I have never got it when people say players from the past a long time ago couldn't cut it today, which basically means to a lot of people, football from 1992 onwards, or from the last 5 years or so can only be counted.
Players from pre ww1, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc had challenges they faced such as bad pitches, players getting away with terrible tackles, no substitutes for a long period of time, play that in many cases revolved around getting it to striker as quickly as possible, which meant they were man marked heavily, probably more so than today.
Many at the time cared about fitness and diet as well.
They can’t really be compared, in the same way as you can’t really compare Fred Perry with Rod Laver, or Bjorn Borg with Pete Sampras, or Roger Federer with the 2062 Champion. Different eras, innit.
I can’t think of a single sport where a champion from a bygone era would beat a modern player. [I'm sure someone will though lol].
I guess it’s possible there might be a peak, after which there won’t be improvements in training, fitness, technique, diet, and psychology, but if there will be, I don’t think we’re there yet.
I have never got it when people say players from the past a long time ago couldn't cut it today, which basically means to a lot of people, football from 1992 onwards, or from the last 5 years or so can only be counted.
Players from pre ww1, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc had challenges they faced such as bad pitches, players getting away with terrible tackles, no substitutes for a long period of time, play that in many cases revolved around getting it to striker as quickly as possible, which meant they were man marked heavily, probably more so than today.
Many at the time cared about fitness and diet as well.
A good player is a good player in any era.
Spot on. A world class player in previous eras would be aided today like you say by a better approach to fitness and nutrition, better training facilities, better pitches to play on, more protection from referees etc.
Maradona for example used to get lumps kicked out of him, where today it wouldn't happen as he'd then be playing against 9 or 10 men.
I have never got it when people say players from the past a long time ago couldn't cut it today, which basically means to a lot of people, football from 1992 onwards, or from the last 5 years or so can only be counted.
Players from pre ww1, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc had challenges they faced such as bad pitches, players getting away with terrible tackles, no substitutes for a long period of time, play that in many cases revolved around getting it to striker as quickly as possible, which meant they were man marked heavily, probably more so than today.
Many at the time cared about fitness and diet as well.
A good player is a good player in any era.
Spot on. A world class player in previous eras would be aided today like you say by a better approach to fitness and nutrition, better training facilities, better pitches to play on, more protection from referees etc.
Maradona for example used to get lumps kicked out of him, where today it wouldn't happen as he'd then be playing against 9 or 10 men.
Stanley Matthews was very ahead of his time in terms of fitness and Herbert Chapman was as a manager as well.
They can’t really be compared, in the same way as you can’t really compare Fred Perry with Rod Laver, or Bjorn Borg with Pete Sampras, or Roger Federer with the 2062 Champion. Different eras, innit.
I can’t think of a single sport where a champion from a bygone era would beat a modern player. [I'm sure someone will though lol].
I guess it’s possible there might be a peak, after which there won’t be improvements in training, fitness, technique, diet, and psychology, but if there will be, I don’t think we’re there yet.
I think the question of whether historic players could match current ones needs a bit more thought as to what is meant by it. There seems to be an assumption that now-dead players would travel forward in time to play the modern ones under current rules and conditions, thus giving today's players an advantage. That advantage would be considerably less though, if it were the modern players who had to perform a Doctor Who act as well as playing the game.
I think UEAAddick has been closest so far. As far as natural ability is concerned there's no reason to think that historic greats wouldn't have been adaptable and wouldn't have been able to compete under modern conditions. Those that disagree, are doing so on the grounds that technology and best practice as it is today would be unavailable to the stars of the past. If, however, we are prepared to suspend disbelief that players of any sport may rise from the grave and revert to the moment of their peak sporting prowess, then granting them access to modern training and nutrition seems the merest trifle of a problem.
Ultimately though, the whole question is a bit of fun and a load of nonsense. These players will never compete at their respective bests. We should therefore content ourselves to enjoy each great performance as it happens and savour the memories of those that have gone.
I think the question of whether historic players could match current ones needs a bit more thought as to what is meant by it. There seems to be an assumption that now-dead players would travel forward in time to play the modern ones under current rules and conditions, thus giving today's players an advantage. That advantage would be considerably less though, if it were the modern players who had to perform a Doctor Who act as well as playing the game.
I think UEAAddick has been closest so far. As far as natural ability is concerned there's no reason to think that historic greats wouldn't have been adaptable and wouldn't have been able to compete under modern conditions. Those that disagree, are doing so on the grounds that technology and best practice as it is today would be unavailable to the stars of the past. If, however, we are prepared to suspend disbelief that players of any sport may rise from the grave and revert to the moment of their peak sporting prowess, then granting them access to modern training and nutrition seems the merest trifle of a problem.
Ultimately though, the whole question is a bit of fun and a load of nonsense. These players will never compete at their respective bests. We should therefore content ourselves to enjoy each great performance as it happens and savour the memories of those that have gone.
I think you only have to watch footage from the late twenties or thirties to see that there’s a huge gap in quality. Or even the footage of the 1947 FA Cup Final.
Use the Tardis to transport the England team from the mid twenties to Wembley Stadium to face the current mob and you’re look at a twenty nil scoreline. Even with JS in the side :-) BUT, if you’d taken a young pre WW1 18 year old Jimmy, fed him a nutritious diet, got him extremely fit, and subjected him to the latest coaching techniques, then he might have done ok.
Russell T Davis would have a field day with the story line.
Are we talking here about the difference in quality between past and present footballers or the difference between footage. What we get now is wall to wall digital - hand held stuff recorded some of the great players and teams of the past . 1947 team never mind Leary and Firmani would look impressive shown live today. Great debate though and bringing lots of pleasure an interest
Comments
Players from pre ww1, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc had challenges they faced such as bad pitches, players getting away with terrible tackles, no substitutes for a long period of time, play that in many cases revolved around getting it to striker as quickly as possible, which meant they were man marked heavily, probably more so than today.
Many at the time cared about fitness and diet as well.
A good player is a good player in any era.
Maradona for example used to get lumps kicked out of him, where today it wouldn't happen as he'd then be playing against 9 or 10 men.
Snooker?
I suppose with the more active sports, improvements in training, fitness and diet would play a bigger part.
I think UEAAddick has been closest so far. As far as natural ability is concerned there's no reason to think that historic greats wouldn't have been adaptable and wouldn't have been able to compete under modern conditions. Those that disagree, are doing so on the grounds that technology and best practice as it is today would be unavailable to the stars of the past. If, however, we are prepared to suspend disbelief that players of any sport may rise from the grave and revert to the moment of their peak sporting prowess, then granting them access to modern training and nutrition seems the merest trifle of a problem.
Ultimately though, the whole question is a bit of fun and a load of nonsense. These players will never compete at their respective bests. We should therefore content ourselves to enjoy each great performance as it happens and savour the memories of those that have gone.
https://www.castrust.org/2023/12/the-darling-buds-of-may/
BUT, if you’d taken a young pre WW1 18 year old Jimmy, fed him a nutritious diet, got him extremely fit, and subjected him to the latest coaching techniques, then he might have done ok.