The quality of today's professional footballer's.

[Swiss_tony]

If you were talking about la liga, serie a, or the bundesliga, you could probably make a case the players have improved (maybe).

in england, players are fitter, and stronger, but not more skillful. the skill has come from foreign imports in the main.

coaching in england from day one as a kid does not emphasize skill. it's about graft and workrate.

and this is the reason why  we'll never win  the world cup in my lifetime.

[Karljohn]

If you were talking about la liga, serie a, or the bundesliga, you could probably make a case the players have improved (maybe).

in england, players are fitter, and stronger, but not more skillful. the skill has come from foreign imports in the main.

coaching in england from day one as a kid does not emphasize skill. it's about graft and workrate.

and this is the reason why we'll never win the world cup in my lifetime.

Exactly, we also no longer see that kid dribbling the ball in the street, learning how to pass the ball with accuracy and the right pace to his mate on the other side of the road, it's all about closing the space rather than having the skills to find their way out of it. Technical ability is shocking, the amount of times I see the ball knocked to players who are left footed, into a space which is more suited to a right foot or direct to the right foot is way too often.

[inckley fox]

Just far far far too long to argue with fully this time in the afternoon

 

But, you've just named three player who played second tier football last season and if that's the best you can do your proving the very point your trying to argue against. Yes they've just been promoted, but watch how much they play next year. And if they do, look at their league position.

 

And for the record I do think 3/4 of those four sides are certainly better than the side we had in 1997 at least, a long with the likes of Fulham,  Swansea, Sunderland, etc.

 

Really? I don't think West Brom, Sunderland or Stoke have the quality we had back then with Izzet, Collymore, Guppy, Lennon, Heskey, Cottee, Flowers and Elliott.

 

And yes, some of those players have just had a year in the second tier, but they won promotion from it and all of them will either be in the top flight next year, or were last year. It's hardly poor evidence for the longevity of players who were not top class Premier League players 10-15 years ago.

 

 

You can try and dress it up anyway you want, in his prime, Konchesky was a better player than Whitlow. Granted, Whitlow was probably a better player for us. 

 

It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Silverware, longevity and total years played in the top flight does little to prove that Konchesky was better than Whitlow. But for us, the lower profile of the two signings - you were right - did much better.

[Manwell Pablo]

Really? I don't think West Brom, Sunderland or Stoke have the quality we had back then with Izzet, Collymore, Guppy, Lennon, Heskey, Cottee, Flowers and Elliott.

 

And yes, some of those players have just had a year in the second tier, but they won promotion from it and all of them will either be in the top flight next year, or were last year. It's hardly poor evidence for the longevity of players who were not top class Premier League players 10-15 years ago.

 

 

 

It's a matter of opinion isn't it? Silverware, longevity and total years played in the top flight does little to prove that Konchesky was better than Whitlow. But for us, the lower profile of the two signings - you were right - did much better.

 

Well then your foolish, for a start off your naming an era instead of a team, Collymore made a grand total of 11 appearances for us, and the likes of Crouch Johnson Wes Brown have had decent international careers for England, a team the best player on that list, Izzet, gave up on because he wasn't good enough.

 

No the fact that Konshesky was a better a player than Whitlow is oblivious  to anyone with any able to analyse football proves that Konshecky was better than Whitlow in his prime.

 

We could sit here and debate this all day, the simple fact is, the Premier League is a better standard now than it was in the 90's, and thus, so is English football.

 

Infact I'd invite you to ignore all of the above and argue against the fact that English teams have done considerable better in Europe in recent years, to the point where we have the highest ranking in Europe? Compared to the 90's when we were non existent? 

[inckley fox]

Well then your foolish, for a start off your naming an era instead of a team, Collymore made a grand total of 11 appearances for us, and the likes of Crouch Johnson Wes Brown have had decent international careers for England, a team the best player on that list, Izzet, gave up on because he wasn't good enough.

 

No the fact that Konshesky was a better a player than Whitlow is oblivious  to anyone with any able to analyse football proves that Konshecky was better than Whitlow in his prime.

 

We could sit here and debate this all day, the simple fact is, the Premier League is a better standard now than it was in the 90's, and thus, so is English football.

 

Infact I'd invite you to ignore all of the above and argue against the fact that English teams have done considerable better in Europe in recent years, to the point where we have the highest ranking in Europe? Compared to the 90's when we were non existent? 

 

It's a shame you feel the need to get personal. I've made the straightforward assertion that it's virtually impossible to demonstrate that the modern game is better than that of the 1990s; that I'm not convinced that some mid-table Premier League sides from today would be any great deal better than those of that era (e.g. 90s West Ham vs modern West Ham / O'Neill's Leicester vs. Pulis' Stoke). I've also pointed out that the unusually high number of 'survivors' from that era in today's game says something about the high quality of the game back then too. Hardly a 'foolish' claim.

 

You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence to back up your claims. UEFA's coefficient doesn't actually place us as the top league in Europe, but rather the second, and there's a good chance that Germany or France will surpass us in the future. Even if it did make our league the best, it doesn't prove anything either way about the higher standard of today's football as it is entirely relative. In other words, other European leagues might not be as good now as they were then.

 

And as for the Premier League being non-existent in the 90s - it should be pointed out that having dominated European football in the late 70s and early 80s we were banned from it until the 90s. The fact that we ended the decade with one of our sides as holders of the Champions League tells you something about what the 90s, and the birth of the Premier League, did to English football. We've only won one Champions League in the past five seasons, however, so we could well be heading in the opposite direction right now. Once again, however, this proves nothing either way, because it relies on the assumption that all of the other leagues in the world are at a consistent standard throughout time.

