Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 178 comments are related to the topic:
Bobo Glimt vs Spurs - 2.2 a gift
Bobo Glimt vs Spurs - 2.2 a gift
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
"modern is better because of fitness" makes no sense.
If 10 year old Dixie Dean was brought here in a time machine he could have the same training etc as modern players so why couldn't he be a top player |
|
By:
Yeah, it's likely he would improve for modern training
and diet. Seems to have had the physicality that would allow him to build from fitness training. Of course I'm guessing, but that's all we have. |
|
By:
I didn't say he couldn't, I didn't say he wouldn't.
Players today are primed for action and reared like race horses, being in the best possible physical condition against other players in their best possible physical condition is football maxed out, you can then compare abilities. Given we have scouting networks and clubs using scientific data to sign the best players, the avereage ability of players is obviously high. The era 100 years ago was largely amateurish, lots of players training maybe once week, having actual real jobs and not having the best diet to be in the best physical shape to play therefore not being able to get the very best out of themselves, this is all common sense but I actually have to explain it to people as to why you can't hold up players from that era as true greats in comparison with modern greats for all reasons listed on nearly every single posts I've made. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
The evolutionary geneticists are actually predicting we will probably be SHORTER in the future you MUG
 . Back to school for you son. And if you have to be a super fit elite athlete, avoiding off field activities that would affect performance to play in the modern game, then how can you pick a player from 30/40 years ago as your choice for the greatest ever ? Especially one with the off field reputation of Maradona (one N, note) ffs  . You are defeating your own argument. |
|
By:
You haven't given any real reasons mes apart from the fitness angle.
In the 1920s the best played against the best. In the 2020s the best play against the best. Both eras have great players. It really is that simple. |
|
By:
It's obvious you are fishing now, because you can honestly not be as thick as you and be genuine.
|
|
By:
Why will we be shorter?
Everything is still set up to give height an advantage After all the tall blokes were shot in ww1 there's not been any advantage in being short. |
|
By:
Mes appears to have accepted he has lost that argument with that typical response.
YHTL - there are a few papers out there hypothesising on the fact we may be shorter in the future. different reasons given too, including elements of natural selection, the advance of technology meaning we do not need such large brains or larger stature, or simply a need to use less energy. It's interesting stuff but of course is just hypothetical. |
|
By:
It's not true that pros 100 years ago trained once a week and spent most of their time as milkmen or whatever.
There was a maximum wage so they weren't getting rich but they were still earning more than the average. Some of them had jobs they did in the summer. If the question is how would a player from one era do in another then 'fitness' is irrelevant, as if they were in the modern era they would have modern fitness. |
|
By:
We were 6ft average 40k years ago
Pretty sure we are heading back, (up to 5ft 9 from 5 ft 4) but with smaller brains. Hey ho. |
|
By:
I've pinged several mini essays trying to explain to you in several different ways as possible, but still it didn't help, and why would it, because your chosen username is Dixie Dean and you're married to the course, love is truly blind, even if you've seen him play
It's like Fred and Hulk, you rushed to google to quickly whip out Freds stats, no opinion on either player, just like with Dean, it's just stats with you, not even worth debating with. Must be a Dean relative or being paid to promote his legacy lol. . Kind Regards |
|
By:
Tober you haven't really been following the conversation.
The simple question is, can you hold up players from the 1920's as greats that rank alongside modern greats? you think Dixie Dean is going to be in the same conversation in most people's minds when talking about the likes of Henry, Zidane, Maradonna etc. The point is not that he wouldn't make it in today's game, nobody's debated that, the point is he can't be considered a true great because the era he played in was so unsophisticated in terms of preparation, opposition level and yes fitness which makes a player able to maximise his potential, in comparison to the much more professional era of football which took hold from the 60;s onward when maximum wage cap was scrapped and practically all players lives bega to revolved total dedication to the club they were playing for. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
Another bizarre retort. You are just as entrenched in your position as i am in mine, so less of the intellectual superiority from you son, at least until you can actually exhibit some
Tobermory - agree 100 per cent with your last post, mes just doesn't seem to get it |
|
By:
The forum dunce is throwing stones in glass houses, it's the old days on here, keep going 'son'
|
|
By:
mes, can you make any argument without throwing around insults?
|
|
By:
The well known forum grass makes his eventual appearance. I've made untold succinct and in depth points on this thread unless you have no ability to read whatsoever, you must of seen them.
