Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crabbycanary3

Is Football better now?

Recommended Posts

Here is a link to pre Prem league days.

In my eyes, nearly all my football ''stories'' came about before the Prem League, so it would have to be  a yes that football was better in those days. It is a different world now, and undoubtedly, certain things are improved and better, but for the ''experiences'' then pre Prem days for me :)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30699020

 

Loved Lineker''s sponsored Fiat Strada!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely impossible question to answer. It''s like asking  ''was music better in the 60''s /70''s or now ''?All you can say is that it''s different. Fitness levels are much higher than then.  Defences are better organised (though you might not have believed that if you were a NCFC fan at the City Ground on Nov 8th !).Players are certainly better rewarded. I''ve never had any problem with the top players getting megabucks. It happens in any profession. Where I''m a bit peeved is when average journeymen players from the lower reaches of the PL downwards are paid huge sums for doing an average job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it bother you if average PL players make big money? As you seem to think it happens in every profession for the elite, it likewise happens for secondary talent. By the way, those average PL players are still in the top miniscule fraction of 1% of the top players. So even they are pretty elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the quesion is more than about the technicality of the game.I think when you look at the physique of players now compared to back then and what the majority have to be able to do with the ball I think you have to say the level of football has improved.However, 1980''s football was an improvement on 1960''s football in that respect so it is hard to measure whether football has improved on that front purely because of the Premier League. I think a large part of overal sports improvements has come due to advances in science and understanding an athletes body. I''ll come back to this . . . .From my perspective the competitiveness has got worse. And it gets worse with every strange decision that UEFA seems to introduce.For example, FFP. Teams that are currently wealthy due to disproportionate spending to raise their league positioning and overall football success are now reaping the rewards of consistant high league positioning. Their income is vastly better than it was. And now FFP is effectively consolidating that for them.Teams like Leicester can no longer try and make up the shortfall with a wealthy owners money. They have to look, instead, to improve the income of the club. Which in itself is going to be much harder for provincial teams. The sort of teams that have always relied upon a bit of extra cash to try and bridge those sort of gaps.It doesn''t bother the likes of Man Utd etc because they already have huge incomes. And what this actually does, is help them when it comes to buying players. Teams can no longer name their price. You see stuff about players being priced at £120million. But the realiy is, with FFP very few clubs could spend that much without breaking the rules. So when selling a player, some will now have ceilings to their worth due to working within the rules.Again, this hits the more provincial clubs who, again, have traditionally relied upon the odd break through player sale to help strengthen the overall team.But then I come back to my original bit about sports science. Would it have improved so drastically if the amount of money that has been injected had not been there? Part of me would like to think that the English FA and their counterparts in Europe would have invested the money themselves but who knows.So for me, it has improved in technical terms but overall it has become far less competetive in terms of teams genuine ability to challenge the top titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Chicken''s last sentence: the quality of play is far better, as are the stadia - but the rub is that the stadia are becoming rather homogenised and the £££ involved seems to mean there''s only ever going to be a handful of sides ever capable of winning the title: it was far better as a competitive spectacle in the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Branston Pickle"]and the £££ involved seems to mean there''s only ever going to be a handful of sides ever capable of winning the title: it was far better as a competitive spectacle in the old days.[/quote]Well, that''s true, but isn''t that the case in other countries and other sports ? as an example, is there anyone in Spain going to win la Liga other than Barça, or the Madrid 2 ? Is anyone going to win tennis big titles other than Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka or maybe Murray ?Of course money comes into it, but was not that always the case, particularly in professional sport ? It''s just that the names have changed . In the early 80''s Nottm Forest were one of the big money teams . Don''t forget that it was they who paid the first £1m transfer , and not ManYoo, Liverpool, let alone Chelsea or Man Citeh.My only beef with average players getting top wages is only the same as  my beef with top price hotels that only give a mediocre service, and expensive clothes that do not last any better than moderately priced ones. I guess the only problem these days is that what we, as fans pay is only a tiny proportion of the cash that''s swilling around football, compared to a few years ago, so we have less and less say as to what goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]I agree with Chicken''s last sentence: the quality of play is far better, as are the stadia - but the rub is that the stadia are becoming rather homogenised and the £££ involved seems to mean there''s only ever going to be a handful of sides ever capable of winning the title: it was far better as a competitive spectacle in the old days.[/quote]Money has always been a crucial factor. The difference is that the money

aspect used generally to be economic, based on the wealth of the particular

section of  a conurbation, or the town or city, or the region. So a

handful of small Lancashire mill towns could each support a top-flight club.