 

So no, it isn't 'a simple fact' that football is better now than it was then. On the rare occasions when your post makes any sense at all ('the fact that Konshesky was a better a player than Whitlow is oblivious  to anyone with any able to analyse football proves that Konshecky was better than Whitlow in his prime' - what does any of that actually mean?) you seem to confuse your opinion with absolute certainties. What I've tried to point out is that things can't simply be classified as 'good / bad' or 'better / worse', but obviously that's proven a tough one for you to deal with.

 

And Izzet not good enough for England? Well he did play in a World Cup Quarter Final for Turkey, which is as good as anything achieved at international level by the three players you mentioned. And Steve Guppy (1 England cap), Emile Heskey (62 England caps), Tim Flowers (11 England caps) and Tony Cottee (7 England caps) also played for Leicester during those years, unless you'd forgotten. I tend to think that some of them would have been and, as it happens, actually were capable of competing with the likes of Crouch, Brown and Johnson.

[OzFox]

As others have said, players are fitter and faster these days, especially defenders.

 

Back when I started watching matches in the 70s, most centre halves were cloggers with the turning circle of a tank. You'd be pretty much guaranteed a couple of howlers per game.

 

One thing I'll say about modern players though is I'm stunned how few of them are "two-footed". At this level there should be no excuse for not being able to control the ball, pass and shoot with both left and right foot. Makes me wonder what they do all day in training

[dynamark]

lloyd dyer love him but nothing on the end of his right leg.

[Guest]

I'd let them do what they want and say what they want all day about me for 200k a week.

Fvcking overpaid nonces

Saying that. Konchesky in his prime a much better player than Whitlow in his prime.

A premier league XI of 1995 would get merked by a prem league xi of 2013

Rubbish.

Cantona and Shearer up front? That's a thousand times better than anything currently in the Prem.

Midfield including Giggs in his prime, Keane, McManaman

Defence with Adams, Irwin (most underrated player in Prem history) etc

Daddy Schmeical in goal.

 

You do talk rubbish. It's fairly obvious that the current Prem is at a low ebb compared with the last 20 years. There are some decent young players at Chelsea, RVP at Utd and a few world class players at Man City but precious little else.

[Lionator]

To be fair, it never got better than Mark De Vries did it? 

 

In all seriousness you can't compare, technology has allowed players to be better players, if it was on natural ability alone then surely there'd be no difference.

[Guest]

I don't see tat players are fitter than the mid 90s. Sports science has moved on so things like ice-baths have come in but most coaches at prem clubs wre players 20 years ago and so methods don't actually move as quick as you'd like to imagine. Besides which, in the mid 90s modern football had already changed with people like Wenger entering the scene and english football coming out of the dark ages. The late 90s Utd/Arsenal rivalry was the height of the Premiership so far for me.

 

And Konchesky used to be pretty good in fairness.

[Manwell Pablo]

It's a shame you feel the need to get personal. I've made the straightforward assertion that it's virtually impossible to demonstrate that the modern game is better than that of the 1990s; that I'm not convinced that some mid-table Premier League sides from today would be any great deal better than those of that era (e.g. 90s West Ham vs modern West Ham / O'Neill's Leicester vs. Pulis' Stoke). I've also pointed out that the unusually high number of 'survivors' from that era in today's game says something about the high quality of the game back then too. Hardly a 'foolish' claim.

 

You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence to back up your claims. UEFA's coefficient doesn't actually place us as the top league in Europe, but rather the second, and there's a good chance that Germany or France will surpass us in the future. Even if it did make our league the best, it doesn't prove anything either way about the higher standard of today's football as it is entirely relative. In other words, other European leagues might not be as good now as they were then.

 

And as for the Premier League being non-existent in the 90s - it should be pointed out that having dominated European football in the late 70s and early 80s we were banned from it until the 90s. The fact that we ended the decade with one of our sides as holders of the Champions League tells you something about what the 90s, and the birth of the Premier League, did to English football. We've only won one Champions League in the past five seasons, however, so we could well be heading in the opposite direction right now. Once again, however, this proves nothing either way, because it relies on the assumption that all of the other leagues in the world are at a consistent standard throughout time.

 

So no, it isn't 'a simple fact' that football is better now than it was then. On the rare occasions when your post makes any sense at all ('the fact that Konshesky was a better a player than Whitlow is oblivious  to anyone with any able to analyse football proves that Konshecky was better than Whitlow in his prime' - what does any of that actually mean?) you seem to confuse your opinion with absolute certainties. What I've tried to point out is that things can't simply be classified as 'good / bad' or 'better / worse', but obviously that's proven a tough one for you to deal with.

 

And Izzet not good enough for England? Well he did play in a World Cup Quarter Final for Turkey, which is as good as anything achieved at international level by the three players you mentioned. And Steve Guppy (1 England cap), Emile Heskey (62 England caps), Tim Flowers (11 England caps) and Tony Cottee (7 England caps) also played for Leicester during those years, unless you'd forgotten. I tend to think that some of them would have been and, as it happens, actually were capable of competing with the likes of Crouch, Brown and Johnson.

 

So much wrong with this it's laughable .

 

I'm not getting personal I am saying your argument is foolish, which it is, I am not calling you a fool. You make some good points elsewhere in the forum,  But in this case if the cap fits.

 

West Ham, there are some great players in that squad atm, we'll come to that in more detail later though, but one of which probably cost more than all of the mid 90's teams at one point in his career. So I'm struggling with that one, and yes Pulis's stoke would beat our team from the mid 90's in my opinion. It'd be a tight one, but then they were in relegation dog fight this year, Stoke in their prime no question they'd beat us, quite easily.