The first time I called anyone a name was kinscem after the third time of misquoting my thoughts, then Dixie called began the name calling if you bother to read back, I wont call you a name though because we know reporting posts and posters is almost a full time occupation for you, isn't it nobby the forum curtain twitcher. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
So that's a no then.
|
|
By:
the era he played in was so unsophisticated in terms of preparation, opposition level and yes fitness which makes a player able to maximise his potential,
The biggest ever change in the preparation/speed of the game & increased fitness was probably from the early to late 1990s. So was football in 2000 superior? Is Arsenal's 1989 title worth less than the one they won in 2002  |
|
By:
tobermory - i don't suppose mes even took up my suggestion of looking up the record of Herbert Chapman one of the finest ever managers who was in charge of Arsenal in the mid 20s and early 30s.
If he had then he would realise that the old guff he wrote (that you requoted above) was really total nonsense. Chapman was renowned for his innovative tactics and formations, insisted on his players being very fit and had a strict training regime, they had access to physios and masseurs etc. He had scouts out all the time checking on opponents and likely future signings. Most top flight clubs did such things. In other words, the complete opposite of the picture that the naive mes paints of that era. |
|
By:
Anyway, back on topic. 2.2 Spurs was a terrible tip from Storm Alert.
 |
|
By:
There's probably absolutely no point in trying to be reasonable or logical on this subject matter with someone who's name is 'Dixie' Dean and is obviously a fully paid up member of the Dixie Den fan club
for whatever strange reason, must be a distant family member.You've even tried your level best to shift the goalposts on to 1930's managers to suit your narrative and help your argument along. Let me bring you back to the centre where you and this debate belongs. No player from 1920's football can be held up a a true footballing great that ranks along side greats such as Maradonna, Zidane, Brazilian Ronaldo, Henry, Messi etc The standard of football was no where near the same level, not even Messi in the greatest team of all time could ever manage more than 50 league goals in a season and that was him maxing out. Dean scored 60 league goals in 29 different matches that season Here's a bit more context One explanation put forward in the book was the change in the offside law that came in the previous season, making it so that two defenders had to be closer to the goal than the attacker rather than three as it had been previously. And it’s true, scoring averages did go up across the board. and so it took time for defenders to adjust to the new rule I'm not saying he was not a good player, or that he could not have played in today's game, but you only have to watch some of the footage that exists of the level back then to understand that it was Sunday League stuff. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
An entertaining thread with many interesting claims.
