Past vs Present: Football's Biggest Paradox

I'm sure I can't be the only one who's had this debate in the pub, the question of 'what would Pele do in todays game' or 'what would have Messi done in Pele's day'. The simple answer is that Pele would not have been anything special and Messi would have been special still. However we cannot look at things in a vacuum here because there is so much to take into account such as; facilities, training structure, diet, medical care, money invested, quality of the ball, quality of the boots... The list goes on. Gone are the days where a team can pop down the pub and get wasted after a game, mainly because that gives the opposition an advantage. It's a paradox because we'll never know what a Pele with todays training and equipment would look like, we can only assume that he would be good? Can we? Would a Messi born into Pele's world have been as able to drift round players on a rubbish pitch, with a clunky ball, schoolboy shoes for boots and being kicked at every chance? We can only assume yes again.

I find that makes it so hard to pick a 'greatest team' of all time, because again looked at in a vacuum of todays game if 2 people pick a greatest team to have a hypothetical game in todays world, you must pick 21st century players mainly because they are better athletes. You only need to look at the history of The Olympics to see how humans are getting bigger, stronger, faster etc (down to the same factors as footballers improving).

But I also don't think it's fair to those who played in the past not to give them extra leeway for their training etc as they only worked with what they had. I suppose my question is:

How do you pick a greatest team ever? What do you need to take into account and what can you ignore?

The simple answer is that Pele would not have been anything special

Also known as the wrong answer. 

I'm sure I can't be the only one who's had this debate in the pub, the question of 'what would Pele do in todays game' or 'what would have Messi done in Pele's day'. The simple answer is that Pele would not have been anything special and Messi would have been special still. However we cannot look at things in a vacuum here because there is so much to take into account such as; facilities, training structure, diet, medical care, money invested, quality of the ball, quality of the boots... The list goes on. Gone are the days where a team can pop down the pub and get wasted after a game, mainly because that gives the opposition an advantage. It's a paradox because we'll never know what a Pele with todays training and equipment would look like, we can only assume that he would be good? Can we? Would a Messi born into Pele's world have been as able to drift round players on a rubbish pitch, with a clunky ball, schoolboy shoes for boots and being kicked at every chance? We can only assume yes again.

I find that makes it so hard to pick a 'greatest team' of all time, because again looked at in a vacuum of todays game if 2 people pick a greatest team to have a hypothetical game in todays world, you must pick 21st century players mainly because they are better athletes. You only need to look at the history of The Olympics to see how humans are getting bigger, stronger, faster etc (down to the same factors as footballers improving).

But I also don't think it's fair to those who played in the past not to give them extra leeway for their training etc as they only worked with what they had. I suppose my question is:

How do you pick a greatest team ever? What do you need to take into account and what can you ignore?

Think you're getting it a bit twisted there, in today's game the players are treated with kid gloves and can get their way by play acting, like kids.
  The talented men of previous eras would still have the talent and also be used to not cheating (as often). Place them on carpet pitches with scientifically tweaked footballs. They would still have the energy levels required to play with the super athletes or whatever it is you think they are... I mean it's not like they are that Russian guy from Rocky 4 here. 
   Even if they did have pints after the game they would compete and in most cases outclass modern football players because psychologically they would be grafting for a living and not be as worried as the modern crop are of getting a bruise on their leg.

Messi might never have happened back then because Barcelona and the medical staff gave him the opportunity and means to get over his condition. So it goes both ways.

I'd say you can pick players for your dream team on the basis of what you look for in their mixture of abilities (by what you have as a database/footage or from personal observation). Strength, desire to win, never say die attitude, finesse on the ball, pace, quick thinking, situational awareness, big game confidence, consistancy etc how many of these they had all rolled into the one player at varying degrees.

Think you're getting it a bit twisted there, in today's game the players are treated with kid gloves and can get their way by play acting, like kids.
  The talented men of previous eras would still have the talent and also be used to not cheating (as often). Place them on carpet pitches with scientifically tweaked footballs. They would still have the energy levels required to play with the super athletes or whatever it is you think they are... I mean it's not like they are that Russian guy from Rocky 4 here. 
   Even if they did have pints after the game they would compete and in most cases outclass modern football players because psychologically they would be grafting for a living and not be as worried as the modern crop are of getting a bruise on their leg.

Messi might never have happened back then because Barcelona and the medical staff gave him the opportunity and means to get over his condition. So it goes both ways.

I'd say you can pick players for your dream team on the basis of what you look for in their mixture of abilities (by what you have as a database/footage or from personal observation). Strength, desire to win, never say die attitude, finesse on the ball, pace, quick thinking, situational awareness, big game confidence, consistancy etc how many of these they had all rolled into the one player at varying degrees.

Really good point about the diving, never even thought of that.

I don't think I made it clear that the arguments I presented are that of the discussions myself and my mates have. I've never been able to fully make up my mind as to how to judge players. I can see the validity of all the arguments in the OP but can't make my mind up as to which ones are the most fitting. That's why I posted here

Isn't paradox something you get in a pharmacy ?

Isn't paradox something you get in a pharmacy ?

Really good point about the diving, never even thought of that.

I don't think I made it clear that the arguments I presented are that of the discussions myself and my mates have. I've never been able to fully make up my mind as to how to judge players. I can see the validity of all the arguments in the OP but can't make my mind up as to which ones are the most fitting. That's why I posted here

Same here, I've had many discussions myself about players form years ago playing now. How far back are we talking? The football icons that stand out usually do for a reason and by word of mouth passed down if the era was before much footage was around.

  Diego Maradona would no doubt be in the top 3 if not the number 1 players now when he was in his prime.
because he's fast, a dribbler and in that all action mould which catches the eye nowadays too. he has what Messi has (Messi is so accurate though) in his strength.
Consistency and how long he was at that level plays a part but on his day n all that.

I think any of the top footballers would be a star in any age. The ones that would struggle would be the lesser players. Many poorer players of the past who relied on their physical abilities (kicking people) to dominate skillful forwards would have to adapt or die under present rules.

Similarly many players of today that rely more on their athleticism than their ability would struggle with the highly skilled players of yesteryear.

Pitches , rules, different balls, different training, tactics, diets etc would all have an impact but imo the top players of the past and present would quickly adapt and dominate in any era. 

The players of old were mentally a lot tougher , now lets look at our goalies in recent years . Not one of them could lace Ray Clemence's boots with all their training and fancy boots, gloves . Mentally weak compared to him , Tommy Smith another example of how tough a defender should be , who have we had that can compare to these men that bled for us , King Kenny another example , Suarez came close to Kenny but he disrespected the club but he's genius makes us turn a blind eye to that .

two players Phil Neal and Alan Kennedy both scored important goals on European Cup finals Phil Neal being inside the 6 yard box Kennedy from a break on the left and a penalty. They would walk into any team as would any of the championship or European Cup sides.

Isn't paradox something you get in a pharmacy ?

Always thought it was in Aintree!! 

The thing this discussion always proves to me is football changes, it's not just the simple game that some like to proselytize about.

As for the paradox, this is the only one worth worrying about.

https://youtu.be/HY5lYo5x1k8

https://youtu.be/CRMJT187wxs
36 years ago they went nuts when Vardy scored his goal against us but this was better

https://youtu.be/HY5lYo5x1k8

I went that game mate. Unbelievable goal by Terry Mac... the other 6 we scored that day weren't bad either