 

We're talking about the 90's here not the 70's or 80's, that's a separate debate. But this is again, a silly comparison, European football as a whole has moved on completely since those decades, imports from Asia, Africa, and South America have improved the European game beyond any comparison to that time, so to say we dominated in the 70's and 80's is a totally mute point and if you wish to argue otherwise then your stupid. The only reason we caught up is because investment allowed us to buy in better players and the league has got increasingly better. The Premier League is an international league filled some of the worlds top players, The Germans are catching us up but then their leagues got better as well, as has the Spanish, It's got two teams in it that make arguable one of the best international teams in history. France on the other hand they might have to get past Portugal first, embarrassing comment. It will take years for them to overtake us, and even if they do it's only because you've got two teams throwing money about and improving their standard. You see where this is going....IMPROVING STANDARDS

 

You can say I have no evidence for saying Paul Konchesky was a better player in his prime than Mike Whiltow but it's impossible to say any player is definitely better than another, it's all opinion, but look how many people are saying otherwise? None from what I can see, I don't even think you've been brave enough to say it. As I say, to me, it is clear as day which one was better having grown up watching Mike Whitlow and having watched Konchesky consistently during his time at Fulham, all you require are two eyes and a brain.

 

Did he play a Quarter Final?? Must of missed thatl     Izzet actually played in a World Cup Semi Final (embarrassing that you don't know that  ) and your whole bringing that into it is also embarrassing as well. He wasn't good enough for England, he wanted to play for England, but he decided to play for Turkey because he knew he wouldn't get a kick for us. Even then, he played 16 minutes in the Semi as a sub and that was he entire involvement in the whole tournament. In short pal, he wasn't even good enough for Turkey. 

 

I hadn't forgotten them no, Steve Guppy played a friendly, Heskey got most of his whilst at Liverpool, Cottee didn't get a single one whilst he was here, Flowers granted got a few caps to prepare him for being second choice. But then lets look at the teams your seem to think aren't up to the same standard.

 

 

Perhaps you should look through all the internationally capped players currently playing at West Ham and Stoke? Including Robert Huth, Joe Cole, Andy Carrol, Jaasklinen, Alou Diarra, Peter Crouch, Ryan Showcross, Stoke have got players like Edu and Sorrensen on the bench ffs. I could name more, there are probably more I'm not even aware of, perhaps you should look it up? you seem to need to rely on looking up stats to back up your shaky knowledge.

[Kitchandro]

Are we talking technically here? I'm not convinced there are better technical players at this level. What we have got is more strong, quick  (black) players in the English game. You can get by being a shit footballer with pace and strength, even at a high level.

[Kinowe Soorie]

Technically. First touch, passing. Konchesky's first touch is poor, he gets himself in trouble and has to go sideways and back to Kasper. Watch him on Sunday and see how many positive passes he makes. Being able to deliver a quality cross is lacking in many of our current crop. Muzzy and Mark Davies imho are the sort of players we should be producing!!

[Col city fan]

I find it difficult, taking City as an example, to see how anyone could argue that players have improved.

To take MON's teams as an example.....how this current squad could do with a Garry Parker. Technically gifted, with great vision and a lovely range of passes. We also haven't had a proper 'sniffer' up front (the last one I can think of was Dickov), since Cottee. Again, the current side would massively benefit from a striker who just instinctively knows how to be in the right place at the right time.

Finally, Lennon... A player who could dominate the midfield area without actually running around much. Again, he just knew where to be and when to make a tackle.

There's three examples and there are many more.

[Chazwaz]

All that's changed is that the gear and the pitches are undoubtedly much better know, which tends to produce more attractive football. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I find it difficult, taking City as an example, to see how anyone could argue that players have improved.

To take MON's teams as an example.....how this current squad could do with a Garry Parker. Technically gifted, with great vision and a lovely range of passes. We also haven't had a proper 'sniffer' up front (the last one I can think of was Dickov), since Cottee. Again, the current side would massively benefit from a striker who just instinctively knows how to be in the right place at the right time.

Finally, Lennon... A player who could dominate the midfield area without actually running around much. Again, he just knew where to be and when to make a tackle.

There's three examples and there are many more.

Well said, and true. 

[inckley fox]

So much wrong with this it's laughable .

 

I'm not getting personal I am saying your argument is foolish, which it is, I am not calling you a fool. You make some good points elsewhere in the forum,  But in this case if the cap fits.

 

West Ham, there are some great players in that squad atm, we'll come to that in more detail later though, but one of which probably cost more than all of the mid 90's teams at one point in his career. So I'm struggling with that one, and yes Pulis's stoke would beat our team from the mid 90's in my opinion. It'd be a tight one, but then they were in relegation dog fight this year, Stoke in their prime no question they'd beat us, quite easily.

 

We're talking about the 90's here not the 70's or 80's, that's a separate debate. But this is again, a silly comparison, European football as a whole has moved on completely since those decades, imports from Asia, Africa, and South America have improved the European game beyond any comparison to that time, so to say we dominated in the 70's and 80's is a totally mute point and if you wish to argue otherwise then your stupid. The only reason we caught up is because investment allowed us to buy in better players and the league has got increasingly better. The Premier League is an international league filled some of the worlds top players, The Germans are catching us up but then their leagues got better as well, as has the Spanish, It's got two teams in it that make arguable one of the best international teams in history. France on the other hand they might have to get past Portugal first, embarrassing comment. It will take years for them to overtake us, and even if they do it's only because you've got two teams throwing money about and improving their standard. You see where this is going....IMPROVING STANDARDS

 

You can say I have no evidence for saying Paul Konchesky was a better player in his prime than Mike Whiltow but it's impossible to say any player is definitely better than another, it's all opinion, but look how many people are saying otherwise? None from what I can see, I don't even think you've been brave enough to say it. As I say, to me, it is clear as day which one was better having grown up watching Mike Whitlow and having watched Konchesky consistently during his time at Fulham, all you require are two eyes and a brain.

