Ferenc Puskas and the Mighty Magyars

[mgoblue2290]

I often wonder this myself. Would guys playing many years ago that had success, have success today? I think you have to judge guys against who they played against though. Todays athletes seem stronger and faster.

[Bigpapa42]

Its all about skills relative to your contemporaries. Current players have the advantage of all the developments since then - in terms of training, nutrition, tactical, and everything else.

Puskas is one of my favorite players who I've never got to see beyond a few highlights, and class is class, so its possible he could do well. Would he be as productive as Messi? Tough to say.

You likely know of them already, Heels, but for anyone else, do some reading on the Austrian "Wunderteam" of the 30s. Unfortunately not much exists any more for footage of them.

[mgoblue2290]

I agree completely with the bolded. But what I find most interesting is that in the past even small nations such as Hungary produced such talent and had AMAZING international sides. Yet today, smaller nations find it difficult to compete. What happened?

Maybe the popularity of the sport in each country? As its popularity grew obviously larger nations have larger talent pools to draw from. Also, maybe the sport just wasn't the most popular in those countries back then.

[Bigpapa42]

I agree completely with the bolded. But what I find most interesting is that in the past even small nations such as Hungary produced such talent and had AMAZING international sides. Yet today, smaller nations find it difficult to compete. What happened?

I think you've always had nations that "punched above their weight" in football. In the 30s, you had Austria. In the 50s, you had Hungary. In the 70s, you had The Netherlands. In the 80s, you had Denmark. In the 90s, you had Yugoslavia, before the break-up.

We don't see it as often now for a few reasons. One, its simply tougher to create. Another is the nations that continue to do it - notably The Netherlands - have been doing it for so long that we just accept it. But big nations have huge advantages like larger talent pools and more money in the developmental stages of the sport. Smaller nations have to put up with their best young talent being poached by big clubs from bigger nations, which seems to harm player development as often as it helps.

Will ever see another Hungary? Not just a nation pulling a "Greece" but a nation actually creating a truly epic generation of talent that exceeds its stature and size and profile? I have my doubts...

[calgaryballer]

If you read 'Inverting the Pyramid' or 'The Ball is Round', it gives a very detailed background as to why that happened. Austria and Hungary had talented players. But they had coaches who were on the cutting edge of tactical thinking. When Hungary murdered England, a large part of that was the fact that England were playing an outdated 2-3-5 formation versus the new W-M.

[calgaryballer]

Also, the Guardian has been running articles on 'The Forgotten Story of...' They used to have them, but recently have been doing one a week. If you're a football history junkie like me, these are gold. Well written, well researched, and no word limit. Focuses mostly on English history, but thats no surprise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/series/the-forgotten-story-of

And, I hope you MoFo's are paying for The Blizzard

[BigHouseUSA]

In Bed With Maradona, as well. Great blog. The Football Ramble will do good history segments, too.

[calgaryballer]

I do think BP touched on a major reason. The bigger clubs are poaching younger players and in many cases ruining them. We really only remeber the players who get poached and turn into superstars, (Cesc for one), but hordes of young players are poached and see their careers go up in smoke because they don't get the pitch time they need. Puskas had over 300 appearances in Hungary before moving abroad.

I think world soccer would be better off if clubs had some way of holding onto their youth. Take for Liverpool for instance. We've started scouting in China, which by all accounts should be producing superstars because of their population size. We just brought two kids that are about 15 or 16 on trial this past week, and who are considered two of the best for their age in China. If signed, will they fulfill their potential? I seriously have my doubts.

Hell to a lesser extent, it's one of the reasons Scottish football has been so poor. Players are leaving Scotland without developing fully because they can jump to a Champisonship club or a lower Prem side and make far more money but never really get to play and develop. Whereas Rangers and Celtic can afford to pay their best players a similar wage and they can hold onto them to allow them to develop. Hence most if not all of the Scottish national players playing in the national side based in Scotland all come from Rangers and Celtic. Scotland has qualified for 7 of the last 15 World Cups, including a string of 5 straight from the 70s to the 90s, but haven't since 1998. And really no one has expected them to.

A very good point, and even more interesting in light of the EPPP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletc..._in_favou.html). With big clubs only having to pay £1.5 mil or so to purchase youngsters + a likely reduction in Tier 1 facilities means the talented will end up at Prem academies. While that is all well and good, there are still only so many first team places. A club like City, who probably has world class coaches and facilities, are they really going to open up spaces for players they developed? When instead they can pay for an already established star? It could go either way, and lead to a boon in English player development, or a whole bunch of would be good players discarded because they couldn't beat the 10 other guys the Chelsea academy has in their position already

[Bigpapa42]

Going beyond just the UK, its an interesting problem with a lot of different aspects.

Looking at the tactical aspect, I don't think its that key. But it really depends on exaclty what you're talking about. Tactics were obviously absolutely key in the rise of Hungary and The Netherlands. So if you are taking about a great national team coming from a small nation and manages to revolutionize the sport to some degree, then yes. But if you are simply talking about a great generation of players coming from a smaller nation, then I don't think its really required. Denmark in 1992, Yugoslavia from the same period, and then subsequently Croatia all fit that. They had some top class players who managed to succeed at the biggest of clubs combined with solid talent throughout.

Beyond that, the commercialization of the sport is a big part. The biggest clubs can afford to buy anyone and they pay big wages, even to young players. So those young players are tempted by the fame and fortune. Who can balme them? But is it the best move? Moving to another nation means the player has to adapt and settle to a new culture, perhaps a new language. In many cases, they aren't going to playing regularly for the main squad. Look at someone like Romelu Lukaku - is he going to develop more playing for Chelsea's reserves than he would playing competitively for Anderlecht? There is no one right answer - Fabregas certainly benefitted from moving to Arsenal, and without that loss, Barcelona may not have given Messi the chance they did. But players like Fran Merida and Carlos Vela haven't really benefitted the same way. Samuel Eto'o obviously was better off moving to Spain than staying in Cameroon but every situation is a bit different.

Young players need to play. They develop more playing competitively than against kids. So while first class facilities and coaching is an obvious benefit of a big club, the reduced chances of playing for the first team offset it. So many big clubs can't and won't take a chance. For a club in the top third of the table, using kids costing them points could mean the difference between European football next season or not. One can look at Arsenal stringently sticking to the policy over the past seasons and what is has arguably cost them.

I recently re-read a book I've had for a couple of years, a sort-of journal from a UK football correspondent travelling in Eastern Europe. It goes through the current situation in nations like Russia, The Ukraine, and Croatia, but also the likes of Lithuania, Slovakia, and so on. Hungary is actually one of the nations covered. Lack of developed is a big issue. Most clubs don't have the money to set up proper developmental structures and assistance from the given governments is limited, as they don't typically have the money either. FIFA and UEFA provide some such funding, yet the degree of corruption in the national FAs make it questionable how much of that is put to its intended uses. Youth are given a chance to a degree, but clubs in smaller nations are just as dependent on results as ones in bigger leagues. Qualifying for the CL can be a huge for a given club and most small leagues only get one spot. A lot of small-nation clubs tend to change managers a lot, so there is pressure for immediate results - why take the time to give the kids a chance when one or two losses will cost you your job?

There is also an element of luck involved, especially when it comes to the smaller developed nations. Nations like Belgium, Switzerland, and Croatia are all in a position where they could take that "next step" sometime in the near future, as they have a combination of some established top talent and some quality young prospects. But you need even more than just a quality top XI, because the qualifying processing is so long now and injuries happen. And that's where I think smaller nations will often fall short - they might have quality at the very top but if it drops off below that, they're in trouble.