Now the money factor is primarily financial,  dependent on the size of the

owner''s back-pocket, linked to continued access to the TV millions.The old system was more organic, and generally fairer. An easy example would be

Portsmouth and Southampton. Geographically close together and economically

quite similar, albeit with Portsmouth historically the rather more successful

of the two. But not a lot to chose between them.Now Southampton are three divisions above Portsmouth, because while both clubs

suffered from bad owners, Southampton got lucky with a solidly-based takeover

that has ensured its finances are healthy.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Football was not better in the 70''s or 80''s

The quality was dire, stadiums a joke and support full of violent thugs.

I''d say it was an generally an illusion that it was more competitive as well. Generally the same teams prevailed and won stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think it was an illusion at all.Financially it was more competetive so therefore success bread success. Finishing higher up the league meant Europe which meant you could attract a better caliber of player.Take Man City now for example. The assembled a squad of highly paid top level players before they even qualified for the Champions League. In fact they went a couple of seasons without finishing high enough.From 1980-91/92 Liverpool won the title 6 times. Everton and Arsenal twice each, Aston Villa and Leeds once each. You go back to the ''70''s and it becomes even more diverse in terms of number of teams winning it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions1970-79: Liverpool 4 titles, Derby 2, Derby 2 titles. Arsenal, Nottingham Forrest and Leeds all with 1 title each.And that''s just the winners - the list of runners up is even more varied. The likes of Watford, that scarcely supported team down the road, Southampton, Villa, Man Utd, Man City, QPR.In terms of the premier league, there has only ever been 5 different club winners. Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City and the single time Blackburn won it. I think it is fair to say that Blackburn had to spend heavy that season to win the title. The runners up list is not as varied either. Aston Villa in the first prem season and then Newcastle a couple of times early on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]I don''t think it was an illusion at all.Financially it was more competetive so therefore success bread success. Finishing higher up the league meant Europe which meant you could attract a better caliber of player.Take Man City now for example. The assembled a squad of highly paid top level players before they even qualified for the Champions League. In fact they went a couple of seasons without finishing high enough.From 1980-91/92 Liverpool won the title 6 times. Everton and Arsenal twice each, Aston Villa and Leeds once each. You go back to the ''70''s and it becomes even more diverse in terms of number of teams winning it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions1970-79: Liverpool 4 titles, Derby 2, Derby 2 titles. Arsenal, Nottingham Forrest and Leeds all with 1 title each.And that''s just the winners - the list of runners up is even more varied. The likes of Watford, that scarcely supported team down the road, Southampton, Villa, Man Utd, Man City, QPR.In terms of the premier league, there has only ever been 5 different club winners. Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City and the single time Blackburn won it. I think it is fair to say that Blackburn had to spend heavy that season to win the title. The runners up list is not as varied either. Aston Villa in the first prem season and then Newcastle a couple of times early on too. [/quote]I agree with a lot of this. The early Premier League was far better because it was generally more even. The quality aspect is a double edged sword ie more of the best in the world drawn to a few of the top clubs, but more teams playing poor quality survival football just to stay in the division.The money has led to an overall lazy attitude towards development and playing style, and only a few teams have tried to play football once they have been promoted. A lot of neutrals are blasé about watching Prem games because the lack of competition has led to it becoming stale. The FA Cup suffered a similar fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are both good things and bad things about the progression of the game I think.

On one hand, I like the impact the sky money has had on the game. There''s nothing much more exciting than some overhyped player moving to a top team for like £50m and the drama and interest it gives everyone.

It''s become a bit of a soap opera really. On one hand I find the whole "footballers private lives" a bit tacky but then it''s great when stories like Januzaj taking a bird to Nando''s come up. Even the Ched Evans story was pretty interesting to discuss for a while. I have no problem with the money footballers earn. It''s the entertainment industry. There is demand from around 2 billion people for football and if you reach the top, you should be entitled to a cut of that power that befits how many of that 2 billion that you have entertained. It''s the same for actors and other entertainment industry players. People will bring the public sector worker debate into it, but if you look deeper, the elite soldiers, nurses, teachers etc. don''t do too badly, especially if they take their practices private. I sympathise with the arguement, but at the end of the day, if there are 1 million people that can do your job, you''re not going to earn big bucks. If people moan at Ronaldo earning £300k a week, i''d say, "there''s nothing in law stopping you doing the same."

I do find some aspects of this annoying though, notably Sepp Blatter and his corruption, Qatar 2022, how hard it is for youngsters to get games at the top level, which is a side effect of the big money in football. It becomes a £1m gamble to play people like Josh Murphy in our championship fixtures. Furthermore, I despise the weird "feminists" who don''t give a rats arse about football getting involved in the Ched Evans debate, agents getting paid a load of money and then how money led it all is at times. Case in point, if the winners of the FA cup got £50m and a place in the champions league, it''d be better for it.

