game is played at such a high tempo due to the fitness levels and athleticism of players, games often get played without any real pattern and as a result become very scrappy and almost end to end. Drama may = excitement but does it = quality? Not for me.

 

This type of game makes it very hard to deploy a playmaker or for such a player to take control of games and to shine hence why there is a real dearth of them in our game.

 

The biggest worry is how fitness, athleticism and physical criteria are becoming the be all and end all in youth football which stems all the way back to the top-flight. A typical sunday game between 15-year olds will see your big strapping speed merchant of a lad score a bucket load of goals by racing onto balls over the top or by being too strong for defenders while your tricky, skilful and imaginitive ball player stuck in midfield or worse still on the bench because well, he's too slow or weak, just doesn't get a luck in. Which kind of footballer are we developing here? Which kind of footballer does our game represent? Not the Le Tissier who believes if he were to start out today, may not make it and he was a tremendous footballer of real genuine ability - one of my faves from the '90s. That's a sobering thought and a real issue facing the game.

 

You mention Mourinho and Chelsea below and I'll use the two to highlight Joe Cole who under him and for Chelsea has been a very good player without ever being an elite one. Some would argue he has achieved the heights he has or become the individual he has because of Mourinho and the system he was deployed in but for me Joe Cole stands as an unfulfilled talent and will so regardless of his next piece of silverware, just another good player all the same. Yet as a kid he had the ability and probably still does inside him but it has been de-coached out of him and its too late in the day now anyway, to have been anything he wanted.

 

We'll never know though. (Rooney could be another unfulfilled)

 

Our game doesn't afford your Joe Cole's the artistic licence such players need to become something else, not higher up the chain anyway. Had he stayed at West Ham he could have become to them what Le Tissier was to Southampton. Not a medal winner or playing in World Cups but a player who is something else. If Le Tissier had of joined Man Utd he would have won medals and played more games for Man Utd but he wouldn't have been the player he became at Southampton, just another top player all the same he'd have been. Your Joe Cole's today however have to sacrifice their individual game or individualism though if they are to win honours and play in World Cups because the game today at the very highest level is micro-managed in every detail to the point where your Joe Cole's are coached how to play or instructed how to play rather than given the freedom to just play their game or the game their talent if allowed the freedom of expression could take them. We're seeing that with Rooney at Man Utd. He's a better all-round player of course but does producing the goods = producing magic? That's the balancing act that very few players succeed in, even your true greats. That was the magic of Cantona, ask Man Utd fans. That was the magic of Le Tissier.

 

Slowly but surely our players are morphing away from the individual who produces magic to the team-player and ultimate physical specimen who produces the goods in the way the game has them packaged for that player. In Joe Cole's case drifting in from the left to exploit tactical deficiencies in the opposition or moments of transition in the game. I say give such players licence to play their game and to express their individualism and you'll not always get the goods being produced but the magic will far outweigh that. It's a shame that a player like Joe Cole, arguably the most gifted English midfielder only gets into the England side down the left because we don't have a genuine left winger which is an even bigger shame and more condemnation of today's game, or rather our game today.

 

Emile Heskey or Martins, truthfully? I'm not Martins' biggest fan but I'd rather have him in my side.

 

while we bemoan mourinho's chelsea, big sam's bolton or pulis' stoke, sides like that were just as common back then - O'Neil's Leicester, Kinnear's Wimbledon, george graham's arsenal. furthermore we've seen a move away from direct, long ball football which was commonplace back then, with strikers who had no all round game whose only task was to score and orthodox wingers who just ran forward and crossed it into the box. nowadays strikers are more creative, work harder and have better all round games while wingers have more to their game, can cut inside to dribble and score more goals than they used to. the exception back then is now the norm.

 

Of course there are similar playing styles to then today with a few sides and that will always be the case. But what about all the other sides of the 90s, the Blackburns? The KK Entertainers? The Mike Evans Norwich City, the Ron Atkinson Villa, and I don't just mean in playing style but character and diversity. Outside of the top 4 there is little to separate the rest which may appear as a plus point as it means a club likes ours in the bottom 3 is only a few points away from a club like Villa in the top 6 but as a spectacle, as a game of football, the quality is decidedly average outside of the drama. People were ecstatic with our performance against Villa, I thought it was a poor game between two average sides myself and I see that in most games most weeks between most sides.

 

I strongly disagree with you regarding the all-round games of players today compared to back then. I again point to the dearth of quality strikers and midfielders and indeed wingers. In the 90s England could call on Fowler, Shearer, Sheringham, Cole, Sir Les, Collymore, Le Tissier, Ian Wright, a young Michael Owen. Only Rooney today would get in among those players. Those strikers were multi-talented and diverse in their playing styles. SWP or Steve McManaman? One won a European Cup for Real Madrid the other is at City and bombed at Chelsea. Rob Lee or Gareth Barry? The only real jump in ability of a technical nature is in defence. Today's defenders are better than their 90s counterparts and that is down to the number of systems and overload of tactics in today's game. They are the big winners. Your strikers, wingers (we have none) and your midfielders, especially your playmakers (we have none) are the biggest losers and so are we the fans in terms of quality, diversity, character and yes loyalty and commitment all buzz words of today's game rather than the truth.

 

as for arrogant or misbehaving players, it was just as bad back then, in 1995 the following happened - cantona's flying kick on a fan, wise attacking a taxi driver, george graham sacked for accepting half a million in bribes, merson hooked on cocaine, grobbelaar charged with match-fixing, chris armstrong positive drugs test, spurs fined £1.5m and deducted points for financial irregularities, collymore (fine upstanding gent typical of the time) sues forest over pay.

