Scored 1 in 5 for celtic

Ronaldo has scored 77 goals in 112 appearances in europe alone

Messi has won the ballon dor 3 or 4 times

Its.absurd tp.suggest that these players arent as good.

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 7 minutes ago
Scored 1 in 5 for celtic

Ronaldo has scored 77 goals in 112 appearances in europe alone

Messi has won the ballon dor 3 or 4 times

Its.absurd tp.suggest that these players arent as good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
never said they are not as good but to suggest that any modern player is better than players of 40 yrs ago is naive in the extreme -

you also have to bare in mind that the pitches of 30 - 40 yrs ago were alot heavier and more difficult to play on than the modern bowling green surfaces and the boots they wore then were very different than the light little slipper things they wear now -

could the likes of messi , ronaldo , etc , of shown the same amount of skill under those conditions as the likes of best , johnstone ,did week in week out 40 yrs ago -
------------------- very unlikely

Bo1/1ocks mate, ther is no way on earth u can say that with any level of certainty.

I cud easily say, cud players from 40 years ago cope with the pace of todays game, the fitness required, the quality of opposition, the number of games played per season. I cud, but i wudnt, coz that wud be Bo1/1ocks to.

The reality is, messi and ronaldo have won more, scored more, are fitter and stronger pkayed for bigger clubs against on average better quality opposition. So its obtuse in the extreme to suggest they arent better. .

So by ur reckoning its also naive to say that players from 40yrs ago are better than modern players?

Jimmy Johnstone? Nope, I refer to a player who plied his trade in England, and if not for an injury at 16 which continued to blight his career still managed nearly 600 games for one club. That was in the days of club and player loyalty though.
As for current players being better than the likes of Best and Gray or not. Without a doubt yes they are. They have much bigger fixture lists and have to be fitter and stronger.
However to compare them like for like is unfair. As you say MA circumstances and conditions are completely different. Its like comparing Fangio with Senna with Hamilton. Although I'm sure like modern day drivers they could cope with the conditions perfectly well.

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 6 minutes ago
Bo1/1ocks mate, ther is no way on earth u can say that with any level of certainty.

I cud easily say, cud players from 40 years ago cope with the pace of todays game, the fitness required, the quality of opposition, the number of games played per season. I cud, but i wudnt, coz that wud be Bo1/1ocks to.

The reality is, messi and ronaldo have won more, scored more, are fitter and stronger pkayed for bigger clubs against on average better quality opposition. So its obtuse in the extreme to suggest they arent better. .

So by ur reckoning its also naive to say that players from 40yrs ago are better than modern players?



----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry BW i think i have touched on a very good point , i have severe doubts whether for instance ronaldo would have been anywhere as near as unstoppable as best or jimmy johnstone was had ronaldo played on the much heavier pitches and heavier boots in a much tougher style of football than he has ever been used to -

lets have it right if ronaldo is so much as touched he goes down screaming like a little baby , would he have coped with a far more physical game 30 - 40 yrs ago -
------------------- not a chance , in fact i believe he would have been fairly average 30 - 40 yrs ago -

Jus shows ur lack of understanding. Players dont go down in genujne pain, they go down with attention of fooling the ref to get freekicks. Are u really that naive.

Ur point doesnt stand, go cell was right, to compare them as like for like is unfair, but without n e doubt todays players are better.

Talent may be the same, but the use of that talent is much better. Players 40 yrs ago wudnt be able.to keep up.with ronaldo, he will be quicker n.stronger, and much much fitter. Thats just a fact, not an.opinion.

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 27 seconds ago
Jimmy Johnstone? Nope, I refer to a player who plied his trade in England, and if not for an injury at 16 which continued to blight his career still managed nearly 600 games for one club. That was in the days of club and player loyalty though.
As for current players being better than the likes of Best and Gray or not. Without a doubt yes they are. They have much bigger fixture lists and have to be fitter and stronger.
However to compare them like for like is unfair. As you say MA circumstances and conditions are completely different. Its like comparing Fangio with Senna with Hamilton. Although I'm sure like modern day drivers they could cope with the conditions perfectly well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

who is this player you refer to then GC , at least tell me so i know who we are talking about -

cant agree with a modern day player being any better or fitter as it is all relative ,players from a few decades ago would have had access to the modern training regimes the modern player has so fitness and strength would never had been a problem for any player of a few decades ago --

mind you having said that -- if one of todays prima donna"s is so much as nudged he goes down as if he has been shot which never used to happen 30 - 40 yrs ago --

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 1 minute ago
Jus shows ur lack of understanding. Players dont go down in genujne pain, they go down with attention of fooling the ref to get freekicks. Are u really that naive.

Ur point doesnt stand, go cell was right, to compare them as like for like is unfair, but without n e doubt todays players are better.

Talent may be the same, but the use of that talent is much better. Players 40 yrs ago wudnt be able.to keep up.with ronaldo, he will be quicker n.stronger, and much much fitter. Thats just a fact, not an.opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

you mean they cheat -- , yeh that sounds about right for the likes of a cry baby like ronaldo -

fitness is all relative as the likes of best and johnstone would have had access to modern training methods had they played today so would have been just as fit as any modern player -
------------ when you watch how ronaldo plays does he actually have the natural ability to go past players as george best did -
----------------------- not a chance ---

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yes it is all relative, thats exactly the point, u have got the point, but then understood the point incorrectly. Classic martial hahah

How can i actually say that a modern day player isnt fitter because its all relative, that is a massive contradiction. The exact reason that todays footballers are better is exactly because they are fitter, stronger, more professional. Exactlt the reason.

