MonteCuler
Well-known member
Yeah ik, was just checking.Bro that was just a joke 🤣
The disrespect to 20th century football greats today is immense. Would not be surprised if there are people who would actually agree with you on that one.
Yeah ik, was just checking.Bro that was just a joke 🤣
Yeah ik, was just checking.
The disrespect to 20th century football greats today is immense. Would not be surprised if there are people who would actually agree with you on that one.
I once seen someone say Pele would be lucky to make Norwich's bench. I know they were being serious too. I have heard other mad stuff, like Pele would be Grealish level now at best (I do rate Grealish, but come on...)I thought it was so obvious that this is a joke that i dont need emojis 🤣 @Maradona37
Would be crazy if someone really thinks that 😳
I once seen someone say Pele would be lucky to make Norwich's bench. I know they were being serious too. I have heard other mad stuff, like Pele would be Grealish level now at best (I do rate Grealish, but come on...)
Never underestimate young people's disrespect and cluelessness of the wonderful ability of past players and eras. Like I have said before, football isn't a quantitative, fully linear sport like 100m. Stuff like technique, touch, vision, football IQ, passing, dribbling, doesn't automatically get better over time. There's lots of players born in the 30s and 40s who were much more talented than many players born in the 90s and 2000s.
Yes that is the obvious caveat - these players would have access to today's training methods and nutrition or sports science to enable them to be sufficiently fit for the era. After that, their natural talent does the rest. Like you say, it's impossible to compare across time and space.Ppl forget that today we have completely different training systems, waaay more modern so you will be way better/ can get more output from your talent. Who knows how good Pele or Maradona would have become if they would have trained with today systems. Thats why it makes normally no sense to compare different eras 🤔
Don't remind us 🤦.People who complain about Laporta should note that we sold this animal IN HIS PRIME.
We also sold R9, IN HIS PRIME.
The second and third best footballers OF ALL TIME, IN THEIR PRIME
That's the sort of bobbins leadership Barca has had in the past.
Respect the work of Don Laporta.
You nailed it.Yes that is the obvious caveat - these players would have access to today's training methods and nutrition or sports science to enable them to be sufficiently fit for the era. After that, their natural talent does the rest. Like you say, it's impossible to compare across time and space.
To be fair, Maradona wouldn't have survived here for too long. He had feuds with the coaches, the president, brawls with Bilbao and then there was his personal life too. They even had to change the training hours to accommodate his sleep schedule. He said that he started to use cocaine while in Barcelona. His numbers here were good but he was very problematic for the club.People who complain about Laporta should note that we sold this animal IN HIS PRIME.
We also sold R9, IN HIS PRIME.
The second and third best footballers OF ALL TIME, IN THEIR PRIME
That's the sort of bobbins leadership Barca has had in the past.
Respect the work of Don Laporta.
Yes all that is true. Like I say, it's always the fitness and organisation aspect that would need to be brought up to speed, and adapting to modern tactics etc. After that, the players' natural talent does the rest. To reiterate, many players born in the 30s, 40s and 50s were more talented than many players born in 80s, 90s and 2000s - they simply would have to adapt to the modern times. Obviously if Best or Cruyff or Pele or Beckenbauer or Di Stefano or Garrincha or Puskas were born in this era, with the natural talent and technique they had (which can be excellent or poor in any era), they would adapt to the needs of this era.You nailed it.
If the Dutch NT form 1970s and their "Total Football"- a novum at the time, were transported by a time vehicle and stuck up against their nowadays team, they would be annihilated. 0-6.
Civilization, for better or worse, moves forward propelled by advances in universal science , which permeates all aspects of life. With it, sport medicine, sport theory, an elitarian human body advance too.
Heck, it would be also quite an interesting experiment to put Chess GOAT Bobby Fisher on that time machine,and see how he could manage today's Workd Champ. Chess is not only about talent but the mastered theory too.
The only question remains, if the physical element of their bodies would be able to adapt to today's demands too.Yes all that is true. Like I say, it's always the fitness and organisation aspect that would need to be brought up to speed, and adapting to modern tactics etc. After that, the players' natural talent does the rest. To reiterate, many players born in the 30s, 40s and 50s were more talented than many players born in 80s, 90s and 2000s - they simply would have to adapt to the modern times. Obviously if Best or Cruyff or Pele or Beckenbauer or Di Stefano or Puskas were born in this era, with the natural talent and technique they had (which can be excellent or poor in any era), they would adapt to the needs of this era.
Yes true. I guess I am working on a hypothetical idea that they were exactly the same in talent, but born in the 90s or 2000s. There's so many variables (not just genetics) though that make it impossible to answer - maybe if they had been born in today's era they wouldn't have played in the streets as kids anywhere near as much for example, honing their natural gifts?The only question remains, if the physical element of their bodies would be able to adapt to today's demands too.
I wonder if it is given that an athlete from 50 years ago, could achieve today's records, even if subjected to same training regimen and nutrition. Maybe there are some limitations of DNA programming that would prevent it...who knows....
It is very fascinating.Yes true. I guess I am working on a hypothetical idea that they were exactly the same in talent, but born in the 90s or 2000s. There's so many variables (not just genetics) though that make it impossible to answer - maybe if they had been born in today's era they wouldn't have played in the streets as kids anywhere near as much for example, honing their natural gifts?
It's a loaded question.
Yeah me too, I played on the streets a lot - now kids have access to 4G pitches etc. I play on them now too but obviously not as a boy (I was born in 1982, think you said you are 1971). It was a wonderful time back then, when the streets were safer, less opportunity to play video games, far less technology and no internet (or at least in its infancy in the 90s).It is very fascinating.
I played on the streets too...and inevitiblly there fought some too...ha ha ha
I think, the street element, among other things, made those older generation mentally tougher, not so clinically raised as they are today
My teenage son never came back from school with a black eye, yet, whereas I came back sometimes with two. Ha ha ha.
Absolutely.Yeah me too, I played on the streets a lot - now kids have access to 4G pitches etc. I play on them now too but obviously not as a boy (I was born in 1982, think you said you are 1971). It was a wonderful time back then, when the streets were safer, less opportunity to play video games, far less technology and no internet (or at least in its infancy in the 90s).
It did help with mental strength, yes.
We just played all the time and honed our skills - I still think a big part of the reason I am a good grassroots player now is because I spent so much time playing on the streets with my mates. I expect you feel the same about yourself.