|
|
By:
mesmerised
The first time I called anyone a name was kinscem after the third time of misquoting my thoughts, then Dixie called began the name calling if you bother to read back, I wont call you a name though because we know reporting posts and posters is almost a full time occupation for you, isn't it nobby the forum curtain twitcher. Misquoting your thoughts? I am not a mind reader. If your posts are fantasy presented as fact then it is open season. |
|
By:
I feel like I have to dumb down to explain things to you, because already on 3 occasions you've failed to either read what I've written properly or presented it in a way that was false, now you think that where I said you were misquoting my thoughts, I was actually talking about thoughts I hadn't relayed here, you're either dim or very dim, not given you third option
Let's walk you through it. 1. You said "mes has convinced me everyone* in the past was short, fat, and stupid." - I never once mentioned any players height or intellect or anything like that, so your observations told me you either hadn't bothered to read every post properly or you are not very bright to have deduced that from what I had written. 2. You then said "Is your proof payment to players makes them better than players who are/were not paid?" - An overly simplified characterisation . Clearly player becoming more professional on full wages without the need for another job, allowed for them to dedicate as much time as possible to training, making dietary changes and become much fitter athletes thus giving a greater output on the pitch in terms of performance, but you've interpreted that the way a 5 year old would "er mes said they're getting paid more, they must be better". 3. You then said "Your comment about everyone being on drugs 40+ year ago except Usain Bolt is anothr unsubstantiated statement." - I never said any such thing whatsoever, your the way you've even worded that fake quote makes it look like Bolt was even around 40 years ago, what I said was 40+ years ago it was easier to evade drug testers which is why there's been talk for many years that the IAAF will end up re-setting and scraping those dodgy records, I was probably being generous with time, I think they wanted to scrap records set pre 2000. What I also said about was that when he often lined up finals, he was the only one not have been tested positive for drugs at some point in his career, because of modern testing techniques and requirements for being available for testing outside of comeptiton, it makes it far far harder than what it was 40 odd years ago to get away with it. So it today's sprinting whilst sprinters still cheat, they're not likely to be as lucky as some of the past stars of the sport as they'll be found out. Just like Lance Armstrong was in Cycling and all those other mugs. Please learn to read, digest and deduce the content of posts correctly, it saves time and makes you look a little bit less slow upstairs then you already appear to be, I'll just have to file you under "not quite the full shilling" and to be ignored. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
Try learning to read mes - Herbert Chapman took over at Arsenal in 1925 and had already won two league titles at Huddersfield in the early 20s.
So how on earth am i shifting the goalposts to the 1930s (not that it would change the argument anyway) ???? HC died in January 1934 ffs ! His innovations etc were in the 1920s, comprende ? The offside rule changed in 1925, dixie's record was set 2/3 years later. Defenders had well adapted to the new rule by then, i think even you could have taken something new on board in that time frame |
|
By:
lads give it up, 2 things learned Dixie is a revered Legend with Everton fans and they will fight his corner on his achievements and I fully agree with that.
2nd won Norwegian's are not rotten, but I knew that anyway and so did bookies |
|
By:
Shifting the goalposts as we were initially talking directly and solely about Dixie Dean and then you moved it on to managers, prattling on and on about Herbert Chapman who I never once mentioned and has fk all to do with 'true great players' of the game
You'll never get the masses, that includes football journo's, greats of the game or most fans in general to think that players 100 years ago will ever thought of or included in the same breath as the likes of Maradonna and Messi, but I'm sure the Dean family appreciates your hard fought efforts Kind Regards. |
|
By:
I agree with Malay, not much point continuing trying to educate pork as my elders used to say.
I have come to the conclusion that the only thing you are "mesmerised" by is your own reflection. Kind Regards |
|
By:
That's a firm "I've given up trying to convince myself he's a true great" post
Kind Regards. |
|
By:
I may have given up trying to convince you (who wouldn't by now ?), it has just become tiresome having to read the elongated guff that you hilariously refer to as "succinct points" .
dixie is a bona fide great - look in the book as they say. Meanwhile, Keep looking in that mirror son. |
|
By:
You essentially believe a footballer playing sub-standard football 100 years ago is all time great and hang on to dear life this freak season he had that no modern great has ever come remotely close to matching, as said before even Messi topped out at 50, you do not have an argument, you just argue.
And it's me that should not bother, I am objective, why wouldn't be, I've no dog in the fight, you on the other hand have the handle 'DixieDean', hardly objective...Kind Regards, Son. |
|
By:
Football was a very different game 100 years ago.