I''d say the standard of football has massively improved as well, purely from a physical side of things. It might be controversial of me to say this, but I don''t think George Best would be the player he was if he was playing today. If todays pros decide they''re going to smoke, drink and eat rubbish, they very quickly decline and disappear from the scene.

I love the whole twitter thing really, being able to interact with the players on there and occasionally getting a response and then being able to see the goals as they happen, typing 305 into your ceefax was fun but i''d loathe to go back to them days!

One notable area that I think has suffered or at least stagnated is grass roots level. I am stunned that a lot of the sky money has not been better distributed to this level. People like me who play for teams that will never be near professional football level are faced with the same stupid registration rules etc as the pros and yet play on dog dirt ridden pitches that mess up to the slightest bit of bad weather. If it was made easier and cheaper to just get a game of football going, we would benefit massively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I despise the weird "feminists" who don''t give a rats arse about football getting involved in the Ched Evans debate.[/quote]The Ched Evans debate is not about football but about morality and in particular about punishment, retribution and forgiveness. You can care absolutely nothing for football and still be entitled to voice your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I didn''t see them getting involved in any other similar cases. The case of him signing for Oldham should have been left to those it directly affects, that being, him, the club and the people of Oldham and fans of Oldham. At a stretch, fans of other league 1 clubs. Not some people who never even knew Oldham existed before the story came to light and will never hear of Oldham again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Up until this Champion''s League malarkey far too many different clubs finished in the top four to name. So as Rickyyyy said, it''s different. Whether it''s better or not is a different matter. It certainly is better for TV hence the huge sums of money involved. But whether it''s better for those who follow football away from TV is a different matter.

I guess that the players are fitter, stronger and technically better is a no brainer for me. Why should football be different to other sports? Would Roger Bannister be competitive in todays mile races? But that doesn''t mean the spectacle is better. Roger Bannister''s mile races were as exciting as the current ones are. So Rickyyy''s different verdict again rings true for me.

Is it better for spectators as in stadium comfort etc.? Again for me that''s a no brainer. It has to be. I know people like to stand and hopefully safe terracing will eventually become an option. But for safety and facilities the present day wins hands down.

Nostalgia used to be treated as a disease. And it gives us a distorted view. I love hearing people fondly talking about the good old days when we had ice on the inside of our bedroom windows. They could have it back if they wanted. Just heat one room in the house like we had with our coal fires and they will soon be back to those wonderful times. Although with todays double glazing and insulation I doubt they would get the full experience. Or to bring it back to football if the option was there would they go for their halftime pee in the present facilities or the old pee shacks at the back of the Barclay.

