Luka Modric interview on Football Focus

[danielneeds]

That Blackburn team are not a patch on Leicester or any team currently in the Prem, in an era where there was technical quality and tactical discipline that Blackburn team didn't need to have much team cohesion or patterns of play, they were very much your typical English side 4-4-2 with flying wingers and a powerful striker with a good midfield engine, in fact the only thing this Blackburn team have only many teams nowadays is their mentality, they had some match winners and captains in their side but as far as ability is concerned they don't match up.

Hmm 442 you say... What do Leicester play?
Hmm, flying wingers... Albrighton and Mahrez.
Good midfield engine... Kante and Drinkwater.
Power striker.... Shearer and Vardy...

I really don't see much standout quality in the PL the last few years, a lot of the successful sides or the late 90s early 00s would wipe the floor with this league.

 

[Spurger King]

Hmm 442 you say... What do Leicester play?
Hmm, flying wingers... Albrighton and Mahrez.
Good midfield engine... Kante and Drinkwater.
Power striker.... Shearer and Vardy...

I really don't see much standout quality in the PL the last few years, a lot of the successful sides or the late 90s early 00s would wipe the floor with this league.

Do you actually remember that season? They were nothing like Leicester.

 

[Shadydan]

Hmm 442 you say... What do Leicester play?
Hmm, flying wingers... Albrighton and Mahrez.
Good midfield engine... Kante and Drinkwater.
Power striker.... Shearer and Vardy...

I really don't see much standout quality in the PL the last few years, a lot of the successful sides or the late 90s early 00s would wipe the floor with this league.

Yeah we can all compare formations and players who play in the same positions from teams and players and different era's...

And also mahrez or Albrighton aren't flying wingers, for a start Albrighton cuts in on his stronger side to cross the ball and Marez doesn't get anywhere near the touchline, he's allowed to roam about, they are nothing like Wilcox or Ripley who were traditional flying wingers.

Try watching both teams and you'll see what I mean, the difference in quality was stark, I really don't know what you're watching.

 

[Spurger King]

I really don't see much standout quality in the PL the last few years, a lot of the successful sides or the late 90s early 00s would wipe the floor with this league.

Didn't even see this part!

Nonsense

 

[Shadydan]

Ridiculous lol

 

[danielneeds]

Yeah we can all compare formations and players who play in the same positions from teams and players and different era's...

Try watching both teams and you'll see what I mean, the difference in quality was stark, I really don't know what you're watching.

I'm not saying they are identical or anything, just that they remind me a bit of Leicester. Strong spirit, good compact side, with a superstar striker in the form of his life, and they play to his strengths - Leicester with the balls over the top for Vardy, Blackburn with the crosses from Wilcox and Ripley into Shearer.

 

[Shadydan]

This is a typical game back in that era:



How can anyone say the quality was better back then lol

 

[danielneeds]

Didn't even see this part!

Nonsense

Whatever, believe the "best league in the world" bollox. PL has been poor in terms of quality for a few years. Teams doing nothing in European competition and getting close to losing the 4th CL spot, is a fair barometer.

 

[spursram]

They'd get pissed on from a great height.

What, with Captain Sherwood leading them?!!

 

[Shadydan]

Whatever, believe the "best league in the world" bollox. PL has been poor in terms of quality for a few years. Teams doing nothing in European competition and getting close to losing the 4th CL spot, is a fair barometer.

Jesus, way to go off on a tangent, as if that's the argument. We're not comparing leagues, we are comparing era's

 

[Spurger King]

Whatever, believe the "best league in the world" bollox. PL has been poor in terms of quality for a few years. Teams doing nothing in European competition and getting close to losing the 4th CL spot, is a fair barometer.

If anything, we've been a victim of our own success. The general quality in the Prem is incredible. Oil Money disrupted the traditional top 4, and started to spread the top quality across 5 instead of 4 teams. We've invested heavily, as have Liverpool. Recently, TV money has meant that the likes of West Ham and Stoke have been able to buy major talents that no 'also-ran' in the late 90s or early 2000s would have had.

The league is significantly stronger now in terms of quality, but because it is spread more evenly it dilutes the strengths of our best teams. That's why two-horse races like La Liga, the Bundesliga, and Serie A have been so successful in Europe over recent years, because all their quality is confined to one or two teams.

 

[danielneeds]

If anything, we've been a victim of our own success. The general quality in the Prem is incredible. Oil Money disrupted the traditional top 4, and started to spread the top quality across 5 instead of 4 teams. We've invested heavily, as have Liverpool. Recently, TV money has meant that the likes of West Ham and Stoke have been able to buy major talents that no 'also-ran' in the late 90s or early 2000s would have had.

The league is significantly stronger now in terms of quality, but because it is spread more evenly it dilutes the strengths of our best teams. That's why two-horse races like La Liga, the Bundesliga, and Serie A have been so successful in Europe over recent years, because all their quality is confined to one or two teams.

I dunno, I think the league has concertina'd in the last few years. The top teams are not as good, the middling teams are a bit better. A lot of average players getting paid a hell of a lot of money at the moment though.

 

[Spurger King]

I dunno, I think the league has concertina'd in the last few years. The top teams are not as good, the middling teams are a bit better. A lot of average players getting paid a hell of a lot of money at the moment though.