Its like saying im as good as ronaldo, coz last weekend i scored 4 goals in my teams 5-1 win. I mean, its all relative martial

That all aside, i do think ronaldo in particular is better than anything we have ever seen, i also think zidanes up there.

Put it this way martial, best at his best back in the day would struggle to get in a premierleague team. Simply not fit enough. Best, born 30 years later with modern professionalism would be a world beater, i dont doubt that.

Another way to put it, the 70s brazil team, would confortabl be beat by the 2010 spain team, comfortably. The pace and intensity and fitness would be too much for them to handle. Howver the 70s brazil team with modern day training, i believe would beat, by the odd goal, the 2010 spain team, by virtue of having 1 or 2 more individual geniuses.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 2 minutes ago
Yes it is all relative, thats exactly the point, u have got the point, but then understood the point incorrectly. Classic martial hahah

How can i actually say that a modern day player isnt fitter because its all relative, that is a massive contradiction. The exact reason that todays footballers are better is exactly because they are fitter, stronger, more professional. Exactlt the reason.

Its like saying im as good as ronaldo, coz last weekend i scored 4 goals in my teams 5-1 win. I mean, its all relative martial

That all aside, i do think ronaldo in particular is better than anything we have ever seen, i also think zidanes up there.

Put it this way martial, best at his best back in the day would struggle to get in a premierleague team. Simply not fit enough. Best, born 30 years later with modern professionalism would be a world beater, i dont doubt that.

Another way to put it, the 70s brazil team, would confortabl be beat by the 2010 spain team, comfortably. The pace and intensity and fitness would be too much for them to handle. Howver the 70s brazil team with modern day training, i believe would beat, by the odd goal, the 2010 spain team, by virtue of having 1 or 2 more individual geniuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

you are missing the point -- any player from any era had they played today would have has access to modern day training regimes so fitness would not have been an issue for any player of a few decades ago -

the original argument was the skill factor of a freak player like george best -
-------------- looking at how ronaldo plays he has nowhere near the ball control and skill level and ability to go past people as best possessed --

Ive watched so many classics on sky, the pace of the game back then was so unbelivably slow. People talk about the total football dutch team and the goal they scored after 22 passes. Today they wudnt of been able to make that many passes because teams would have closed them down better

Ur quite simple - best, relative to his opponents was mich fitter and more skilful, as is ronaldo. The difference being is that ronaldos opponents are much closer to the peak a human can be. So his achievement of scoring and creating and destroying teams singlehandedly is much more impressive.

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 2 minutes ago
Ive watched so many classics on sky, the pace of the game back then was so unbelivably slow. People talk about the total football dutch team and the goal they scored after 22 passes. Today they wudnt of been able to make that many passes because teams would have closed them down better
----------------------------------------------------------------------

modern day tactics are not relative to the actual natural ability of any player in any era --

MA. You keep mentioning Johnstone ad a great. I only really saw him playing for Scotland. From your first reference to him you never saw him play. Actually I was referring to Eddie Gray. In my biased view a better player than Best. Though he didn't score goals like Best he was a much less selfish player and in modern parlance, probably assisted in more.

Why is it viewed by so many that fitness, strength and professionalism are mutually ezclusive from skill. Its nonsense and short sighted. All these attributes make up the total product.

comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 2 minutes ago
Ive watched so many classics on sky, the pace of the game back then was so unbelivably slow. People talk about the total football dutch team and the goal they scored after 22 passes. Today they wudnt of been able to make that many passes because teams would have closed them down better
----------------------------------------------------------------------

modern day tactics are not relative to the actual natural ability of any player in any era --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but having time on the ball to do what u want with it is absolutely relevant

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 23 seconds ago
Ur quite simple - best, relative to his opponents was mich fitter and more skilful, as is ronaldo. The difference being is that ronaldos opponents are much closer to the peak a human can be. So his achievement of scoring and creating and destroying teams singlehandedly is much more impressive.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

as i keep saying its all relative -- as any player from a few decades ago would soon be on the same fitness level of a modern player if he played today -

--------- you also have to bare in mind that ronaldo does not have the ability to go past players as best did so on sheer natural ability ronaldo is a different type of player altogether than best at his peak --

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 3 minutes ago
MA. You keep mentioning Johnstone ad a great. I only really saw him playing for Scotland. From your first reference to him you never saw him play. Actually I was referring to Eddie Gray. In my biased view a better player than Best. Though he didn't score goals like Best he was a much less selfish player and in modern parlance, probably assisted in more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

yeh i saw eddie gray play -- to me he was a second rate version of george best and not nearly as consistent as best was week in week out -

Any proof whatsoever martial..ur arguments are based on a romantic view of the good ole days. I mean of all players to ever play the game, ur critiscism of ronaldo is that he cant go past a player. Of all players. U cant honestly write it, u make some class A gaffs on here

comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BWFCCLEGG (U7583)
posted 2 minutes ago
Ive watched so many classics on sky, the pace of the game back then was so unbelivably slow. People talk about the total football dutch team and the goal they scored after 22 passes. Today they wudnt of been able to make that many passes because teams would have closed them down better
----------------------------------------------------------------------

modern day tactics are not relative to the actual natural ability of any player in any era --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but having time on the ball to do what u want with it is absolutely relevant
----------------------------------------------------------------------

would not have made any difference to a freak like george best , he had the ability to make time on the ball and had abilty to just walk thru any defence -

Subjective martial. U dont know that

Anyway, cant believe ive been drawn into this with the forum moron. Martial, forget it, u will never ever be able to read between lines, think laterally or with any empathy, sympathy or vision. U see black n white always have n always will, and u have the cheek to have ever used the word nuance hahahahahaha