10Rivaldo
Hoy, mañana y siempre traductor
By your logic, if Puskas was around now he'd be even more athletic, faster, stronger, and more agile. So he'd be even better.
Which is better : AC Milan (1989-1990) or FC Barcelona (2009) ?
- Thread starter BigChill
- Start date
By your logic, if Puskas was around now he'd be even more athletic, faster, stronger, and more agile. So he'd be even better.
FiReFTW
Member
Nope, because we're talking about Puskas from the 50's and if he was to time travel to today and play, not Puskas born 25 years ago that trained and ate with today's methods.
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
You are either born with football ability or not. You either had that magic, that skill in you or not. You cannot manufacture that. So if I went back in tim to the 50's got Puskas and put him in the Madrid team today, He'd EASILY be amongst the top 5 players in the world today. Easily. (iMO he is amongst the top 5 GOAT, therefore he'd be in the top 5 of any era)Training, fitness etc have all changed yes, but not skill and not ability. Puskas would piss on every defence like he did back in the day because he had the skill to do so.
FiReFTW
Member
Training, fitness etc have all changed yes, but not skill and not ability. Puskas would piss on every defence like he did back in the day because he had the skill to do so.
Top 5? I don't think so, top 10 perhaps, but anyhow that all depends, would you just stick him in the team and let him play as you brought him back, or would he train with the team in the pre season and also get familiar with today's tactics etc and its really hard to say.
My point is you have to take into consideration that there are 2 clear players that are far ahead of everyone atm , CR is one, and then Messi whos 2 levels ahead of CR even. Now Puskas would not be as effective as they are if you brough him from the 50's.
He would still be amongst the best but he would not be nearly as dominant as he was in the 50's and thats all due to how everything evolved.
Training, fitness etc have all changed yes, but not skill and not ability. Puskas would piss on every defence like he did back in the day because he had the skill to do so.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
Think of it this way, if Messi never existed, Cristiano would probably win the player of the year award 3 out of the last 4 years, would probably have won La Liga the last several seasons, breaking some scoring records along the way. He would easily be considered the best player in the world now and would probably be compared to other greats like Zidane, Cruyff, etc. But since we have Messi, and as long as he stays healthy for the next several years, CR probably won't have that many chances to win another player of the year award, and he's definitely not considered the best player on earth at the moment.
The point I'm trying to make is that, generally speaking, it's pretty pointless to compare great athletes across different eras, because you're only as good as your contemporary make you look. Puskas was definitely one of the best footballers in the 50s lucky enough to have his talent "discovered", but I can't help but wonder if there were a few Maradona's or Messi's who might overshadow Puskas back then, but weren't lucky enough to discover their talents because it was just a few years after WWII, and because being a footballer wasn't as glorified as it is now and definitely wasn't as well paid, etc.
DucdeOrléans
New member
Add another 1 CL in FC Barcelonas favour and possibly the Spanish Super Cup, European Super Cup and FIFA Club World Cup as a minimum. Impressive.
W
woobie
Guest
They played amazing football, IMO -- but keep in mind I am biased and grew up watching this team. Some of the best players in their respective positions of that era (or in a couple of cases, all time): Baresi and Maldini in defense, Rijkaard in midfield, Van Basten in attack. They were the dominant team of the era and for me at least, they were amazing to watch.
dalitis8
Banned
This debate is getting increasingly irrelevant...
However good they may have been, it will only take one more CL title for Barca, to formally close the argument as well, which is already decided of you ask me...
However good they may have been, it will only take one more CL title for Barca, to formally close the argument as well, which is already decided of you ask me...
yusuf
Yusuf Islam
thx god we didnt ask u
Guardian
New member
That's a joke.
At that time only the champions from each country were allowed to play in the European Cup and the English clubs were banned too (they were banned exactly in the heat of their domination). So Milan had little competition back then, for their first cup they had to beat Vitosha (that's Levski, but the communists changed its name and banned some of their best players), Red Star, Steaua and Werder Bremen (combine all of them, and you wouldn't get even 10% of Milan's budget).
True, Red Star and Steaua were great teams, but today winning the CL is much harder, you have to play more games and eliminate better teams (Shakhtar are not worse than Steaua, to be honest). At that time Spanish football was in crisis a bit. Real Madrid were way worst than the Real from the past 10-12 years.
Plus the game at that time was soooo slow you could fall asleep watching it. Milan were known for their defensive football, for their great defence and counter-attacks, most of their games ended 1:0, 2:0 or something like this.
Van Basten was arguably the most complete striker I have seen, but apart of him and Gullit the rest weren't players to watch. Even the overhyped Donadoni.
So it's Barca for me.
At that time only the champions from each country were allowed to play in the European Cup and the English clubs were banned too (they were banned exactly in the heat of their domination). So Milan had little competition back then, for their first cup they had to beat Vitosha (that's Levski, but the communists changed its name and banned some of their best players), Red Star, Steaua and Werder Bremen (combine all of them, and you wouldn't get even 10% of Milan's budget).
True, Red Star and Steaua were great teams, but today winning the CL is much harder, you have to play more games and eliminate better teams (Shakhtar are not worse than Steaua, to be honest). At that time Spanish football was in crisis a bit. Real Madrid were way worst than the Real from the past 10-12 years.
Plus the game at that time was soooo slow you could fall asleep watching it. Milan were known for their defensive football, for their great defence and counter-attacks, most of their games ended 1:0, 2:0 or something like this.
Van Basten was arguably the most complete striker I have seen, but apart of him and Gullit the rest weren't players to watch. Even the overhyped Donadoni.
So it's Barca for me.
Last edited:
E
estranged
Guest
They were playing amazing football even 5/6 years back under Ancelotti, should have won multiple champions leagues (2005) and 2007. As for the comparison, i didn't see the Milan of 89-90, I've seen some videos and when you look at their squad they had class everywhere especially their defense and I've come to learn that Van Basten was a monster of a striker. But if I was to guess I would say maybe the current Barca are better since I think overall the standards of the game and the difficulty of the champions league have increased a lot.unfortunately, i was just being born
did they play amazing football? or just win lots of cups? (milan)
DucdeOrléans
New member
I did not watch Sacchis or Capellos Milan (was not even born when Milan won those back to back CL-titles) but if it comes to trophies, then the current FC Barcelona team is superior than Milan from 1988-1994.
And that in a far more competitive environment when it comes to the CL.
And that in a far more competitive environment when it comes to the CL.
Last edited:
Barcafan 2304
New member
Exactly mate. Why everyone has to debate sides from different era's beats me. They can never play each other so we will never know. Just enjoy them when they are here
Home of Barca Fans
