Is the football really so much better now, as opposed to Pre Sky?

[Quiet Lion]

I am fairly certain the teams these days would smoke the teams from the 20 year ago.

When the premier league kicked off there were 11 players not from the British isles, and most of them were shit.

[Lucky Eddie]

Not sure that's true. Arsenal didn't buy it. Neither did the fergie kids team at man u. But it clearly has become increasingly a game of haves and have nots. I doubt I'll ever see villa win the league now. Mind you, we only won it once in the last 100 years!!

Matt - are you sure Man U didn't buy the title? Did they not spend massive amounts on individual players, that most teams would have had to use for a whole team?
I love it when they bleat about not being able tomatch the Chelsea & Man Citys in fees, yet they had carte blanche during the formative years of the Premiership.

It's a modern day myth.United have always spent big in the market.Without looking it up i reckon they've broken the British transfer record more times than any other club.Robson,Pallister and Ferdinand immediately spring to mind and Berbatov as well? Add to that the likes of Rooney and Veron.

And before that, they spent big sums relative to the times on Robson, Moses, Davenport, Birtles, Brazil, Muhren, Parker etc

The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.

[Simon Ward]

NO!

[Concrete John]

The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.

Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality?  Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.

[QBVILLA]

The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.

Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality?  Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.

There's been a definite change in their policy.The signings of Jones and Smalling, ie kids for big fees tells us that they haven't got anyone of that calibre in the academy.Welbeck and Cleverley are  looking good but they've both had season long loans at Premiership clubs.It used to be a few months in the lower leagues.Maybe the level of competition means the top clubs don't produce their own any more.Who was Chelsea's last academy graduate to establish himself? i can only think of Terry, and he's 30 now.

[Fergal]

Its very interesting to see the many perceptions given by fellow posters

personally i only know the premiership era and i ask are we asking the question has the football improved?

Thhats what i see as the meaning of this thread though i ask orginal poster what is meant by question regarding hyped football?
One can argue its neglibile to compare the times before the 90s to now

i heard that livepool use to be good in 70s 80s but are they as good as man u are in premier era?

The football utd played i wuld think was far supwerior to livepool of yester era

similarly arsenal and invincibles and football wenger had/has team play was prob greatest anyone had seen in england.
Heck even newcastle werr a very entertaining side i dont know if there weere teams like this in past ?
Ginola cantona bergkamp pires henry fabregas amazing players
 and i think they rose the bar for english football
but i was nevere around to see pre sky
and i m only taking question on techinica level so i think players in premiership are proper atheltes now though im sure players and football of past had there moments

Almost anything said by Andy Gray and his 'mouth watering' comments.

[brice jovial]

Andy Gray is a hype machine so YES then even without knowledge from previous era.

[Meanwood Villa]

I would say the biggest difference is the lack of competition and the tedious dominance of a revolting team that play in red from the North West of England. Then I remember who won most of the titles in the late 70s and 80s...

In answer to the original poster's question I would say it is very difficult to compare the quality of players in different eras and always has been. Who was better out of Athersmith, Matthews or Best? What we have now is a level of football in the media on a much larger scale than we've ever seen before. I'm torn on whether this is a "good thing". On the one hand the Sky/PL/Champs League machine is an odious thing and helps perpetuate, even exarcebate, the massive inequity in the game. On the other hand, despite all this I enjoy following the game so like reading about it, listening to it, watching it (although I've given up Sky) so saturation coverage has its up-sides. Also if you can't afford to go in person to many games like myself I look forward to being able to watch us down the pub as a supplement to watching games live.

[Pat McMahon]

The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.

Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality?  Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.

I completely agree with you John. After the pathetic England performance in S Africa last year I was chatting with mates about the paucity of top quality English players in general, but also of the failure of the Sky 4 to produce their own players from their academies. Off the top of my head the last players from those clubs' academies that I would  class as regular internationals would be Fletcher & O'Shea at Man U, Terry from Chelsea, Gerrard (Liverpool) and Cole (Arsenal). There must be a couple of others but none that leap out - despite the hype it is too early to judge Wilshere.

The Premier League has allowed the big clubs to generate vast sums from TV, ably abetted by the Champs League  which really is a global marketing phenomenon.  The inner sanctum becomes more unattainable with every passing season and the richest clubs become more wealthy and have no desire for the long game of a productive youth policy. Much easier to plunder the world and buy the ready made players off the shelf.

[ktvillan]

Living abroad I like the fact I can watch most games on satellite, but for me football was way better before Sky.

It's the lack of competition that kills it for me now, you know more or less every year what the top 3 or 4 will be and can have a pretty good guess at the next 3 or 4 as well.

I think some things have changed for the better but the game has been over-sanitized for me with the virtual abolition of the tackle.  Sky can hype it up all they wish but an awful lot of both Villa and non-Villa games I've seen the last few seasons have been crap to watch.

[not3bad]

I am fairly certain the teams these days would smoke the teams from the 20 year ago.

Certainly for Mans Utd and City and Chelsea, with their megabucks teams, that is probably true.  Do you think the Aston Villa of now would 'smoke' the Aston Villa that finished runners up under Graham Taylor?

[saunders_heroes]

The football mid to late 1980s was awful. Empty crumbling stadiums. hooliganism etc. It wasn't all that great pre Sky you know.

[Billy Walker]

The money they spend to buy success isn't just limited to their back page headline signings, a huge part of it is in their buying out promising teenagers contracts in Europe and Africa.

Yet since that Beckham/Giggs/Scholes generation, who have they actually produced of genuine top quality?  Their best is the likes of Fletcher and O'Shea, who are good PL players, but hardly of the calibre they'd go out and sign as established pros.

I love how the media are going all misty eyed at this new generation of young Man Utd stars, and Fergie saying how Man United fans love to see youngsters given a chance.  Well, pardon me, Fergie, if I don't quite buy into the romance that is shelling out the best part £45 million to buy the brightest products of other clubs' academies.

[TopDeck113]

Every club "plunders" other clubs' academies. We did it with Jlloyd Samuel and Gareth Barry to name but two.  Or alternatively pays for the young first team player developed through his club's academy, e.g. Ashley Young.

Fergie is right, and this is the case regardless of whether it is Man Utd, Aston Villa or Cheltenham Town, supporters like nothing better than seeing the youngster come through and make it in the first team.  That Man Utd haven't had many in recent years makes them not that different to most of the top clubs.  It also shows how remarkable that group of Giggs, Beckham, et al were.   

[noodles_]

Quality wise its better but excitement wise not really. Pre SKY if your club invested some money and got a good manager and some decent players you had a chance of challenging/winning the league. Now the best most clubs can hope for is a Europa place. Which is pretty shit.