 

Did he play a Quarter Final?? Must of missed thatl     Izzet actually played in a World Cup Semi Final (embarrassing that you don't know that  ) and your whole bringing that into it is also embarrassing as well. He wasn't good enough for England, he wanted to play for England, but he decided to play for Turkey because he knew he wouldn't get a kick for us. Even then, he played 16 minutes in the Semi as a sub and that was he entire involvement in the whole tournament. In short pal, he wasn't even good enough for Turkey. 

 

I hadn't forgotten them no, Steve Guppy played a friendly, Heskey got most of his whilst at Liverpool, Cottee didn't get a single one whilst he was here, Flowers granted got a few caps to prepare him for being second choice. But then lets look at the teams your seem to think aren't up to the same standard.

 

 

Perhaps you should look through all the internationally capped players currently playing at West Ham and Stoke? Including Robert Huth, Joe Cole, Andy Carrol, Jaasklinen, Alou Diarra, Peter Crouch, Ryan Showcross, Stoke have got players like Edu and Sorrensen on the bench ffs. I could name more, there are probably more I'm not even aware of, perhaps you should look it up? you seem to need to rely on looking up stats to back up your shaky knowledge.

 

My point remains that it's impossible to say, with certainty, that standards have improved. And you've conveniently glossed over the number of players, from various levels, that were at their peak in the 90s and continue to look strong - well past their peak - in today's game.

 

How was France an embarrassing example? Many leading pundits back it to compete with Germany for the top European league over the next decade. Yes, investment is the reason, just as it was for the rise of the Premier League in the 1990s. Your point being...?

 

And I'm sorry that Muzzy Izzet was a semi-finalist rather than a quarter-finalist, though it only backs up my point that we were most probably as strong a side, if not stronger, than the likes of Stoke and Sunderland now. And your list of players (from this post and the previous) included the likes of Crouch and Brown, and yet criticised my post for including ex-internationals like Cottee. How many England caps has Crouch totted up in the last couple of years? Or Shawcross or Joe Cole?

 

Finally, you mention star players like Edu who can't get off the bench for mid-table Premier League sides as proof that the standard has improved. In the late 90s Theo Zagorakis couldn't rarely got off our bench. In 2004 he won the European Cup with Greece, as captain, and was named player of the tournament. Which sort of spoils that argument all in one.

 

I still don't see even the slightest semblance of a coherent argument here, in spite of all the nitpicking. And you appear to be claiming that the likes of Winston Reid, Noble, Carroll and Cole for West Ham today are better than the likes of Lampard, Cole (at his peak, as opposed to in his mid-30s), Trevor Sinclair, Hartson, Berkovic, Unsworth and Rio Ferdinand for West Ham 15 years ago. I'd say it's you who is on extremely shaky ground on that one. If anything, that's your whole argument up in flames, mate.

[inckley fox]

And as for 'brave' - well we picked Whitlow up as he approached his peak, aged 23. Konchesky was very much at his peak, aged 30. Whitlow, from the off, was a much better player for us at this level. When Konchesky was picked for England I remarked, having watched him play, that he was one of Fulham's more mediocre players and nowhere near the standard. Whitlow was still playing Premier League football when he was a couple of years older than Konchesky (who is clearly below top level Championship standard these days) is now. If I were to be brave I'd say Konchesky didn't deserve an England debut, was a below-average Premier League player at best (which is a compliment, by the way, not an insult) and that Whitlow was never any better, but at least managed to attain reasonable longevity in his career, instead of his legs packing in at 29.

 

They are / were players of similar quality. Konchesky was briefly over-rated, Whitlow briefly under-rated. But one lasted much longer than the other.

 

And if I were to be similarly brave about the standard of football in England and Europe, I'd argue that our top flight improved considerably with great investment from 1992, and the birth of the Premiership, for the next ten years. I would argue that other leagues have since started to match it for investment and it has tailed off comparatively in recent years. I would also argue that nothing genetically has happened in the meantime which has caused more quality footballers to be produced, which some seem to believe. And I'd like to point, also, towards the oft-voiced sentiment in Spain that their first division is far weaker as a whole than it was 10-15 years ago, when sides like Athletico and Valencia also competed for the title and Real won Champions Leagues. And they are, according to the rankings that you misquoted, the best league in Europe. So, no, I still don't see where this confident notion that football as a whole is 'clearly better' has come from.

[Manwell Pablo]

My point remains that it's impossible to say, with certainty, that standards have improved. And you've conveniently glossed over the number of players, from various levels, that were at their peak in the 90s and continue to look strong - well past their peak - in today's game.

 

How was France an embarrassing example? Many leading pundits back it to compete with Germany for the top European league over the next decade. Yes, investment is the reason, just as it was for the rise of the Premier League in the 1990s. Your point being...?

 

And I'm sorry that Muzzy Izzet was a semi-finalist rather than a quarter-finalist, though it only backs up my point that we were most probably as strong a side, if not stronger, than the likes of Stoke and Sunderland now. And your list of players (from this post and the previous) included the likes of Crouch and Brown, and yet criticised my post for including ex-internationals like Cottee. How many England caps has Crouch totted up in the last couple of years? Or Shawcross or Joe Cole?

 

Finally, you mention star players like Edu who can't get off the bench for mid-table Premier League sides as proof that the standard has improved. In the late 90s Theo Zagorakis couldn't rarely got off our bench. In 2004 he won the European Cup with Greece, as captain, and was named player of the tournament. Which sort of spoils that argument all in one.

