He means an actual bad first touch like some of the old first division players not bad first touch relative to the high standards of modern football

Lukaku doesn't have a bad first touch. It's not quite magnetic and it's loose enough that if he has a player or two around him they can nip in and steal it off him. But the ball generally doesn't cannon off his foot and end up 10 yards in the wrong direction. That's what I mean by a bad first touch.

comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 55 seconds ago
Lukaku doesn't have a bad first touch. It's not quite magnetic and it's loose enough that if he has a player or two around him they can nip in and steal it off him. But the ball generally doesn't cannon off his foot and end up 10 yards in the wrong direction. That's what I mean by a bad first touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must have missed out on watching Rooney then, that's exactly what happens with him with the ball at his feet

How many world class players would you say we have in the league now compared to 10 years ago? Less or more?

Definitely a case can be made for less world class defenders than there used to be.

Practically every PL player is an international these days.

You have to be exceptional to stand out.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I think you have to consider coaching at lower levelshas generally become better over the years, as has player fitness and recovery techniques.

Back when it seems most of the commenters on this thread were growing up (late 90's to late noughties), lower level teams would generally try and take the top teams on at football (playing relatively high lines for instance). The technical players at the top sides would have more room to work their magic.

Nowadays, top teams have to face really deep blocks, which gives more room for the lower teams to express themselves, especially on the counter.

Mourinho coming to the league changed it a lot I think, he put 3 in midfield and teams slowly cottoned on this could be a way of outplaying the higher ranked teams even if you had lesser players. I certainly noticed players like Vieira struggling to match opposition 3 man midfields.

Firmino would've made it as a number ten

The pitches have improved massively, that plays as bigger part in improved touches as anything else.

Nostalgia is hilarious and a huge factor in revisionism.

Also the fact that you can watch and see every game and highlights makes players higher critiqued before. There was a brilliant article recently discussing the all time pin-up 'Maldini' and one of his seasons in which he made a significant number of mistakes (Bramble levels); also if anyone reads into Zidane's career performances realises how frequently he failed to perform consistently.

Athleticism is more important now than it has ever been before (a Matt Le Tiss possibly wouldn't work in the PL any more) which may mean flair is as hard to come by but the standard certainly hasn't regressed.

Also with the increase of PEDs in sport and ease of getting away with it means that people perform at higher levels (same with advanced sport science and dieting)

With all the money in the game I do wonder if we'll see more average chancers taking it up for that reason, and then taking more interest in their appearance than developing their football brains. In other words, more Ox's and Sterling's.

Lol what?

comment by Analog (U17200)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
Not true, the rise of DMs like Makelele was the result of no 10s like Bergkamp, Cantona and Zola thriving with so much space playing against rigid 442 systems
==============

That's a bit of a muddled history.

United won the CL in 99 after Cantona had retired with a traditional 4-4-2, and by the early 2000's, Fergie was deploying one of Giggs, Scholes or Veron in a free role behind RvN.

United always struggled toward the final stages of the CL because we were too expansive and too direct. That's what prompted more of a 4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1 switch.

I think what we see now is a game that is much more tactical and system focussed, with managers wanting players that fit their systems, rather than necessarily going for the more talented player. I think that's evened the game up a bit ad made the margins anbit narrower across the board.

Players are probably fitter now than ever before, too, which will also be a bit of a leveller.

I've no idea if the quality overall is better now or worse. My heart says that the quality is less but my head says that overall quality has improved, creating a less discernible difference between players and that that is obscuring things a bit.

The sauce is not only in the players but also in the team. Footy is a team sport.
England learned that when Hungary came to Wembley and clobbered us in the 1950's.
The best player I have ever seen was the Portuguese Eusebio in the 1966 WC played in England. There are statues to Eusebio now. But England managed to beat Portugal in the Semi despite his talent.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Coaching and tactics may have got better but the quality of player is generally dropping raw talent wise. Just not as many kids playing football these days.

I think there are many factors. For example, when we compare Messi to Maradona, neither would last in the others era as they are now.

Rules have changed. What players in the past could do and can't do now affects the game. Diet, fitness, what is expected of players in different systems, etc.

Even ten years ago is much different to now. A little change can affect how a club plays or what they are use to. Look how Leicester struggled after they won the league and refs were told they had to be tougher on defenders in the box during corners.

Then there are the systems that don't help. Terry did well at Chelsea but whenever they tried to change to a high back line, he struggled. Luiz was a rubbish defender but looks good in the current Chelsea set up. Lovren at Southampton and Liverpool look like two different players.

But what you can do is compare players who play similar roles. Alves to Cafu, Walker to Neville, Rio to Stones, Rose to Ashley Cole, etc.

Neville and Ashley Cole are better FBs than Rose and Walker. So in that sense, you might say the Top Pl players who are like for like may not be better than previous generations but you could easily find counter arguments of players better than those from previous generations. What is for certain though is that the current crop of English players at international level are not as good as previous levels.

This may get laughed at but I'm not certain that Neville was better than Walker. Even he himself would probably agree. Always bangs on about how much more difficult it is to play FB at the top level nowadays

Neville could attack and defend and didn't just rely on pace. Walker isn't great defensively, but great going forward. Both also played in systems that help them. Personally, I see most full backs as wing backs these days. Gary would probably be used as one of the 3 at the back these days.

Neville is humble about is own abilities because although incredibly talented nothing came easy to him and he wasn't as talented as the players who came through with him (almost no one was).

He used to skip lunch and practice throw-ins against a wall instead.

That's why despite not being as talented as some of his peers he won the treble at the club he loved. I'm not sure there are any players in the Prem who currently show his level of commitment.

As a Utd fan I appreciate that you don't watch Walker too often. His defensive game is stronger than his attacking game. He is physically strong, aggressive and very difficult to beat 1v1, plus for a FB he's good in the air. Even though he's moved to City I have no problem saying he's top class in his position. For a FB he's also a pretty good passer and dribbler

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator