• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute?

Rotation, rotation, rotation

Tom Hark

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
127
I don't disagree with Ståle's logic, but this whole team-selection-at-Chelsea business, not to mention the many observations about how little recovery time there is between league games in the Championship, has set me wondering what's changed since the 70s and beyond. The second-tier season was only four games shorter, there was only one sub allowed, yet if a Division 2 side had been drawn against the league leaders in a cup tie there'd have been no chance of them fielding anything other than their strongest team and taking the field like David trying to give Goliath a bloody nose. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall the same first eleven turning out game after game, injury permitting. Why are attitudes so different now? Are players less fit? More cosseted? Do they work harder during a game (though surely pitches and equipment are both less draining now than then)? Is it just that squads have more depth? Have managers simply given up, believing the gulf is now so wide that it's not even worth trying seriously to bridge? Or is it that promotion to the PL has become the Holy Grail, to be striven for above all?
 

Deutsch Wolf

*Funny User Title Coming Soon*
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
95,965
Reaction score
3,349
The game's just so much more physically demanding now than it was 30-40 years ago; these players are athletes as well as footballers. They're not eating steak and chips and smoking 20 Marlboro any more, and rest and recuperation is imperative for elite performers.

Any of us chumps can go down the park and kick a ball about the night after going down the pub, but there's a big difference.

If you could put the Leeds team from the 1970s into a time machine and put them in today's Premier League, they wouldn't get 10 points.
 

Doctor Doog

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
26
One thing I think you have forgotten is how slow the game was then compared to today. Very often players slowed to walking pace towards the end of the match, as fitness levels were much lower. Someone could have a bad game because they were knackered or had been out on the booze. That wouldn't be allowed to happen now. The difference in quality between the leagues was also smaller.
 

Doctor Doog

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
26
The game's just so much more physically demanding now than it was 30-40 years ago; these players are athletes as well as footballers. They're not eating steak and chips and smoking 20 Marlboro any more, and rest and recuperation is imperative for elite performers.

Any of us chumps can go down the park and kick a ball about the night after going down the pub, but there's a big difference.

If you could put the Leeds team from the 1970s into a time machine and put them in today's Premier League, they wouldn't get 10 points.

They wouldn't get by on the same eleven every week though as half of them would be supsended for most of the season
 

Deutsch Wolf

*Funny User Title Coming Soon*
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
95,965
Reaction score
3,349
If you were to pick out a contemporary and familiar example, have a look at Milijas. Good but not exceptional footballer, very much out of his depth in the English game because of its pace and his own issues with natural fitness and lifestyle. Most players are big, fast and strong, as well as talented - you don't retain a physique like that and play non-stop.

Also look at the longevity of players' careers these days thanks to the advances in sports science and squad rotation. Players were routinely written off once they hit 30 in the past, but no more.
 

NorwayFB

The elderly, irritating relative at weddings
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
9,938
Reaction score
0
I don't disagree with Ståle's logic, but this whole team-selection-at-Chelsea business, not to mention the many observations about how little recovery time there is between league games in the Championship, has set me wondering what's changed since the 70s and beyond. The second-tier season was only four games shorter, there was only one sub allowed, yet if a Division 2 side had been drawn against the league leaders in a cup tie there'd have been no chance of them fielding anything other than their strongest team and taking the field like David trying to give Goliath a bloody nose. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall the same first eleven turning out game after game, injury permitting. Why are attitudes so different now? Are players less fit? More cosseted? Do they work harder during a game (though surely pitches and equipment are both less draining now than then)? Is it just that squads have more depth? Have managers simply given up, believing the gulf is now so wide that it's not even worth trying seriously to bridge? Or is it that promotion to the PL has become the Holy Grail, to be striven for above all?

Sadly times have changed,I don't think "recovery time" was even in anyone's vocabulary back then.
With more money in the game,bigger squads and the TV (over)exposure you have to keep more players content/happy,and if you have good enough replacements fresh legs can make a difference.

I don't consider what Ståle did rotation tho,rotation for me is changing 2-3 players every other game...
 

FrankMunro-371

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
36,785
Reaction score
0
The game was far more demanding in the seventies. The pitches nowadays are like billiard tables. How would todays stars have coped on the Baseball Ground mudbath?
 

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,741
Reaction score
704
How would defenders back in the 70's have dealt with someone like Robben or Bale sprinting past them for 90 minutes solid? They've had been blowing out their arses after 15 minutes.
 

pavlosmacwolf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
10,393
Reaction score
58
How would defenders back in the 70's have dealt with someone like Robben or Bale sprinting past them for 90 minutes solid? They've had been blowing out their arses after 15 minutes.

