Brazilianbob

I get your point but I think it is arguable that the modern game based upon superfit players is not what I would call football, and don't call me Shirley, it's Bob. Anyway this all started because Stevie said that Bell would not hack it in the modern game, but he was a forerunner of what the modern game is all about, hence he was nicknamed after a champion racehorse. As for Stevies ludicrous statement that Pele could not hack it in the conference, well that just about blows all his arguments out of the water.

Where do people get this crazy notion that footballers from the 60's, 70's and 80's were not as fit as modern footballers, just because they didn't have the advantage of an electronic machine telling them what their ideal body fat mass was, doesn't mean they didn't pump as much iron as modern footballers. The Colin Bell I saw playing was a fit, lean, fast, and athletic footballer and any of the top clubs would break the bank to sign him if he was playing today. Surely he was just an exceptional athlete. Would he stand out as much today though? I don't think there's any real debate players are fitter now. I've seen massive improvements in the time I've been watching football. I disagree, what you are seeing are players who are now trained to the extent that their leg muscles are like coiled springs ready to snap at the slightest over-exertion, hence the number of players who regularly miss a third of the season due to injury. There is a belief that modern training methods are counterproductive when it comes to putting players on the pitch for a full season. Just look at Torres and Gerrard, constantly suffering from groin and hamstring problems from over- stretching too taut muscles! I think there is probably something to that but that's a different type of fitness, if you like. Do players actually get injured more these days though? Or do they just miss games rather than play through the pain, have injections etc. that wreck their later careers? Using single examples doesn't prove anything. I could just as easily quote an example like Gary Speed as a player who played well into his 30s and rarely missed a game. However, that's different to the point I was making in my previous post anyway which relates to more metres being covered on average which in turn makes the game quicker because there is less space etc. That's what I meant by players being fitter. And I would respond by pointing you to one of my earlier responses that the modern game has practically been reduced to a 100 metres race between striker and defender. As for using Bell as an example, I could produce a huge list of similar players who were just as fit as Bell!

Where do people get this crazy notion that footballers from the 60's, 70's and 80's were not as fit as modern footballers, just because they didn't have the advantage of an electronic machine telling them what their ideal body fat mass was, doesn't mean they didn't pump as much iron as modern footballers. The Colin Bell I saw playing was a fit, lean, fast, and athletic footballer and any of the top clubs would break the bank to sign him if he was playing today. Surely he was just an exceptional athlete. Would he stand out as much today though? I don't think there's any real debate players are fitter now. I've seen massive improvements in the time I've been watching football. I disagree, what you are seeing are players who are now trained to the extent that their leg muscles are like coiled springs ready to snap at the slightest over-exertion, hence the number of players who regularly miss a third of the season due to injury. There is a belief that modern training methods are counterproductive when it comes to putting players on the pitch for a full season. Just look at Torres and Gerrard, constantly suffering from groin and hamstring problems from over- stretching too taut muscles!

Where do people get this crazy notion that footballers from the 60's, 70's and 80's were not as fit as modern footballers, just because they didn't have the advantage of an electronic machine telling them what their ideal body fat mass was, doesn't mean they didn't pump as much iron as modern footballers. The Colin Bell I saw playing was a fit, lean, fast, and athletic footballer and any of the top clubs would break the bank to sign him if he was playing today.

Ever the diplomat. Just say it! Brazilian Bob, I don't mean to cause offence, I just found what you said about the pace being no different now as pure and utter pony, but you're entitled to your opinion regardless how flawed. I did see Supermac, and he was running away from people with 6 pints in their stomach from the night before, whereas nowadays you have four defenders who can run 100m in eleven seconds, people like Gael Clichy. No real offence taken Stevie, I just don't see the need for bad language, although I do accept we all resort to it at times. I am assuming you wouldn't use it to my face, so all I am asking is don't do it on a chat forum. You may be surprised to know that in his time at NUFC, Supermac was regularly clocked as doing the 100 metres in around 11 seconds, but he was not the fastest man on the books, that honour belonged to defender Frank Clark, who would probably have been GBR's best sprinter in the Olympics if he wasn't a professional footballer! All I am saying is you don't run at that pace without being fit, and I can remember recently seeing pictures of KK in his prime, circa early to mid 70s, where he had the abs and pecs that we saw on Cristiano Ronaldo just this week. So in my view most players were as fit then as they are today, although I will accept that some were not as fit as the could have been, and the name of Bob Latchford springs to mind, but that is also applicable to many modern players. Even if I was to accept that the game might be faster today, it doesn't mean it is better, because it's no good being quick if you can't marry football skills with the pace of the game, which is why we often see frenetic efforts with little end product because the defenders are just as quick as the forwards and so cancel each other out. The game has practically been reduced to a 100 metres race between forwards and defencers. If anything I would say that the old times were better because the level of skill was higher across the pitch, we saw midfield players who didn't see the point of running 80 yards at full pelt when they had the skill to pick out a striker on the penalty spot from 80yards, [i.e Glen Hoddle, Tony Currie, Joe Baker, and our own Jimmy Smith etc] whilst on the other hand we saw the likes of Tony Green and the sadly departed Alan Ball who could run all day and frequently did, and Ball won a world cup, unlike most of the players currently in the EPL. If I could take you back in time and show you the games I saw, I am sure you would change your point of view, but I cannot do that so we will have to agree to disagree.

Aye cos Gerrard's lacking in energy and stamina isn't he? I've often argued Pele wouldn't get a game in the conference and I stand by that. Old football was slow, people were putting tabs out on the half way line till the 1940's. Stevie If you really think "old football" was slower you are deluding yourself. In his prime, Pele was head and shoulders above any player currently playing anywhere in the world and that includes Messi, Christiano Ronaldo, Ronaldinho et al. I have seen both old and current football and I can assure you that the majority of old footballers were more skilful, probably because the pitches were rubbish, which possibly slowed them down, but that doesn't mean they weren't fast. They were every bit as fast as their modern counteparts given a good pitch. As regards the comparison between Gerrard and Bell I would stake my life on the statement that pound for pound Colin Bell was a better player than Steven Gerrard period, just ask any seasoned Man City fan. Bell was a box to box player who had a thunderbold of a long-range shot on him. He created goals, scored them with both feet and his head, took free kicks, and he tracked back and defended when needed. His stamina was amazing and it wan't me that gave him that nickname, he got that from the press because he earned it. It was a tragedy when injury forced his all too early retirement. I'm not going to respond to anything else you've put there, cos I stopped reading. Surely you are a wind up??? I've been watching football since 83 or 84 and going since 85, I'd say football is 100% faster now than it was even at USA 94, 15 YEARS AGO, noticably too, and then it was MUCH faster than 10 years previously. To say it was anything like football today in the 60's and 70's. 99 out of 100 people who know about football not mugs on forums, would say you are talking the biggest load of shit written on an internet message board. Giraffidae, Maric was the best player on the pitch that neet. Stevie Give yourself a good hard slap mate and watch your insulting language! If you can't have a reasonable debate don't post OK! I have been watching these games since the mid 60's so I do feel qualified to give a balanced point of view. Quite how you think you have the qualifications to comment on games prior to 1983, that you have only watched on old edited TV footage, is questionable to say the least. As regards USA 94 did you take into account the fact that it was exceedingly hot at the time? Check the temperature records and you will find most games were played in the evening to get round the excessive heat, hence the slow pace of games! You ever heard of the term dehydration? You obviously never saw Supermac play, because if you had you would not come up with the ridiculous statement that "football is 100% faster now than the 60's 70's and 80's". Supermac had electric pace, just watch the 1974 FA Cup semi final against Burnley for evidence of that. Tony Green another 70's player, is also by far the quickest midfield player I have ever had the good fortune to see play. These are just two former NUFC players in a very average 1970's Newcastle side. The game in the 60's, 70's, and 80's was littered with similar players all blessed with pace and skill in abundance so please don't try and tell me the game is faster now than it was then, because quite simply it is not true!

Aye cos Gerrard's lacking in energy and stamina isn't he? I've often argued Pele wouldn't get a game in the conference and I stand by that. Old football was slow, people were putting tabs out on the half way line till the 1940's. Stevie If you really think "old football" was slower you are deluding yourself. In his prime, Pele was head and shoulders above any player currently playing anywhere in the world and that includes Messi, Christiano Ronaldo, Ronaldinho et al. I have seen both old and current football and I can assure you that the majority of old footballers were more skilful, probably because the pitches were rubbish, which possibly slowed them down, but that doesn't mean they weren't fast. They were every bit as fast as their modern counteparts given a good pitch. As regards the comparison between Gerrard and Bell I would stake my life on the statement that pound for pound Colin Bell was a better player than Steven Gerrard period, just ask any seasoned Man City fan. Bell was a box to box player who had a thunderbold of a long-range shot on him. He created goals, scored them with both feet and his head, took free kicks, and he tracked back and defended when needed. His stamina was amazing and it wan't me that gave him that nickname, he got that from the press because he earned it. It was a tragedy when injury forced his all too early retirement.

I always thought the two goal performance by dutch international Johnny Rep for Bastia? at SJP in the UEFA Cup was outstanding. The boy had an absolutely ferocious shot on him, and boy could he play. That aside, I was priviledged to see George Best at his "best", Bobby Charlton, Denis Law etc as well as the likes of Jimmy Greaves, Alan Gilzean, Ralph Coates, Jonny Giles, Billy Bremner, KK, Toshack, Derek Dougan and Peter Knowles. Colin (Nijinsky) Bell stands out as one of the best players I have seen though, he had everything that Gerrard has but his stamina was remarkable (hence the nickname) and if he was playing today he would have run the legs off Gerrard.

Once saw a woman jump off the platform at Hemel Hempstead station into the path of the Birmingham to Euston express which was doing about 100mph. She literally burst apart and all my fellow commuters on the platform were covered in blood guts and brains. Fortunately for me, for the first time that year I had opted to sit in the waiting room as it was a bit nippy. I normally sat right next to where she jumped from!!

Apparently it is very common in motorcycle accidents for the drivers "privates parts" to be impacted by the petrol tank when the driver is catapulted forwards. Very nasty indeed!

Who cares if some mug stumps up millions to rename the ground, it will always be SJP to me. I think this is a massive over-reaction to a reasonable business opportunity. Also the renaming may not be forever but may be for a fixed period, then the bidding starts all over again.

All these so called changes to eradicate errors in the game are purely down to the money involved. EPL clubs (in particular Fergie) were calling for professional referees because of the mistakes they were making and because they were not held to be accountable. Now they are professionals and accountable, I don't see any less mistakes being made, but what we are seeing is referees being dropped for making a crucial mistake and the top EPL clubs then have the advantage of inexperienced refs who are afraid to give pens, decisions etc to the away team at places like Old Trafford, Anfield, Stamford Bridge and the Emirates. It hasn't improved the standard of refereeing because the game is so fast, it is impossible to get it right 100% of the time, but that is the unachievable goal of EPL managers/clubs. What is wrong with relying on the old rule that the referees decision is final in all matters! I would consider amending that rule to also state there is no right of appeal and that constant whinging by clubs to the press could result in a points deduction. If the ref makes a mistake tough! It's been proved in the past that these decision even themselves out eventually.

As I have said before on other forums, Ashley's insistence on the club not going further into debt other than the £100m owed to him speaks volumes. It means when we go down the sale of players not wanting to stay will more than recoup much of the £100m loan and he can then sell at the price he paid, i.e. £134m and he walks away not exactly a winner but not losing anything cash-wise. By getting rid of the high earners he makes the club more attractive at the asking price he paid and if he gets ball park figures of £5m for Barton, £13m for Martins, £7m Collocini, £10m Bassong, £10m Taylor (yes others will pay that for him because he is very highly regarded in the EPL), Enrique £5m, Gutierrez £6m Duff £4m, plus others then he will rake in £60m to £70m at least. If he then sells some of our promising youngsters like Lua Lua, Kadar (when fit) Ranger and perhaps the new Slovenian lad then he will have his loan pretty much .repaid We on the other hand are repaid in full by for suggesting he and his family would not be safe attending matches after KK left. I have no doubt whatsoever he will walk out of SJP with a great big smile on his face.

I've said this before but the fans will ultimately buy the club for Ashley in much the same way the Glazers bought Man and then put the debt on the club to repay. Ashley bought the club for around £130m by setting up a holding company St James Holdings and lending the money to St James Holdings. The debt was then discovered and he loaned St James Holdings a further £100m. Any other funding such as the occassional input of £10m here and £10m there is simply a further loan to St james Holdings. St James Holdings are required to repay the loans to Ashley so that eventually the entire loan of around £250m will be repaid. That is why he wants the club to pay up front for players, so there is no debt and any income generated by the club in retail sales sponsorship etc can be used to pay him back sooner rather than later. Eventually Ashley will own the club lock stock and barrel, i.e. his loans will have been repaid out of the fans money and when or if he does sell for around £250m or more, depending on the economic state of the markets, that will be clear profit for him. Not bad eh? £250m clear profit, and all that for simply providing an interest free loan of £250m.