|
Post by mrneil on Dec 22, 2010 14:19:17 GMT
As there's not much football going on, I thought I'd start a new thread.
Who thinks that todays top players play too many games? Well, in the 1983/84 season, the league champions Liverpool F.C played 67 competitive matches.
Moreover, in the 42 first division matches that they played, only 15 players were used.
In fact, they only used 17 players in all of the 67 competitive fixtures, and 2 of those (Phil Thompson and Gary Gillespie), only played 1 game each.
REAL MEN!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Amber Aleman on Dec 22, 2010 15:11:49 GMT
I don't think asking highly-paid professional footballers to perform for up to a total of 3 hours a week is unreasonable.
These days Premier League clubs have large squads that allow managers to rest players from time to time. With injuries and suspensions too, most end up playing much less than the maximum.
Arguably a lot more is asked of non-League players who often play twice a week on top of holding down full-time jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Del on Dec 22, 2010 15:36:27 GMT
Two matches a week for a team should be fine with the squads they have.
|
|
|
Post by fluffy rascal on Dec 22, 2010 15:41:02 GMT
I remember the days when it was only the supporters that wore scarves ;D
|
|
|
Post by exiledinandover on Dec 22, 2010 18:40:54 GMT
And gloves
|
|
billy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,626
|
Post by billy on Dec 22, 2010 20:44:44 GMT
Games is the wrong word nowadays.If a player comes on the pitch as a sub for say 2 minutes , he is deemed to have played a game.
This has resulted in Giggs and Beckham breaking the records of Bobby Charlton and Bobby Moore respectively.
A game used to mean 90 minutes and there were 42 league games and replays in the FA Cup until someone won.
Add to that the fact the ball is often in play for only half of the scheduled 90 minutes thanks to the six substitutions , constant feigning of injury ,referees lecturing players while they are being booked and blatant timewasting from the off by the "underdogs" and i would say players are spending less time playing football than ever before.
|
|
billy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,626
|
Post by billy on Dec 22, 2010 20:56:37 GMT
In four seasons in the sixties , George Best ,despite being kicked from pillar to post by lesser mortals ,played (for 90 minutes) in 165 of a possible 168 league games for Manchester United.
1964/65 in all competitions , 4 players played in all 60 games and three played in 59 - again all for 90 minutes. I think the only game Charlton and Stiles missed was when they had to play for England on the same day as a league fixture.
|
|
|
Post by os on Dec 22, 2010 21:43:08 GMT
I am not a fan of today's premiership players, but I think that people miss the point.
Yes they used to play 60+ games a season and never miss a game etc, but the quality suffered. Like any athlete there is a optimum number of times to play or run if you want to get the very best from them.
|
|
|
Post by exiledinandover on Dec 23, 2010 6:43:16 GMT
Sorry i don't agree,even today players have thier off day,s.Its todays players that haven't got the quality.I never see players dribble the ball nowadays like best Bowles Charlie George,and Ginola etc Did.with the exception of one or two they don't seem to have the ball control today.they might be fitter but the Games are less exciting.
|
|
|
Post by mrneil on Dec 23, 2010 7:43:06 GMT
I am not a fan of today's premiership players, but I think that people miss the point. Yes they used to play 60+ games a season and never miss a game etc, but the quality suffered. Like any athlete there is a optimum number of times to play or run if you want to get the very best from them. You may be right os, but watching the Liverpool of 83/84 was hugely entertaining. Don't forget they used to play on muddy pitches (not like the bowling greens of today), with heavier footballs, and the footwear was nowhere near as scientifically tested as it is today. And the mention of players like Stan Bowles, George Best etc etc, they used to glide past opponents with ease, having to negotiate all sorts of physical contact. Admittedly those opponents may have been a lot slower than today's equivalent, but you'd never see Stan or George tumble like a sack of spuds if someone so much as sneezed at them. Like I said before REAL MEN!!!!
|
|
ab
1st team Player
Posts: 1,214
|
Post by ab on Dec 23, 2010 8:52:42 GMT
I briefly switched on the Man C v Everton match the other night and very swiftly returned to watching the darts when I saw one of the City players wearing a hood. Yes; a hood.
A HOOD; the man was wearing a hood to play a game of football..what on earth is going on?
|
|
|
Post by dontpanic on Dec 23, 2010 11:18:36 GMT
And they only got 10 minutes at half-time in the good old days.
|
|
|
Post by os on Dec 23, 2010 11:51:59 GMT
This for all old time football lovers:
|
|
|
Post by Burtie on Dec 23, 2010 12:36:54 GMT
Players like Best, Charlton et al may have been greats of their generation, but how would they fare in today's game? I'm prepared to say that if George Best were playing now, he wouldn't get a game for Man Utd reserves.
|
|
DaveF
1st team Player
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by DaveF on Dec 23, 2010 12:47:10 GMT
True, but he would be 64 years old.
|
|