I agree that he is a very technical player for the modern era. But I look at players like Totti and then at Vini and think "Does Vini have half the tech Totti has?" Even if I say yeah, Totti was a midtable player for almost all of his career. The levels were just so much higher back then. Vinicius is so talented, but the modern rules have led him to focus on developing physical skills over technical ones. Same as with Mbappe. If Vini grew up in the 90s, he'd be something else.

@@alfvervaeke same level tech, different speed. Imagine messi being slower? He would be Riquleme. Also speed makes tech look a bit less fluid while being the same, similar to height making players with great technical skill look worse than their shorter counterparts. This is why taller players like Ibrahimovic, Zidane + very few others etc are unicorns, so rare to have that fluidity while being that tall.

@@JD-hh2qb I respectfully disagree there. Messi looks similar to Riquelme qua playing style, I suppose. I don't really think it's the same, but I can see what you mean. The important part is that Messi had a very basic playing style. At least he did when he got older. But his mastery over the basics was to an extent I'd never seen before. Messi never needed speed. He utilized speed, certainly. But he wasn't reliant on it to make his way to goal. Vinicius is most certainly more reliant on speed. He can semi-consistently pull off great dribbles, but it is not like Messi where the ball is glued to his feet at all times. Now, the comparison to Messi is not helpful anyways. That's like comparing every kid who is good at maths to Albert Einstein. Instead, let's actually look at the core of your argument: Pace makes tech look worse? No, it doesn't. If you are rushing yourself and mess up your dribble, it means you're going faster than you're capable of doing. It is not that Vinicius' tech looks worse because he's so fast - it's that he's going too fast for himself and messing up. As for tall players, that is half true. But I have watched football for long enough to know this. I'm not saying players are worse because they look clunky. There is an appeal to the clunky big guy somehow phasing through challenges. I'm saying they look worse because their control is worse. They're not phasing through challenges - they are losing the ball, send it to the sky with their first touch or simply don't get brutally challenged as that would be a foul nowadays.

@@alfvervaeke prime Messi is probably the most explosive player of all time. Even bolt said over 20-30 metres he would destroy him!

Being explosive =/= being reliant on pace. Messi was explosive, but that was just one of many ways he could consistently attack. Vini is consistently explosive, semi consistently capable in a lot of things. Messi was consistently world class, no matter what he was doing.

I think the biggest change is the pitches. As someone who grew up playing on terrible pitches, but started playing on better pitches as I got older, playing on a bad pitch is just exhausting. It doesn't mess with your skill as much as people seem to think, but it completely messes up your stamina.

Total football has existed even born I was born. Systematic football is nothing new. Pep revolutionized football, but Pep's systems were never the problem. Systems did not create attackers who have less tech than middle schoolers.

@@alfvervaeke i'm not saying it's sth new. I'm saying it's no longer sustainable in a very long run, which have not been a problem to contemplate until Pep. If you don't sustain a 90+ point season, you don't win the league. Pep has created a bar that is so high that sustaining it is out of question for 30+ matched players.

Completely agree! I hardly remember any entertaining games outside of Spain. Germany had a few. But that's about it.

I can't say much as I watch neither of those sports, but I'll assume you're right. I do watch hockey and find that hockey still has more integrity left in the sport. And I suppose that is because the rules don't favor the attackers too much... Yet.

this is what roman reigns do outside of wwe you look a bit like roman reigns

@@lordbendtner6404 LMFAO, I need to go gym so I can look even more like him then! Subscribe to the channel so I can afford my gym ticket 😉

@@alfvervaeke i don't even go to gym bcuz i mostly play football i just finished playing football

This is absolutely false from the very premise. The winner of the championship play offs receives more money than the Premier League champion. Relegated clubs receive millions in pounds in parachute payments, and surviving in the Premier League for 3 seasons is enough to get you on level terms qua TV revenue as the "bigger clubs". These clubs are run like businesses. They want to run a profit, not win trophies. A hard salary cap is a terrible idea possible. That money isn't going anywhere. These big clubs still have money. But now they have less money to spend on salaries and more to either pocket what the players won for them, or to buy more players. When people talk about salary caps, it's always so monotone. You've got to look past that.

Salary caps will not bridge the gap between big and small teams without a salary floor as well and that's pretty much impossible with relegation. A salary cap alone just means the best teams will be right by it and the weaker teams will be way below it. More radical changes are needed. Foreigner limit of 0 would help immensely. The big clubs can't raid top players from smaller nations. This would strengthen the vast majority of leagues. Imagine all of the top Brazilians playing in the Brazilian league for example. However, this alone would lead to the big clubs taking the best talent from their own nation which isn't ideal either. International eligibility-style rules would need to be implemented as well. Leicester could only sign players from Leicester/other towns nearby for example. The European Cup method of qualification needs to return. The top leagues having 3-5 participants while most league winners have to play between 2 and 10 playoff games to even make the group stage is bullshit. If you want two teams per nation, have the league and domestic cup winner qualify which makes the cup more valuable. A double elimination format would be the best option. Teams get a 2nd chance after losing one tie and get 4 games a season which is close to the 6 of the old format, and you can have 64 teams in the tournament without having too many fixtures. The introduction of the Conference League also suits this as you can have a competition of 3rd/4th place teams from each nation. This option isn't necessary but I also think more regionalised leagues would be better in the bigger nations. North and South leagues in England for example. This would help with travel, and you can justify smaller divisions of 14 or 16 teams cutting down on fixtures which needs to be done. Then the winners of each league play in a final at a neutral venue or have the 2nd place team of one league play the winner of the other in semi finals first before a final.