 

I still don't see even the slightest semblance of a coherent argument here, in spite of all the nitpicking. And you appear to be claiming that the likes of Winston Reid, Noble, Carroll and Cole for West Ham today are better than the likes of Lampard, Cole (at his peak, as opposed to in his mid-30s), Trevor Sinclair, Hartson, Berkovic, Unsworth and Rio Ferdinand for West Ham 15 years ago. I'd say it's you who is on extremely shaky ground on that one. If anything, that's your whole argument up in flames, mate.

 

 

That wasn't your point originally though was it, you said you were unconvinced the standard is better now, meaning you think it was better in the 90's. Not that it was impossible to say, meaning your already retreating into the safety zone of no one knows.

 

They don't look strong, their squad players, having considerable less effect than they used to in some cases. You get players in every generation who go on to play into their mid 30's and can still do well. But their are considerable less these days, for every Giggs or scholes they are 5-10 Konchesky esque players, including, Beatties, Suttons, Bridges, Dublins, and countless others (unlike you I have so many examples I'd be here all night naming them all) that have had to drop down a league where as in the 90's you still had Razor Ruddock and Paul Gascoigne battling each other for the ball and trying to work out which one had drank the most ale the night before during breaks in play. 

 

It's a hugely embarrassing comment. Their ranked about 6th (and also to bring you back to me correcting me on coefficient points, which I see you've done again in the following post which I cba to reply to until at least tomorrow, the rankings currently used to decide this seasons competitions show us at the top so there the ones in effect, so I haven't misquoted F8ck all, Spain wont over take us till next season so your wrong on that as well) and my point is yes, Investment is the key, read the last part in capitals again. IMPROVING STANDARDS, just one more time for you so it sinks in, IMPROVING STANDARDS.  French teams spend money, they get better player, they become better teams, so the standard improves, exactly what has happened to the Premier league, but not in the 90's as you claim although I admit that's when it's started, in the 00's is when it really started to take off, TV Money increases, outside investment increases, we have a better league. You are inadvertently arguing against your own point with this one FFS! And that's why it's embarrassing .

 

It doesn't back up anything, he wasn't good enough, he barely got a kick for them! He played 16 minutes the entire tournament! He was an after thought. He was even quoted himself as saying he would have played for England but he wasn't good enough ridiculous arugement.

 

And your second sentance WTF mate . More than ****ing Cottee who got none when he was at leicester in the 90's , or in fact how many did he get 6 years before joining Leicester??? . but unlike the piss poor examples you give Heskey aside, Cole and Crouch got 40+ caps, and they actually did a job at international level as well and weren't massive flops he failed to ever even manage a goal . On to Shawcross he's had one in the last two years, but then he's only had one in total, bit pathetic even bringing him up, but when your brining Steve f**cking Guppy to the table who got one cap in a position we've always struggled to fill where as Shawcross plays in one of the hardest positions to get into in the national side I think it's somewhat relevant!

 

No it doesn't you silly silly silly boy! You've got one ****ing flash in the pan example which NO ONE saw coming to prove the quality of an ENTIRE LEAGUE it doesn't work. Bradford City got all the way to the final of the league cup against Premier League sides playing strong teams, Nahki wells put in a few fantastic performances and played above his level I don't see Liverpool rushing out to sign him do you? . If Theo was that good perhaps you can tell me why he ended up going to Bologna after winning Euro 2004 and played a big part in them getting relegated to Serie B. 

 

Up in flames ?? 15 Years Ago??? .....your trying to back 90's football, Joe Cole at his peak at West Ham, in the 90's you joker! He didn't even establish himself until 2000 and he left in his early 20's! Chelsea had his best years! Look at Lampards record for West Ham, decentish I'll give you, no world beater until he joined Chelsea and hit his prime in the 00's as well. Rios another one who due to the lower standard at the time was able to establish himself as a young lad, emphasis, young lad at West Ham...he left aged 22ish from there he went on to become world class, he never, ever established himself as a regular for England until he was at Leeds, he was just very promising. These days he'd be out on loan somewhere! He was no world class centre back at West Ham, bags of potential which he fulfilled but lets not pretend the Rio at West Ham is the same one that played for Manchester United, he was raw. John Hartson I'm glad you mentioned as I live around the corner from the massive piss head and he's another "great player" that had to do one too Scotland when the anti got upped about 10 years ago, and was pretty much done by the age of 33 because of his lifestyle, in today's game he'd be playing second tier or newly promoted prem at best! I don't think Unsworth even played in the same team as Cole so I don't know if your trying to name some sort of dream 90's West ham dream team to compare to the current crop? Good player though although he was only there for a season...Berkovic was also a decent player but as the money rolled in where did he end up? In the Championship.

 

Let us not forget your are talking about a West Ham team that finished 8th (if we're talking about 1997-98, I'm struggling as Joe Cole was about 15 or something that season) and mixed it up for a European place and finished a couple of points short, compared to the current one which finished 2 places lower and with 10 points less. Who for me still have some damn good players.....this is just your West Ham example, which you keep using over and over again, as you don't have any more.

 

Your argument has more holes than Sponge Bob Square Pants, you've given a a good laugh though mate so thanks :-)  and to be fair I'll give you credit it's one of the more enjoyable debates I've had on here post 2008, you actually made me think a little bit. Even if, as your correctness with Joe Coles fantastic 1997-98 Season in the West Ham youth team and the fact the fact that you've used the live Cof table as opposed the one currently in use by UEFA proves, your just another Wikipedia warrior.

[seenitall]

So do you think they are better or worse now?

[inckley fox]

That wasn't your point originally though was it, you said you were unconvinced the standard is better now, meaning you think it was better in the 90's. Not that it was impossible to say, meaning your already retreating into the safety zone of no one knows.

