Bloodstock Community

Meh. Not even close to the most goals scored in a year. But anything that pisses off Alan Shearer is fine by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... _in_a_year

Gandalf the Red wrote:Meh. Not even close to the most goals scored in a year. But anything that pisses off Alan Shearer is fine by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... _in_a_year

HAHA! As if a fucking Glenavon player is third on that list, above Pele!

Just discovered George Eastham- Arsenal, Newcastle and Stoke legend and 1966 World Cup winner, played for Ards FC at the very start of his career!

Guardiola claiming the festive fixture list is killing players, I get the point and for other teams it's an issue; bit rich when you consider the players City have on the bench though, not like he's picking the kids.

Poor modern footballer. It's not like they are playing every minute of 60 games a season like they did back in the day. Some of them whilst doing a normal job as they were deemed to be amateurs.

To be fair, the demands of the modern game are considerably higher than they were back in the amateur days.

I know. But even twenty years ago most of the players would play almost every game. If Tottenham, Newcastle or Man United turned up you would know who was playing. No squad rotation, very rare for a player to be banned and much fewer injuries. Even if you were playing a non league team then it would be the full first team playing.

Now half the team don't play cup matches, they get rested after every so many games, get suspensions because of all the yellow cards and seem to get injuries all the time.

Teams like Man City have massive squads yet the fixtures "are killing the players". I think it's just an over reaction by foreign managers who want to have a winter break and get rid of the League Cup.

Gandalf the Red wrote:Now half the team don't play cup matches, get suspensions because of all the yellow cards and seem to get injuries all the time.

...much fewer injuries

unfair comparison though, far more rules nowerdays (and a culture of diving) and with stricter enforcement that leads to more cards and suspensions, no wonder it's hard to keep the same team game in game out compared to the past.

Add in the fact it's a professional sport now, so players have to push themselves harder due to the improved quality of the opposition; no wonder players are more susceptible to injuries. Hell, before total football was a thing, players did a lot less running so didn't wear themselves out nowhere near as much.

The old days of players playing every game doesn't fit the modern game.

houston4044 wrote:

Gandalf the Red wrote:Now half the team don't play cup matches, get suspensions because of all the yellow cards and seem to get injuries all the time.

...much fewer injuries

unfair comparison though, far more rules nowerdays (and a culture of diving) and with stricter enforcement that leads to more cards and suspensions, no wonder it's hard to keep the same team game in game out compared to the past.

Add in the fact it's a professional sport now, so players have to push themselves harder due to the improved quality of the opposition; no wonder players are more susceptible to injuries. Hell, before total football was a thing, players did a lot less running so didn't wear themselves out nowhere near as much.

The old days of players playing every game doesn't fit the modern game.

And it wasn't a professional sport 10, 20 or 30 years ago?

Blimey SKY Sports really have brainwashed the kids into thinking football didn't exist before the Premier League.

Put it this way I doubt many "professionals" of today would last five minutes with players like Norman Hunter, Chopper Harris and Tommy Smith. Were these players ever injured? No. They got up and carried on playing rather than rolling about on the floor like they've been shot. It was only a serious injury that put you out and then you probably wouldn't get back in the team as someone else had your place.

"Older players didn't run about like they do now" is another one I hear. Tell that to George Best and players like Mark Walters and John Barnes. They probably put more miles in than anyone today. And took the tackles.

Watch Garrincha and tell me that players didn't run back in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OlVT18hG6c

All this with proper footballs and boots. None of these lightweight "garage" balls and carpet slippers.

Gandalf the Red wrote:All this with proper footballs and boots. None of these lightweight "garage" balls and carpet slippers.

And the quality of the pitches back then too. This is why I think George Best will forever be the best runner/dribbler on the ball of all time.

And speaking of George that's another thing. Players weren't just harder bastards on the pitch back then but harder drinkers too. That would've taken it's toll physically and psychologically.

Johan Cruyff was another one.

Lithe, athletic and skilful, but was a heavy smoker and even used to light up at half time.

Gandalf the Red wrote:
And it wasn't a professional sport 10, 20 or 30 years ago?

Blimey SKY Sports really have brainwashed the kids into thinking football didn't exist before the Premier League.

Put it this way I doubt many "professionals" of today would last five minutes with players like Norman Hunter, Chopper Harris and Tommy Smith. Were these players ever injured? No. They got up and carried on playing rather than rolling about on the floor like they've been shot. It was only a serious injury that put you out and then you probably wouldn't get back in the team as someone else had your place.

"Older players didn't run about like they do now" is another one I hear. Tell that to George Best and players like Mark Walters and John Barnes. They probably put more miles in than anyone today. And took the tackles.

Watch Garrincha and tell me that players didn't run back in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OlVT18hG6c

All this with proper footballs and boots. None of these lightweight "garage" balls and carpet slippers.

Alright, may have been unfair with the professional statement but the standards in previous twenty years have jumped up from before then, and that's from watching old football matches (old world cup/FA cup games and the like) and comparing them to more recent games.

I'm not going to defend diving and looking for free kicks etc as it's an annoyance with the modern game but if your defending older football as being better because the players took/made harder tackles then I think rugby is better suited to you if you just want to watch people batter each other while half cut.

My point wasn't that modern football is superior to old matches anyway, it was that you can't compare the modern game to the older game due to the amount of changes between the two as well. But if you're advocating that the old style matches were better because players battered each other (and themselves in the pub) with dodgy equipment then I suggest watching pub football.

Hell, before total football, introduction of 3 points for a win and the ban on back passing then most games just grinded out to a draw, sure Terry Butcher may come out of it looking like he's just walked off the set of a snuff film but the game overall was defensive with the odd stand out moment. My point was that good football is good football regardless, you've just got to put into context of the times and not compare apples and oranges which you seem to want to do.

Well I've seen both and will stand by my view that very few modern footballers are even close to being as talented as many of the players that I've seen. It's just that they are more hyped up and you get to see them on TV more whereas even in the 1990s you got occasional games and brief highlights of two or three games on MOTD/Big Match.

How much footage is there of Sir Stanley Matthews for example? If you talk to fans who remember him then they would probably say he was the best player ever. These are people that have probably seen Pele in the flesh as well.

Anyways. It seems that the deal for Coutinho is going ahead. At last they finally got the message that we want actual money not stupid clauses.

That's how you do deals United. Buy a player for a few million, then sell him for a lot more. Not sell him for a pittance and buy him back for £89 million.

Time will tell how much we will miss him; but I do like the fact he had to cough up £15m of the transfer fee to buy out his contact.

Serves him right for not wanting a buy out clause and it will more that swallow up his signing on fee, even if Barca initially pay the sum on his behalf

Just heard LFC are issuing £50 vouchers to all fans who bought his shirt this season, so they can get replacements