Serie A 2021-22 (55 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Status
All the advantages also apply to their opposition. Batistuta nowadays might've been smarter, quicker, better stamina, less injury prone or whatever, but the 90ties defenders and goalkeepers would gain the same advantages, so it's really a moot point. Add the way footie has changed and the types of defenders and organization of defenses one faced and the other faces and it's downright idiotic to even begin making these adjustments.
If we establish that footie has not regressed from when Batistuta played to nowadays (and I'm yet to see a single argument against that besides "I watched both eras and the old days were clearly better" and this argument sucks, anyone thats old enough says that about anything they ever liked), obviously the objective way to compare them is to compare their status among their generation. As far as I've read and seen Batistuta was among the very best forwards of his gen, not quite in contention for The best forward, but just below that category. Pretty much the same can be said about Kane, who's a great forward, but doesn't have the record of Lewa, Ronaldo or Messi.
Is there room for discussions like who had more style, more talent, better predator instinct, big game player etc? Sure. But is it laughable to suggest best players of this gen are just as good as the legends of the past? IMO no, it's not laughable, people just miss the bigger picture - best players of today will be the legends of future, I'm sure someone somewhere in a bar in Italy in 1998 had the very same discussion about Batistuta and Boniperti or whoever
If we establish that footie has not regressed from when Batistuta played to nowadays (and I'm yet to see a single argument against that besides "I watched both eras and the old days were clearly better" and this argument sucks, anyone thats old enough says that about anything they ever liked), obviously the objective way to compare them is to compare their status among their generation. As far as I've read and seen Batistuta was among the very best forwards of his gen, not quite in contention for The best forward, but just below that category. Pretty much the same can be said about Kane, who's a great forward, but doesn't have the record of Lewa, Ronaldo or Messi.
Is there room for discussions like who had more style, more talent, better predator instinct, big game player etc? Sure. But is it laughable to suggest best players of this gen are just as good as the legends of the past? IMO no, it's not laughable, people just miss the bigger picture - best players of today will be the legends of future, I'm sure someone somewhere in a bar in Italy in 1998 had the very same discussion about Batistuta and Boniperti or whoever
Last edited:
Not so long ago midgets playing tiki-taka dominated club and international football where passing, movement and skill were prioritised above everything. Now you have more onus on physical and fitness traits where bulldozing seems to work best i.e. EPL teams. It means that we have fewer playmakers in the world but if the target is to get a contract with an EPL team, there will be that shift. It isn't the best direction for football or England would've won something internationally but it is what it is. If players still aspire to play for Barcelona, they'll train to play the Barcelona way which is why their academy used to produce and train a load of unique players.
Again, objective facts:
1. More people play the sport -> more competition -> higher level
2. The sport is more lucrative than ever -> more competition on all levels (players, coaches, support staff, etc) -> higher level
3. Improvements in sports medical science -> overall improvements in speed, stamina, strength, less players have to retire due to injuries, increased longetivity -> higher level
4. Improvement in sports data science -> players make better informed decisions, coaches make better informed decision, more effective talent identification -> higher level
That's the increase, I don't want to write an essay about it, but if you think long enough, you can double or triple this list with things that have improved compared to 20 or 70 years ago. So objectively the level has improved.
The data aspect of it might have cost something when it comes to entertainment. The money aspect might have cost a lot when it comes to the image of the sport, so obviously there's a lot not to like about it and I get sentiments such as "football was better in the xx'ies", meaning football was more entertaining or footballers and club owners were more likable. However I see no reasons to think that the competitiveness and the general level of the sport itself is lower than in the 90ties. Why the fuck would it be? It's like thinking formula 1 cars of the 50ties could run laps around the modern cars, of course they couldn't.
1. More people play the sport -> more competition -> higher level
2. The sport is more lucrative than ever -> more competition on all levels (players, coaches, support staff, etc) -> higher level
3. Improvements in sports medical science -> overall improvements in speed, stamina, strength, less players have to retire due to injuries, increased longetivity -> higher level
4. Improvement in sports data science -> players make better informed decisions, coaches make better informed decision, more effective talent identification -> higher level
That's the increase, I don't want to write an essay about it, but if you think long enough, you can double or triple this list with things that have improved compared to 20 or 70 years ago. So objectively the level has improved.
The data aspect of it might have cost something when it comes to entertainment. The money aspect might have cost a lot when it comes to the image of the sport, so obviously there's a lot not to like about it and I get sentiments such as "football was better in the xx'ies", meaning football was more entertaining or footballers and club owners were more likable. However I see no reasons to think that the competitiveness and the general level of the sport itself is lower than in the 90ties. Why the fuck would it be? It's like thinking formula 1 cars of the 50ties could run laps around the modern cars, of course they couldn't.
Thinking Kane = Batistuta. I just can’t. What retardation. 
this has nothing to do with you as person respecfully, it might have been more debatable in the early 2010s up to 2015 or so, but this drivel is the stupidest take I've read on this sport.
You're outlining changes in infrastructure and conditions, but you keep being oblivious to the quality of the players.
You're outlining changes in infrastructure and conditions, but you keep being oblivious to the quality of the players.
How is it possible that more and more people compete in the sport and more and more people from all fields contribute to the sport, as its become incredibly ludicrous, yet the quality of the elite players is lower? All of them dumb? No top youth coaches left in the world who know how to develop top talent, all dead?
I'm not even a fancy dribbler guy, always been a fan of midfielders. It does feel hard to believe that this gen of players will probably have DMs as good as Makelele or Davids or CMs as good as Seedorf and Zidane, players I grew up adoring, but the truth is we definitely will, its usually just hard to see how legendary a player is until they're close to retirement. Like how the English discovered Pirlo 3 years before his retirement, before summer 2012 for them he was just another overrated, cheating, slow Italian and then bam, suddenly everyone is in agreement that this is a hall of fame level mid.
- - - Updated - - -
Yup, thats part of what I meant by how money has ruined the image of football, the financial gap between elite few select clubs and the rest is larger than ever, thats a bad look, football is the sport equivalent of South Africa.
- - - Updated - - -
Yup, thats part of what I meant by how money has ruined the image of football, the financial gap between elite few select clubs and the rest is larger than ever, thats a bad look, football is the sport equivalent of South Africa.
I think you need a heavy dose of shrooms to think Harry Kane is anywhere close to Batistuta’s level 
But honestly I think this is pure nostalgia. You can say Batistuta is better striker, but you make it sound like they are levels apart, and they aren't. In what way was Batistuta so superior to Kane they can't be compared?
Teams compete at who's the worst rather than being the best. The game is way less competitive which made it stagnate - scratch that, made it regress.
Game is watered down to shocking levels. This sport is in serious decline and with the world still dealing with Covid all those cash flows will get further diminished. Super League inception was thought of because the sport is not even being sustainable anymore due to viewership getting fewer and fewer.
Failing industry. But no! This is the best generation! Get out of here.
Game is watered down to shocking levels. This sport is in serious decline and with the world still dealing with Covid all those cash flows will get further diminished. Super League inception was thought of because the sport is not even being sustainable anymore due to viewership getting fewer and fewer.
Failing industry. But no! This is the best generation! Get out of here.
This is a different discussion altogether. It might be true, Kane does have advantages Batistuta didn't in terms of sports science etc. But then we are getting into hypotheticals. I think it's easier to just compare performances, results and what not. Otherwise just Don't compare players across eras, it will always be disadvantageous to players from past eras
- Status