 

They don't look strong, their squad players, having considerable less effect than they used to in some cases. You get players in every generation who go on to play into their mid 30's and can still do well. But their are considerable less these days, for every Giggs or scholes they are 5-10 Konchesky esque players, including, Beatties, Suttons, Bridges, Dublins, and countless others (unlike you I have so many examples I'd be here all night naming them all) that have had to drop down a league where as in the 90's you still had Razor Ruddock and Paul Gascoigne battling each other for the ball and trying to work out which one had drank the most ale the night before during breaks in play. 

 

It's a hugely embarrassing comment. Their ranked about 6th (and also to bring you back to me correcting me on coefficient points, which I see you've done again in the following post which I cba to reply to until at least tomorrow, the rankings currently used to decide this seasons competitions show us at the top so there the ones in effect, so I haven't misquoted F8ck all, Spain wont over take us till next season so your wrong on that as well) and my point is yes, Investment is the key, read the last part in capitals again. IMPROVING STANDARDS, just one more time for you so it sinks in, IMPROVING STANDARDS.  French teams spend money, they get better player, they become better teams, so the standard improves, exactly what has happened to the Premier league, but not in the 90's as you claim although I admit that's when it's started, in the 00's is when it really started to take off, TV Money increases, outside investment increases, we have a better league. You are inadvertently arguing against your own point with this one FFS! And that's why it's embarrassing .

 

It doesn't back up anything, he wasn't good enough, he barely got a kick for them! He played 16 minutes the entire tournament! He was an after thought. He was even quoted himself as saying he would have played for England but he wasn't good enough ridiculous arugement.

 

And your second sentance WTF mate . More than ****ing Cottee who got none when he was at leicester in the 90's , or in fact how many did he get 6 years before joining Leicester??? . but unlike the piss poor examples you give Heskey aside, Cole and Crouch got 40+ caps, and they actually did a job at international level as well and weren't massive flops he failed to ever even manage a goal . On to Shawcross he's had one in the last two years, but then he's only had one in total, bit pathetic even bringing him up, but when your brining Steve f**cking Guppy to the table who got one cap in a position we've always struggled to fill where as Shawcross plays in one of the hardest positions to get into in the national side I think it's somewhat relevant!

 

No it doesn't you silly silly silly boy! You've got one ****ing flash in the pan example which NO ONE saw coming to prove the quality of an ENTIRE LEAGUE it doesn't work. Bradford City got all the way to the final of the league cup against Premier League sides playing strong teams, Nahki wells put in a few fantastic performances and played above his level I don't see Liverpool rushing out to sign him do you? . If Theo was that good perhaps you can tell me why he ended up going to Bologna after winning Euro 2004 and played a big part in them getting relegated to Serie B. 

 

Up in flames ?? 15 Years Ago??? .....your trying to back 90's football, Joe Cole at his peak at West Ham, in the 90's you joker! He didn't even establish himself until 2000 and he left in his early 20's! Chelsea had his best years! Look at Lampards record for West Ham, decentish I'll give you, no world beater until he joined Chelsea and hit his prime in the 00's as well. Rios another one who due to the lower standard at the time was able to establish himself as a young lad, emphasis, young lad at West Ham...he left aged 22ish from there he went on to become world class, he never, ever established himself as a regular for England until he was at Leeds, he was just very promising. These days he'd be out on loan somewhere! He was no world class centre back at West Ham, bags of potential which he fulfilled but lets not pretend the Rio at West Ham is the same one that played for Manchester United, he was raw. John Hartson I'm glad you mentioned as I live around the corner from the massive piss head and he's another "great player" that had to do one too Scotland when the anti got upped about 10 years ago, and was pretty much done by the age of 33 because of his lifestyle, in today's game he'd be playing second tier or newly promoted prem at best! I don't think Unsworth even played in the same team as Cole so I don't know if your trying to name some sort of dream 90's West ham dream team to compare to the current crop? Good player though although he was only there for a season...Berkovic was also a decent player but as the money rolled in where did he end up? In the Championship.

 

Let us not forget your are talking about a West Ham team that finished 8th (if we're talking about 1997-98, I'm struggling as Joe Cole was about 15 or something that season) and mixed it up for a European place and finished a couple of points short, compared to the current one which finished 2 places lower and with 10 points less. Who for me still have some damn good players.....this is just your West Ham example, which you keep using over and over again, as you don't have any more.

 

Your argument has more holes than Sponge Bob Square Pants, you've given a a good laugh though mate so thanks :-)  and to be fair I'll give you credit it's one of the more enjoyable debates I've had on here post 2008, you actually made me think a little bit. Even if, as your correctness with Joe Coles fantastic 1997-98 Season in the West Ham youth team and the fact the fact that you've used the live Cof table as opposed the one currently in use by UEFA proves, your just another Wikipedia warrior.

 

I don't know where to begin! But 'Wikipedia warrior' - well we all need to get our information from somewhere. I prefer, where possible, to make sure that mine is correct.

 

(a) If you go back to my original post, I was clear that I DON'T think football in the 90s was better, but instead different. So no, they aren't the same thing.

 

(b) Less players in their mid-30s these days? Please. Average retirement age in football is at its oldest now since the advent of the Premier League which, by definition, means there are more players in their mid-30s.

 

© The Coefficient rankings I quoted, and you misquoted, are the ones published by UEFA and which unequivocally place Spain at the top. Whether Spain's number one placing impacts on seedings this season or not is, I would say, totally irrelevant to the argument. Either way, it's worth pointing out that only one club from the number one placed League on the Coefficient rankings has managed to win the Champions League in five years (Barcelona won it in 2011, the first year that Spain topped the rankings).