Hey, you know, everybody''s talkin'' about the good old days, right

Everybody, the good old days, the good old days

Well, let''s talk about the good old days

Come to think of it as, as bad as we think they are

these will become the good old days for our children........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Well I didn''t see them getting involved in any other similar cases. The case of him signing for Oldham should have been left to those it directly affects, that being, him, the club and the people of Oldham and fans of Oldham. At a stretch, fans of other league 1 clubs. Not some people who never even knew Oldham existed before the story came to light and will never hear of Oldham again.[/quote]But back in October you said publicly Evans should be allowed to play again for Sheffield United! You got involved in the argument even though you don''t fit your criteria of someone entiltled to have say. The general point, though, is that this is not mere football. It is primarily a question of morality. As such it doesn''t just concern people in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As already pointed out ''better'' is utterly subjective and one man''s better is anothers worse, but I personally think the sport is suffering at the minute even if consumption of it is higher than ever.The complete disparity between the top 6-8 clubs and everyone else is utterly shocking to behold and if we were to compare it to Formula one, it would be akin to the likes Mercedes and Ferrari spending whatever they wanted on the most advanced F1 cars ever produced with the finest drivers available, whilst everyone else has to use 10 year old designs which were built on the cheap and are being driven by ''Fast Dave'' who''s a nice local chap who does his best but is always about 20 seconds off the pace regardless...If you''re not a supporter of one of the ''big'' clubs, then you may as well forget any suggestion of ever winning a title, and the only chance of getting anywhere near Europe will either be because those ''big'' clubs couldn''t be bothered to field anyone bar kids and reserves in the FA cup, or if they re-introduce a Mickey Mouse trophy like the Intertoto Cup!Meanwhile the National side gets worse decade after decade (even if some of the players are probably better than ever) as domestic players are often ignored in favour of more ''exciting'' foreign imports, or who have had the skill and technique they possessed as kids drilled out of them by a succession of youth coaches who think it''s all about good old English Stamina and fighting spirit (whilst utterly removing their ability to dribble past even an arthritic Corgi anymore).The average fan has been slowly priced out of following their team (certainly if they have kids to take as well) by steadily increasing ticket prices and even apparel costs, and you can''t even look forward to watching some decent highlights on Terrestrial TV anymore either, as they are regularly dominated by 20 minute segments of the ''top'' teams including diagrams, extended highlights and in-depth comments on what was good or bad, whilst our boys are lucky to get a 2 minute run which shows little more than any goals which may have been scored followed by a pathetic or patronising comment that''s supposed to pass for analysis.Don''t get me wrong, there are numerous things which are clearly more favourable these days, such as the far lower chance of serious violence at matches and the generally better state of many stadia, but I don''t see that the trade-off has been worth it.Until we get a fair and consistent league setup which prevents teams from simply buying results, as well as a clear and sensible focus on improving technical ability and flair at grass roots level, then as far as I''m concerned football IS on a downward spiral (at least for us non top 5 supporters) which shows no sign of abating or challenge any time soon. FFP is a complete joke (much like Blatter himself) that sounds great in theory but in reality does jack all useful, and unless we appoint an England manager who wants to do more than play 4-4-2 with dour, workmanlike football then I ain''t going to watch them play either.Football better now - not IMHO, at least not if you want to watch fair and truly competitive sport....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn''t get actively involved and at least i''ve heard of Oldham, followed the story closely and am an avid football fan. I wouldn''t go getting involved in American Football debate for instance if something similar happened there. Say some kid for a local college team went through similar and was on the verge of a comeback, I''d keep my nose out of it, as I haven''t got a clue/ have little interest in American Football.

Far too many people read the headline and signed on the dotted line despite having only a superficial knowledge of the case.

ANyway, enough of this debate, wrong thread. It goes to sum up both what is wrong and right about modern day football though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the answer the "top" teams in our country breaking off from the prem and joining a European super league.

I think it''s what the worldwide audience wants and they always seem to get their way in the prem so I think its an inevitability.

Would certainly sort the domestic league out a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though we have flattered to deceive with the National team recently, I actually think our current crop for the next few tournaments look decent, especially going forward.

A front 6 of Henderson, Rooney, Sterling, Walcott, Sturridge and Kane could be class! Even then, there is the Ox, Barkley, Redmond, Austin and Wilshere to consider, and many more. Even at the back we look a bit better stacked with the likes of Chambers, Clyne, Stones, Shaw and Cahill.

I do think we are consistently mediocre though, we usually have no problem qualifying and winning against the lesser teams but it''s usually that bit of world class quality that undoes us. The likes of Pirlo, Suarez, Figo, Muller etc. have proven too good for us to cope with in recent history. There still seems a bit of an aura around beating the English. I suppose I sound like a Leeds fan now moaning that teams play better against us!

We need one or two of that current crop to raise their game and become truely world class. To me, they are all 7 or 8 out of 10 players at the moment. Someone needs to kick on. Sterling is the best bet. The last world cup, people like Chile, Colombia, Netherlands and Uruguay all had weaker sides but they had better star quality that came good for them at the crucial moment. Robben, Suarez, Rodriguez and Sanchez are all players that would walk into our national team. If we''d have had Bale at the World Cup, I think we could have gone far.

There is a massive overreaction when we inevitably crash out but the reality is that we were only just short. One moment of quality from Pirlo and one dodgy header from gerrard to set up his mate and we were done for. If we had that star quality, that would be us doing that to other teams.

I can imagine someone like Sterling being player of the tournament in 2016, especially if he has the likes of Sturridge and Kane to combine with and Rooney manning the ship. The case of Rooney is a shame as he is an 8 out of 10 player that has for years failed to reach that 9 out of 10 stage we needed from him. Gerrard in an England shirt has been similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buh"]Is the answer the "top" teams in our country breaking off from the prem and joining a European super league.

I think it''s what the worldwide audience wants and they always seem to get their way in the prem so I think its an inevitability.

Would certainly sort the domestic league out a bit.[/quote]

As long as there is a chance of promotion and relegation still, i''d be all for it. I''d hate to be capped off from the elite. I still hope at some point in my life i''ll get some european nights with Norwich City. If Hull, Boro, Wigan and Swansea to name a few can do it then it''s a realistic goal for us as well.

