My intention was to have a genuine discussion about past football but know I see that it was a mistake. Maybe you were triggered before and I posted my message in a wrong time, but all I see is that you insulted me for no reason and put words in my mouth which I havenāt said. And I havenāt insulted you.
You acted like modern football is the gold standard and incredible (it really, really is not, trust me), and even though you were diplomatic about it, it's clear you were implying old football is crap and old players do not compare to modern players.
What you don't seem to understand is that first touch, dribbling, passing, vision, technique, football IQ are all QUALITATIVE traits that - unlike fitness and physicality - do not necessarily get better over time. A player can be born a technical wizard in the 1940s, and another player can be born a technical leper in the 1990s.
So the natural conclusion from what you write is that Lingard and Rashford are better than Maradona and Best because they played in a more professional era. Or if that is too disingenuous for you (because Rashford and Lingard are poor players), that the best players of now - Haaland, Mbappe, Vinicius - are better than Maradona, Best and Pele. And clearly, anyone who genuinely believes that is fucking certifiable.
But according to you it's true.
You obviously cannot put your own point across properly, so I will do it for you: what you mean is the average, mundane player is better now than the average player from the past. I can see that argument. But that doesn't mean that lots of good and elite players weren't way better back then than plenty are now. You make blanket implications that players now are superior generally to players then.
Also, you have form for Lewy worship in this thread, hence me assuming this is all some sort of argument to imply Lewy is better than Pele because he 'played in a more professional advanced era'...