 

(d) My example of West Ham?! The 'only' example I could come up with?! The example I gave was Leicester in 1998, suggesting that they were better then than most of the mid-table sides are now (including West Ham, which was YOUR example!). When you responded that they were not, I pointed out that Lampard and Ferdinand, among others, were still better players than anyone on the books of West Ham today - in other words, modern day mid-table sides are not only not as good as Leicester were in the late 90s, they're not as good as THEY were in the late 90s. We've focused on that example because very few modern day mid-table teams were even in the Premier League back then.

 

(e) The example of Shawcross - again you brought him up, not me. I was responding. And I thought it was amusing that you had so eagerly dismissed Steve Guppy as an example of a quality player because he had only one cap, then gave an example of another player who had won only one cap as proof that football was getting better.

 

(f) As for players drinking - well I think I've already made clear that the physical and stamina-based elements of today's game are much better than they were back then. It doesn't mean Gazza and before him George Best and Frank Worthington weren't gifted players, of course. Nor does it mean that they wouldn't cope today - but rather that they'd have to be nurtured in a different way. You brought up Andy Carroll - I seem to recall reports of him drinking heavily on a weekly basis. And then there are the likes of Ashley Cole, Rooney, Lennon, Torres, Dzeko who either smoke or have smoked. So it's still part of the game.

 

(g) Where Izzet is concerned, you seem to be of the opinion that he wasn't good enough for England because he didn't play for them. So let's ignore the World Cup semi-final Izzet played in for another country (because you don't seem to think it's as good as what England achieved back then - or players like Carroll have achieved for England in recent years), I'm guessing you had total faith in the judgement of Hoddle and Keegan back then. There are quite a lot of great players who were overlooked by England you know - and the ones those particular managers did pick hardly set the world on fire.

 

(h) Adding to this, you use the fact that Ferdinand and Lampard weren't England players while at West Ham against them. Surely the fact that we (England') don't blood our best players until they are in the mid-20s unlike, say, Germany or Spain, is one of the main reasons why we haven't won anything for nearly 50 years. So I'd hardly use that one against them!

[Stadt]

The top teams will always have the top players of the generation so comparing the best teams of different eras doesn't show much.I think that more promoted teams staying up now shows that the overall gulf of quality between the prem and the championship suggests that the standard of lower league players has improved albeit marginally.

[Manwell Pablo]

I don't know where to begin! But 'Wikipedia warrior' - well we all need to get our information from somewhere. I prefer, where possible, to make sure that mine is correct.

 

(a) If you go back to my original post, I was clear that I DON'T think football in the 90s was better, but instead different. So no, they aren't the same thing.

 

(b) Less players in their mid-30s these days? Please. Average retirement age in football is at its oldest now since the advent of the Premier League which, by definition, means there are more players in their mid-30s.

 

© The Coefficient rankings I quoted, and you misquoted, are the ones published by UEFA and which unequivocally place Spain at the top. Whether Spain's number one placing impacts on seedings this season or not is, I would say, totally irrelevant to the argument. Either way, it's worth pointing out that only one club from the number one placed League on the Coefficient rankings has managed to win the Champions League in five years (Barcelona won it in 2011, the first year that Spain topped the rankings).

 

(d) My example of West Ham?! The 'only' example I could come up with?! The example I gave was Leicester in 1998, suggesting that they were better then than most of the mid-table sides are now (including West Ham, which was YOUR example!). When you responded that they were not, I pointed out that Lampard and Ferdinand, among others, were still better players than anyone on the books of West Ham today - in other words, modern day mid-table sides are not only not as good as Leicester were in the late 90s, they're not as good as THEY were in the late 90s. We've focused on that example because very few modern day mid-table teams were even in the Premier League back then.

 

(e) The example of Shawcross - again you brought him up, not me. I was responding. And I thought it was amusing that you had so eagerly dismissed Steve Guppy as an example of a quality player because he had only one cap, then gave an example of another player who had won only one cap as proof that football was getting better.

 

(f) As for players drinking - well I think I've already made clear that the physical and stamina-based elements of today's game are much better than they were back then. It doesn't mean Gazza and before him George Best and Frank Worthington weren't gifted players, of course. Nor does it mean that they wouldn't cope today - but rather that they'd have to be nurtured in a different way. You brought up Andy Carroll - I seem to recall reports of him drinking heavily on a weekly basis. And then there are the likes of Ashley Cole, Rooney, Lennon, Torres, Dzeko who either smoke or have smoked. So it's still part of the game.

 

(g) Where Izzet is concerned, you seem to be of the opinion that he wasn't good enough for England because he didn't play for them. So let's ignore the World Cup semi-final Izzet played in for another country (because you don't seem to think it's as good as what England achieved back then - or players like Carroll have achieved for England in recent years), I'm guessing you had total faith in the judgement of Hoddle and Keegan back then. There are quite a lot of great players who were overlooked by England you know - and the ones those particular managers did pick hardly set the world on fire.

 

(h) Adding to this, you use the fact that Ferdinand and Lampard weren't England players while at West Ham against them. Surely the fact that we (England') don't blood our best players until they are in the mid-20s unlike, say, Germany or Spain, is one of the main reasons why we haven't won anything for nearly 50 years. So I'd hardly use that one against them!

 

 

Your not actually arguing anything any more now are you your just yammering, on the brightside this it shouldn't too long to reply to this as a result. And you don't have to get it from somewhere get mine off the top of my head and I don't have all night to look up statistics like you .

 

a) regarding the modern game "I am not convinced the standard is better now at all" so yes, you did.

 

b) Well maybe it is I don't have the time of the patience to check that but I'd but that down to better lifestyles better fitness traiing in clubs that help contribute to the all round BETTER STANDARD of today's game allowing players to maintain their level.

 

c) The rankings not just released, but indeed used used by UEFA in competitions that matter show us at the top. So their not irrelevant, in fact, there the only relevant ones released, the only ones that actually have any relevance on football competitions. Simple really. 