If the super league happened, we''d have nothing much to aspire to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]Up until this Champion''s League malarkey far too many different clubs finished in the top four to name. So as Rickyyyy said, it''s different. Whether it''s better or not is a different matter. It certainly is better for TV hence the huge sums of money involved. But whether it''s better for those who follow football away from TV is a different matter.

I guess that the players are fitter, stronger and technically better is a no brainer for me. Why should football be different to other sports? Would Roger Bannister be competitive in todays mile races? But that doesn''t mean the spectacle is better. Roger Bannister''s mile races were as exciting as the current ones are. So Rickyyy''s different verdict again rings true for me.

Is it better for spectators as in stadium comfort etc.? Again for me that''s a no brainer. It has to be. I know people like to stand and hopefully safe terracing will eventually become an option. But for safety and facilities the present day wins hands down.

Nostalgia used to be treated as a disease. And it gives us a distorted view. I love hearing people fondly talking about the good old days when we had ice on the inside of our bedroom windows. They could have it back if they wanted. Just heat one room in the house like we had with our coal fires and they will soon be back to those wonderful times. Although with todays double glazing and insulation I doubt they would get the full experience. Or to bring it back to football if the option was there would they go for their halftime pee in the present facilities or the old pee shacks at the back of the Barclay.

Hey, you know, everybody''s talkin'' about the good old days, right

Everybody, the good old days, the good old days

Well, let''s talk about the good old days

Come to think of it as, as bad as we think they are

these will become the good old days for our children........[/quote]Nostalgia aint what it used to be, Nigel.The past seems better to us in so many ways because that''s where we''ve spent most of our lives. Memories of past games and players inevitably take on a rosey glow and we even tend to romatisise those cold wet afternoons in the sixties when most nothing very much happened. Yes, the facilities are miles better, the players much fitter and the grounds much safer but would you swap all that for your memories of those early times at CR. I''m damn sure that I wouldn''t.The times have changed, football has changed and we''ve changed Nigel. It may not be better but it''s certainly different.Time is a funny thing, as Douglas Adams remarked, "Time is an illusion..........Lunchtime doubly so".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indy_Bones has nailed it. Millions come in from foreign sales of TV rights but fans are still ripped off through higher ticket prices, overpriced shirts etc. You used to be able to watch live games on terrestrial tv, but even these have disappeared as football has turned into a money machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buh"]Is the answer the "top" teams in our country breaking off from the prem and joining a European super league.

I think it''s what the worldwide audience wants and they always seem to get their way in the prem so I think its an inevitability.

Would certainly sort the domestic league out a bit.[/quote]I really hope this doesn''t happen for the sake of all the home and away fans of those teams.Can you imagine supporting a team who plays 19 away games at various stadiums dotted around Europe? I wouldn''t wish it on any fans.They just need to sort out how the money is awarded. Why does a team finishing in the top three need huge bonuses for finishing that high when they qualify for the champions league which nets them more TV money and more sponsorship money?It''s like saying, well done, you spent all of last years money on top class players, this year we''ll give you even more. Whilst the other clubs get a similar amount to what they did last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kantata soul"]Indy_Bones has nailed it. Millions come in from foreign sales of TV rights but fans are still ripped off through higher ticket prices, overpriced shirts etc. You used to be able to watch live games on terrestrial tv, but even these have disappeared as football has turned into a money machine.[/quote]

He has indeed and the pkayers and clubs are no longer there for the fans but to make money to fund the over paid staff.

Football was better the further back you go, more competative, footballers were just like you or me not the super ego of today and there was an afinity between clubs and fans.

Will we ever see the small club win the Premiership? Will a club the size of Forrest ever win the European cup? Will anyone outside Barcelona,Chelsea, Byern, Real Madrid win the European cup? All very doutbful.

Football has become a consumer focus product with players a comodity and the supporters the customer.

Still one day the leagues might follow tge US model and even tge playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]Still one day the leagues might follow the US model and even the playing field.[/quote]The issue with this idea is that it would need to be applied to ALL the major leagues in the world in order to have the desired impact.If not, then all the best players (be they domestic or foreign) will simply move to other countries to ply their trade without restrictions on wages etc.Don''t get me wrong, I really rate the ''draft'' system used in US Basketball/US Football etc, but you can''t just shoehorn onto the existing setup without serious repurcussions and concerns.I''d much rather a transfer spending cap was put in place, meaning that NO club (anywhere in the world) could spend more than say 20-25 million a season on transfers (regardless of any player sales revenue they receive), and pay no more than 150k a week in wages per player (and I still think this is crazy money). This would even the playing field a huge amount at the top level amd give clubs a much bigger incentive to develop their own talent rather than just opening the wallet to buy some foreign import...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...