 

I won't disagree. It happened less frequently though. Today's younger players are getting more and more into trouble for example. A lot of young players on clubs' books have some form of criminal record or been axed from a club's academy due to ill-discipline.

 

the two things that have gotten worse would be how the top four have moved ahead of the rest due to champion's league cash, and a nascent trend towards billionaire owners which could skew any sense of real competition. though saying that blackburn basically bought the league by spending more than other teams could in the 90s.

 

Every area of the game is worse off today other than players' salaries.

 

Btw a good number of my views above aren't necessarily debating the issues of the 90s vs today and are more a general view about the changes in the game and the future of the game.

 

We could argue the merits of each era and the negatives til we're blue in the face but as with all art forms these things are often down to personal subjective preference mixed with a great huge dollop of life experiences. The 90s for me was a great era in every walk of my life from football to friends to growing up to everything really so naturally I favour the football of the 90s over today and always will as it was intrinsicaly linked to that whole time in the 90s and the events outside of football that happened.

 

I've noticed one thing mind, the fortunes of your football club don't half distort or effect your view of the world. The last few years it seems despite being good years personally seem a blur and that's because Newcastle have been s**** in the last few years.

 

Canny topic people 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Getting back to '90s English strikers for a moment... what a set

 

Shearer

Collymore

Sir Les

Sheringham

Le Tissier

Beardsley

Cole

Fowler

Owen

Wright

Lineker

 

You have every kind of striker there, all goalscorers, all different, all top-class and in some cases world-class. I doubt a nation at any point in their history could call up such a talented and diverse set of strikers at any one time.

 

Compare those players to today called up by England...

 

Rooney

Crouch

Bent

Defoe

Ashton

Smith

Heskey

 

Outside or Rooney that would be akin to scraping the barrel in terms of talent.

[Syrette]

You forgot Steve Claridge on your first list.

[Thespence]

You forgot Steve Claridge on your first list.

 

And Beardsley & Lineker were 80's

[johnnypd]

he's also compared 15 years of strikers with a single squad's worth.

 

Strikers like Owen and Shearer were also around from 2000 onwards too. and we're not just looking at english strikers, but players of different nationalities and positions.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Were those players all playing top-flight/international football in the 90s? Yes. All these strikers were playing and in their prime at roughly the same time as one another, banging them in for their sides:

 

Shearer

Collymore

Sir Les

Sheringham

Le Tissier

Beardsley

Cole

Fowler

Owen

Wright

[Syrette]

You forgot Steve Claridge on your first list.

 

And Beardsley & Lineker were 80's

 

To be fair I wasn't really being serious about Claridge as he never played international football and wasn't in the same bracket as the players HTT listed. Still a decent enough player mind, gave something to a lot of different clubs. Fair point about Lineker as his best days were obviously in the 80s.

[Cronky]

The football these days is much more entertaining although unfortunately it's not being played by us.

 

 

Yeah, this I'm afraid.

 

The pace and skill shown in the recent games between the top four has been awesome. They really are pushing the game to new heights. If we were following their lead, we'd be ecstatic.

[Mowen]

The game in general was better in my opinion. Players weren't paid the entirely obscene money they are now, like more for scoring a goal than My dad would get in a year. And they weren't totally unapproachable pricks on the most part. People like Zola encapsulate why the 90's was great.

 

oh yes and i remember waiting for bananas after ww2 had ended as well.

 

stop acting like you're 70 ffs. there's been plenty of skilful players in the past 8 years, players were still paid huge sums back then and were just as arrogant as they are now. rose tinted nostalgic bullshit.

Is there any real need to get offensive? I don't see how it furthers your point in any other way than looking a bit of a t***.

 

In the 90's the term "Great" wasn't chucked around half as much as it is now, and when did I say there have been no skillful players since? Stop trying to be all big and clever, and read whats in-front of you and don't attempt to make connotations that were never implied.

 

And as for "Huge sums". A top player back then would get 40k say, yes an obscene amount of money, but if you looked, I said for scoring a goal, bonuses now are equivelant to what the likes of Shearer and Ferdinand got per week. My comment regarding Zola was the fact look at him he came to the premier league and he just tore up the rule book, he came into this league and was a true joy to watch goals like his one against Norwich to even try that sort of thing (yes I know it was post millennium) but still, his goal against Man Utd at Stamford bridge.

 

In my OPINION which it is something we are all entitled to, because at the end of the day the money didn't ruin it in my opinon, yes money was there I was never saying players got a shilling and six a week, but it wasn't at the point where everyone was clambering for a Middle eastern consortium to come in and spend 100 million every summer, just look at that figure 100 million, Alan Shearer England's best striker to date cost £15m, do you think you'd get his talent now for £15m these days? No you certainly wouldn't and I know that its inflation and that once upon a time Trevor Francis went for £1m but its all just esculated so quickly to the point of stupidity, you would never see a Newcastle of the 90's happen now. Hull are a close comparison but they are already faltering, but just imagine hypothetically Swansea, came up, with a striker who had previously played in League 1, who in his debut season was in the top couple of the scoring charts. There was more lee way for movement back then.

 

But seriously, don't be a prick and get all offensive its a Discussion forum after all.

 

I wonder if you even saw the irony when you were posting that

 

Quite a difference really.

 

I agree, you actually insulted him personally rather than just his opinion.