But how many star players are there outside the Prem?

Barca and Madrid obviously collect the very best. Bayern have some great players, but I doubt they'd walk the English league, PSG spend millions, and Juve have Pogba. That's five teams.

Our best teams may not be as dominant, but no league on the planet has the general quality of the Prem. Stoke would probably be in the top four in Spain, the top three in Germany, and the top two in France. Chelsea, who are doing shit in the Prem this season, have more star players than 99% of Serie A.

If the best players in the Prem were all playing for four teams, we'd dominate European competitions like we once did.

 

[Sevens]

Well it is a Benitez fact really, because I wasn't talking about individuals but the overall quality of the opposition the greatest players were up against. The standard of the average player shot up when crazy money became involved. I've watched top flight matches from the 60s and 70s, and half the players look like pub team jokers.

Your example of Giggs actually sums it up perfectly. His quality didn't dip (actually, if anything it continued to improve until the last two or three seasons), but the quality of the opposition (due to the increased financial investment in football from the 90s onwards) meant he was playing against an increasingly higher quality of opponent.

Shearer was an outstanding footballer that would have been successful in any era, but stick the Blackburn Premier League winning team in the league today and they'd be mid-table at best.

Giggs' quality didn't dip? He became a different kind of player when his physical attributes dipped and he was nowhere near as effective. I'd say the Giggs of the mid 90's was 30% better than the Giggs of the 00's.

And that Blackburn side is probably the weakest team to win the Premier League but it was very balanced and had a red hot striker. Funnily enough it was superior to the 2015/16 Leicester City side. Go figure.

I've been saying for a few years now that he quality in football is on a slow decline. I put the blame squarely on the squad game (lesser teams are not as good as they were in yesteryears simply because they can no longer hang on to their best players) and the amount of money players earn. It used to just be foreign players who really didn't give a toss. Now it happens to home grown players as well. I'd say players used to peak in their late 20's/early 30's. Nowadays it's more like mid-20's once a player realises they aren't going to be top drawer they take the money and slide into not giving a shit.

 

[Sevens]

I do wonder if there will come a point where things plateau (or maybe its already happened).

The way things are set up in world football, it's now incredibly difficult for gifted young players to slip through the net. Too many scouts and agents clamouring to find the next big talent for real ability to go unnoticed, and there's a cap on how fit a player can be that I think we've already reached.

I think it's easier to look to players from about 10 years ago (such as Zidane) and say they would clearly have the same impact today. Short of a significant drop in financial investment in football, I can't see the general quality we have now changing much over the next 10 or 20 years.

None of the truly great players ever slipped through the net. As for the rest, you'll always get players who blossom late (quite often they don't, it's simply that they spend much of their careers with managers not playing to their strengths and thus they go unnoticed). The Premier League this year is a prime example of that.

 

[Spurger King]

Giggs' quality didn't dip? He became a different kind of player when his physical attributes dipped and he was nowhere near as effective. I'd say the Giggs of the mid 90's was 30% better than the Giggs of the 00's

Yes...because the quality of the opposition increased.

We can continue going around in circles on this point, but sooner or later we both need to depart the carousel and admit that I'm right.

 

[Sevens]

But how many star players are there outside the Prem?

Barca and Madrid obviously collect the very best. Bayern have some great players, but I doubt they'd walk the English league, PSG spend millions, and Juve have Pogba. That's five teams.

Our best teams may not be as dominant, but no league on the planet has the general quality of the Prem. Stoke would probably be in the top four in Spain, the top three in Germany, and the top two in France. Chelsea, who are doing shit in the Prem this season, have more star players than 99% of Serie A.

If the best players in the Prem were all playing for four teams, we'd dominate European competitions like we once did.

The problem is the best players in the Prem in 15/16 aren't as good as the best players in the Prem from earlier eras. The Prem hasn't had a truly outstanding team for quite some time now.

 

[Spurger King]

None of the truly great players ever slipped through the net. As for the rest, you'll always get players who blossom late (quite often they don't, it's simply that they spend much of their careers with managers not playing to their strengths and thus they go unnoticed). The Premier League this year is a prime example of that.

But in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the net wasn't cast anywhere near as wide as it is now. I don't really get what is so controversial about that statement.

In this day and age, if you're a talented young footballer you're far more likely to pursue it as a career than in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. And far more likely to be identified if you're good enough.

These are facts.

 

[Sevens]

Yes...because the quality of the opposition increased.

We can continue going around in circles on this point, but sooner or later we both need to depart the carousel and admit that I'm right.

But the quality of opposition didn't improve. Spurs of 94/95 (under Francis) would easily be top four today. Probably title winners.

I don't think it's just English football though. I think there is a real dearth of talent globally. I think less kids are interested in playing football, many of them get rich too fast and lose the "Eye of the Tiger" early in their careers and in truth kids are probably over coached and clubs take too much of a moneyball approach to player development and recruitment. You can even see it in the player personalities and how much more they are mentally immature comparative to even 20 years ago.

 

[Sevens]

But in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the net wasn't cast anywhere near as wide as it is now. I don't really get what is so controversial about that statement.

In this day and age, if you're a talented young footballer you're far more likely to pursue it as a career than in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. And far more likely to be identified if you're good enough.

These are facts.

OK, care to back that up with some statistical evidence?