 

d and e) I bought up West Ham did I? Do you want to try reading the thread again instead of panicing and writing down the first thing the comes into your head because your getting a hammering. YOU first of all mentioned West Ham on 5th at 1.39pm, I didn't even reply to that part of the post, and then you ****ing brought them up again on Thursday morning at half four when you pissed out your tree even though I hadn't even mentioned them! So tell me how West Ham was MY example. It was more certainly YOUR example. your other comparisons to Stoke Citys side full of international players to our own 1998 team has been blown out the water as well. But any, this is all by the bye, you've not argued hardly any of the points I've made here just, well waffled about nothing. As I say I wouldn't even have bought Shawcross up if you hadn't of bought up Guppy, but he was one example of many many more international players at Stoke in their day. And the amount of points and arguements of yours I have put down in this section which you have simply glossed over and instead decided to argue over who bought what up first shows you have nothing of any relevance left to say at all. Just Yammering this, what a waste of your time typing that shit out was! Lampard and Ferdinand were better IN THEIR PRIME than anyone who currently plays for West Ham they were not necessarily better than than anyone in the current West Ham side! 

 

f) they were incredibly gifted, would they have looked as good in this day and age though, not saying they wouldn't have their moments, but their impact would certainly be less. And where did I say it wasn't in the game anymore? But I think comparing Andy Carroll having a night out on the town when he aint got a game the next day or Ashley Cole smoking ten Malrborough lights compared to what went used to go on is ludicrous, they used to turn up to games smashed sometimes, you should try reading some Auto Biographies written by the likes of Matteo Adams or Ruddock.

 

g) Lets cut to the chase then, are you trying to tell me Izzet should have played for England?

 

h) totally irrelevant I don't agree with young players struggling to get into sides due to the quality of the foriegn players coming in, dare I say it, raising the standard, but unfortunately that's the way it is and it's another sign that the overall standard of football is getting better.

[Kinowe Soorie]

Izzet was good enough for England! The problem was, is that he played for Leicester, and not a more glamourous club.

[inckley fox]

Lets cut to the chase then, are you trying to tell me Izzet should have played for England?

 

Yes, actually. The England side of the late 90s, when Izzet was at his peak and a target for Leeds United (then considered genuine title contenders) was a miserable failure. After Venables' brief stint we insisted on playing a number of midfielders who had consistently struggled at international level. There was Rob Lee, who was on the decline at Newcastle, David Batty who was never anything like as good as Izzet or Lennon or even Parker, Merson, who was also past his best, and McManaman who I always thought to be one of the laziest, most lightweight, overrated players in the game. We overlooked Izzet in favour of those and the likes of Wise, Barmby and Butt, and he went on to play in a World Cup semi-final for another country while other - mostly older - players in the same position failed to with England. That's a fact, you know. And I didn't get it from Wikipedia!

 

Your not actually arguing anything any more now are you your just yammering, on the brightside this it shouldn't too long to reply to this as a result. And you don't have to get it from somewhere get mine off the top of my head and I don't have all night to look up statistics like you .

 

Just to clear things up - I was trying to imply that I DON'T get all of my information off Wikipedia because it's so often incorrect. However the sad reality is that I get a lot of my facts from the biggest, dustiest collection of Leicester City programmes you have ever seen, which is far more pathetic. As for 'staying up all night', that can be put down to travelling and spending many hours in crowded ports and airports in peculiar time zones and having nothing better to do than go to the 24 hour Locutorio and argue with you about football. But like you, I much prefer the idea of me staggering up to the computer at 4am in an unlit flat, cognac in hand, slurring something about 'that bloody Manwell Pablo' and then conjuring a response.

 

 

regarding the modern game "I am not convinced the standard is better now at all" so yes, you did.

 

That quote does not mean that the modern game isn't as good as the game was in the 1990s. It means I am not convinced that the modern game is better. Which has been my whole point all along.

 

 

The rankings not just released, but indeed used used by UEFA in competitions that matter show us at the top. So their not irrelevant, in fact, there the only relevant ones released, the only ones that actually have any relevance on football competitions. Simple really.

 

Okay you need to provide me with a link. I'm getting my information from Uefa.com (http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/index.html) which shows you the season-by-season rankings and the current Coefficient. We're top of neither. I've searched and searched for the 'only relevant' rankings that you refer to and I can't find them anywhere.

 

The picture presented by these rankings is, of course, one of English football deteriorating in quality. Like I said, the 90s was a time of massive improvement which ended with Manchester United as European champions. Then, after several years at our peak, we have begun to decline once more, having won only one Champions League between all of our clubs in the past five seasons.

 

Of course neither of us have really specified whether we are referring to the standard of ENGLISH football or football overall. If it's the former, then the decline is apparent for all to see. Spending huge amounts of money on players doesn't - contrary to your stated belief - guarantee success, otherwise the Turkish league would be considerably higher than the German. So yes, investment in the Premier League has continued to be immense and yet in comparison to other European leagues we are losing ground, which almost certainly owes to the comprehensive failure of our clubs to blood youth. If you need further proof, look who is number one on the season-by-season Coefficient, in the link I've provided - Germany. You should take a look at how strict the guidelines are for German clubs in terms of minimum numbers of home-grown players.

 

If you are referring to the standard of football overall, then it is impossible to say whether standards are better or worse. We can't arrange a Barcelona 2011 vs. Manchester United 1999 showdown, can we? As I keep saying, however, there are more 30+ players (i.e. players from the 1990s and early 2000s) in the game now than at any other point in the history of the game. Is that not proof that the standard has clearly not upped significantly, if players from both top level and medium level clubs can continue to be effective well beyond what is normally the end of a player's career?