I'm sorry but it's such a braindead, pointless, utterly inane take that for some reason people like to parrot. This guy said Drogba wouldn't SURVIVE in the premier league today (insane). He takes the idea that "standards improve with time" (valid) and applies it like a sledgehammer, without an ounce of thought. Messi struggled far more in the 2010 world cup (still in his athletic prime), than he did in 2022 (washed). So did football actually get worse? Or are performances and stats influenced by dozens of contextual factors that these simplistic era arguments completely ignore? Maybe it's not as simple as 'he's more modern therefore better' At what point does football 'get away' from the upper echelon players? Maldini played across 3 decades at a high level. Drogba thrived in the exact same era that Messi and Ronaldo did. I can be intentionally obtuse and point out that Salah thrived in the modern PL, while he struggled for Chelsea barely a year after Drogba lifted the UCL. How does this dude square these things? if the past was so much worse, then surely every top player today should've destroyed it when they were actually coming through right? Or at least in their 20s? Danny frickin Welbeck is still bossing it, but I suppose Rooney would struggle? I have never seen any indication that a top player can't translate at least 90% of their value from one era to the next. The only thing that stops them is athletic decline. I cant believe I have to explain this - but even if it's granted that standards today are better, that doesn't necessarily mean a goal today is more valuable. Those are two separate things lmao. There have been simply more goals from ~2010 onwards, and especially the last few years. For a plethora of reasons (more refined build-up, tactical advances, rule changes, more expensive squads/superteams, greater disparity between top teams and the rest etc). The mid 2000s averaged about 2.6 goals in the PL (around that if i remember right). The last few years it's been over 3(!!). If anything goals are EASIER to come by for the top forwards today (we can quibble with semantics, and it wont be true in ALL cases, but generally this is true). When watching old games - yes u see some practices, or some spaces that wouldn't exist today. At the same time, I often see shocking defending, or certain spaces open up today that wouldn't have existed in the past, so let's not oversell how good defending is now, it's not a case of 'every single thing is definitely way better now' either. Evolution is not always linear. Regardless, doesnt it naturally follow that higher standards, owed to better data/training etc would allow those past players to also scale up? Isn't that just a super obvious conclusion to come to? So what is the point of constantly saying "things are way better" or "this ex player wouldnt survive" other than to smugly and ignorantly disparage past talent? What other point is being made? I've attached a clip of Arteta (who seems to be Alex's lord and saviour pbuh going by his YT thumbnails) saying that he would be a better player today with all these modern advancements.
350,400 次观看
Foden is a great player, easy on the eye But it is BAFFLING how pundits seem to bend over for him. They'd praise him for picking his nose if it looked classy. Meanwhile Saka, who has outperformed him consistently, is seen as an afterthought This is how false legacies are built