Just as Dixie would struggle nowadays I imagine Earling would struggle in the 1920. Especially if he had to do a Saturday morning shift down the docks before facing Preston North End. |
|
By:
A few of the mesmerised comments
for Tottenham however a point would be a great result ..... mes is an Arsenal supporter Richarlison up front so that's a clean sheet for Bodo then ..... mes is an Arsenal supporter 212 million people in Brazil and they really can't produce a better centre forward than Richarlison ..... mes is an Arsenal supporter We all know your love for stats because of your 1920's hero Dixie Dean who clocked millions of goals against Shopkeepers, Tesco workers, security guards and flower stall holders ..... made up mes "facts" a one off great season in which he filled his boots against Postman, milkman, cinema ushers, sheep shearers and future Tesco workers ..... made up mes "facts" We know all this, you've told us all before about the statistical genius, you must be a distance relative to be so passionate about someone you've never seen live, ..... made up mes "facts" today's game which is as athletic, skillful and professional as the game could ever possible be, fined tuned to the max, we've reached the limits of what an elite player looks like and is like. Putting players from a bygone era such as the 20's where training was probably once a week on a cow's patch of a training pitch, the goal keeper was an overweight bus conductor smoking 20 Benson & Hedges a day and the defenders he was running past were straight in the pub after the game, doesn't really cut it does it. ..... made up mes "facts" but it's like in tennis, nobody takes records and statistics from the Pre Open-era seriously either. It's pure guess work to suggest that player then could adapt now, whether they could or couldn't is by the by, nobody knows, so we can only take those that have been a part of the truly professional era that's encompassed all the modern advancements that have evolved over time, as players who are a part of the conversation of 'true greats'. ..... made up mes "facts" on tennis Real facts The tennis Open era began in 1968 (pros could play in all events) Tennis Grand Slam singles winners Don Budge 1938 Maureen Connolly 1953 Rod Laver 1962, 1969 Margaret Court 1970 Steffi Graf 1988 Rod Laver won a Grand Slam in the amateur era and in the professional era. mes would not have laver as a true great as "we can only take those that have been a part of the truly professional ....... as players who are a part of the conversation of 'true greats" |
|
By:
argue
[ˈɑːɡjuː] verb argue (verb) argues (third person present) argued (past tense) argued (past participle) arguing (present participle) give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view: argument (noun) arguments (plural noun) a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory: Thought you might like a quick english lesson mes "you do not have an argument, you just argue" how can you present an argument if you are not arguing your case, you numpty |
|
By:
Kinscem, Rod Laver was a great of his era, but everyone knows that if he played today, i.e. the most advanced, powerful and techincal era of the sport, he wouldn't even be top 100, he was 5ft8, you need a bigger frame to allow for a more powerful game that today's tennis requires, nobody under 5ft 11 has won a slam in decades. His era was also serve and volley, it's a baseline game now, his era had 3 of the slams on grass, the least used surface today, it's more dynamic now with 3 different surfaces used at the 4 slams. It was virtually a different sport in his day. When the open era began and it 'suddenly became professional' obviously it's not going to be at it's most professional from day one is it, the next generation will take time to come up and take it to the next level - incidentally, nobody takes Courts slams seriously on the whole, she won so many playing 5 rounds rather than today's 7, and alot of the Aussie slams she won were against local bums, most top players didn't bother going down there for years, that even exteneded to the likes of Agassi and McEnroe who missed some.
Dixie still making an absolute fo.ol of himself, doesn't understand he's just argueing his point mindlessly for the sake it because for weird reason he's a paid up member of the Dixie Dean fan club - a player he has literally never seen play once, but it's ok people, he can read statitsics off wiki like a good un' what an absolute Grade A mug. |
|
By:
I'll take that as an "oh gawd, mes has made himself look a cretin again" admission
|
|
By:
Poor sod, he's had his yellow stained pants pulled over his bonce, spun around and tripped over so many times, he's now reduced himself to using caustic, malicious and hostile terminology to express himself to let me know not that he's not just been rattled in the last day or so, oh no, he's been absolutely seething with incandescent rage the whole time,
thanks Dixie. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
Well we got the "true mesmerised" in the end.
Try a self awareness course little one, hopefully it will be of benefit. |
|
By:
imagined 'victories'
|
|
By:
mesmerised ignores his own words
"but it's like in tennis, nobody takes records and statistics from the Pre Open-era seriously either. It's pure guess work to suggest that player then could adapt now, whether they could or couldn't is by the by, nobody knows" nobody knows, but mesmerised does know. "but everyone knows that if he played today, ....... he wouldn't even be top 100" |