True Mark, but as Frank says, on the pitches way back when, he'd have had trouble getting out of the starting blocks, plus, of course, with the tackles allowed in the old days, he'd have been trying to sprint on his arse.
Back then a player like Bale would have been targetted from the off. I always fondly remember one old manager of mine, telling me as i was on my way out of the dressing room, "Mac, sort their number ten, and remember, get your retaliation in early".
 

Donegal Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
104
Villa when they won the league in 1981? used something like only 14 players in the whole league campaign, but things were set up different then, it was a first team and not a first team squad.
I think most of us at the time could have reeled off the first 11 of most top flight clubs without too much bother. The same players were going out every week but they were coming up against teams also fielding the same 11 each week.

Now its squad v squad
 

ROVERT47

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1
You can't really compare the first division of the 1970's with today's Premier League, the days of a team like Derby County winning the league are gone forever, there was always one or two decent players around then but the whole team in the Premier league circa 2012 are far better physically, mentally, and far more fitter than the 1970's.
There's an argument that it was more entertaining being more of a level playing field but the state of the pitches, thuggery and lack of fitness of many of the players etc, produced, by and large mickey mouse football on many occasions.
 

From Distant Shores

Forever Jesus Sanjuan
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
12
the whole team in the Premier league circa 2012 are far better physically, mentally, and far more fitter than the 1970's.

I agree about modern players being better physically and much fitter but not mentally. I don't think one of the current first team squad has anywhere near the guile of Dougan, the mental toughness of Duggie Woodfield, the leadership of Mike Bailey, the eye of Kenny Hibbitt, the decision making of Frank Munro or the coolness of John Richards and Derek Parkin.
 

James

No Tag
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
16,848
Reaction score
75
If you could put the Leeds team from the 1970s into a time machine and put them in today's Premier League, they wouldn't get 10 points

Well said Deutsch.

The game today is way too quick for the stars of the past. I personally think Pele would have struggled in the modern day game.

Frank the pitches would have made a big difference but the past players would still get played off the park.
 

Donegal Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
3,855
Reaction score
104
Well said Deutsch.

The game today is way too quick for the stars of the past. I personally think Pele would have struggled in the modern day game.

Frank the pitches would have made a big difference but the past players would still get played off the park.

Thats a bit too dismissive of players in the past, who is to say that if they had the same fitness programmes, diets, squad rotation, coaching through acadamies etc as present day players receive that they wouldnt make it in the modern game, its one of them things we will never know.
 

ROVERT47

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1
I agree about modern players being better physically and much fitter but not mentally. I don't think one of the current first team squad has anywhere near the guile of Dougan, the mental toughness of Duggie Woodfield, the leadership of Mike Bailey, the eye of Kenny Hibbitt, the decision making of Frank Munro or the coolness of John Richards and Derek Parkin.

Your opinion and that's fine by me but it's not an opinion i agree with.
 

ROVERT47

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
1
Thats a bit too dismissive of players in the past, who is to say that if they had the same fitness programmes, diets, squad rotation, coaching through acadamies etc as present day players receive that they wouldnt make it in the modern game, its one of them things we will never know.

Which makes these comparison debates that crop up from time to time a bit of a nonsense.
 

Lord Knows

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
10,103
Reaction score
0
You can't compare a totally different era to another because interpretation of rules has had a massive effect. Goalkeepers from previous generations had to be far more brave and courageous.
As the game as evolved particularly in Spain the emphasis has moved back towards skill not athleticism.
Messi proves you don't have to be the best physical specimen to become the best, and i don't see those Barcelona stars seeking rotation.
 

Mrs Tisi

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
916
Reaction score
0
The Doog, Richards, Hibbitt, Knocker, Bailey and Munro and Parkin were quality who would be top players in todays game. This stuff about the seventies football being rubbish is actually...rubbish. Better players back then, and tackles were allowed.
 

Kenny

Admin: Turns like Gary Breen,
Staff member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
48,809
Reaction score
2,825
This stuff about the seventies football being rubbish is actually...rubbish..

Ignore James.........but the rest are basically saying the game is different rather than they are rubbish. Fitness/Training etc is a million miles away from what the Doog etc would have done and if you employed the 70's way v the current way, the current way would come out on top. Obviously if the players from that era did what the current players do, it would be a different outcome.
 

Lord Knows

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
10,103
Reaction score
0
Training would be different not harder in athletics could Mo Farah train harder than Dave Bedford or do we just know more about nutrition and recovery.
 
Top