I have some doubts about stats proportions between eras.

How it exactly works?

For example, regarding stamina we have to give it proportionally, otherwise players of 30s or 40s would be given always very low stamina comparing to nowadays players.

But how about other stats as some related to stregth or short and long pass speed? Do we represent them as players of older eras? And maybe give them more accuracy to compensate it? It would fair?

Also, speed had largely improved, meaning that players who could achieve for example 30km/h in old days receive higher speed stats than player who achieve the same speed nowadays?

another example, curling is nowadays much more easier for players do it in game, old players had to struggle much more with the old days balls, shoes and so on.

So, how do we represent era's differences?

Stats should represent what you are seeing with your own eyes. Everything else is an "if".

Isn't it too obvious?

What you see with your own eyes is the same when watching a nowadays match and a 60s one? There is no differences?

I want stats to be authentic from what can we watch from footballers from the 50s, 60s and even 70s, not influenced to keep them up with the current cream just because current guys have the benefits of improvement in areas like fitness, sportswear, ball, medical care and development of certain tactics. In others words, just rating them enough to see the things they did, emulated.

We take for granted that everything related to fitness wasn't as developed as today's, besides a dozen of physical freaks back then and some allegedly doped players, most of the players shouldn't be given a similar STA value compared to current players, almost all current elite/top or even some decent box to box CMF/DMF is worth of +88 in STA, the amount of distance they run per game it's just too high, some roles in the past were also usually very restricted in terms of movement (SBs).

I do not know how many players back then were as fast as Gento back then (unquestionably considered the fastest pre70s or even pre80s player), but currently is easier find many players worth of orange/red TS/ACC due to the inclination of physical prowess in modern game.

Because there are many matches and footage available, we can rate a player based on what we see. Football is quicker nowadays, but it's not impossible that players who were very fast or could give the ball high speed existed in the 1950s and 1960s. But if we go back to the 1940s, 1930s and so on, we have to rely mostly or completely on text. Personally, even when I read a report from the first half of the XX century that says something like "the player sent a very fast ball in the box" or "the winger made a fast run forward", I can't imagine those players having the same speed and foot power as those who came years after them. Of course I may be wrong. Maybe there were players in the 1920s who could shoot the ball as powerfully as Roberto Carlos (difficult but not impossible) or run as quick as Cristiano Ronaldo (more difficult but still not impossible). However, I wouldn't be this daring based only on text. Things are probably more objective when it comes to stats like Stamina and Condition given that back then the training regime likely was far less advanced as it is today, and the number of competitive matches was much lower.

Amen.