Watching Chelsea play last night, something I noticed was the age of many of the important Chelsea players. Most of them were 30 or over. Terry 31, Cole 30, Lampard 33, Drogba 33. If it were just Chelsea, this wouldn't be too worrying, however it's like this at quite a few top clubs. Conversely, most of the key players in our squad are if not young at least younger than those. Despite a great deal of outsourcing, most of the really influential players in teams are from the home nations or have played in England for at least 2 or 3 seasons. The physical demands of the Premier League mean that many players start to decline at around 29/30. For an overseas player brought over in his mid 20s, he doesn't have long between establshing himself as an influential player and starting to decline. Is there a problem with aging players not just in England but the Premier League in general?
Fitness is much more important in the Premier League than in any other division in the world, so if a player wants to remain a top player in his 30s then he has to work extra hard to maintain his fitness, and obviously it gets harder every year. I think that the key is playing for a club that will play you every week. If you're 30 or above and you're spending most of your time on the bench, you should be looking to move on to a team that will use you or your fitness will quickly decline. There are plenty of examples of players who have remained quality players well into their 30s (Sheringham, Shearer, etc.) because they worked hard and prioritised getting regular games, and weren't happy to just earn a load of cash for sitting on the bench.
Of our squad, only Guly, De Ridder and Jos Hooiveld aren't home nations and haven't played in England for at least 3 seasons. Guly and De Ridder have found adapting to the English game difficult. Guly is 29 and probably won't be playing at his peak for that much longer. Luckily he's not irreplaceable, but I'd be worried if he was. Is it really sustainable for the most influential players to only be the most influential players for 2 or 3 years tops? What is most efficient way of preparing for the future but still being competitive in the short term?
Some teams have been guilty of only planning for the short term. I think Chelsea are suffering from that lack of foresight now, but have appointed a manager who I think could build a great new team (if he's given long enough). Liverpool now are benefiting from their reinvention last season, and I think in a couple of years they will be title contenders. It could be said that Spurs are outside contenders now as a result of some brilliant dealings in the transfer market and putting faith in younger players. Manchester United obviously have had the most success and this is all due to long-term planning and patience. Arsenal need to use this season to reinvent themselves like Liverpool did last year. Basically, patience is the key. Sometimes you may have to go a while without competing for major trophies while you rebuild a team. Teams like Chelsea and now Man City have become super-rich and tried to win trophies immediately by buying the best players in the world in their prime. If they go a couple of seasons without winning anything, it can quickly fall apart.
Nothing to do with the international player thing, butI think Lambert is getting better with age. I can see him peaking next year. What a journey for the shy modest man...
Southamptons 1st team is a great age at the moment and this could be a contributing factor to our success. Most of the players are in there mid to late 20s and even the younger ones in Lallana, Schneiderlin and Cork have bags of experience.
Man U will find it tough when Fergie retires as I think he will when this new generation of Jones, Smalling, De Gea etc are established. Fergie is a one off. Any other manager would struggle with the OAPs and an out of form Rooney that he had last season. Chelsea are proof of where short-term thinking can lead - Man City should take note. This thread isn't about too many foreigners or too much money around the game (although those are big issues) but rather teams filling themselves with fully fledged players who start losing it before they form a good team. Saints are in pretty good nick, but a lot of the Premier league isn't. The Barcelona team - golden generation or conveyor belt? Is sustained success even possble these days?
Its hard really. Like the golden era with ManU where so many players all came through at the same time and it just gelled so well. It is very rare for any team's academy to produce virtually a whole side of class players at exactly the same time. Yes a few come through whilst the rest either move on or are at the back of a queue for the first team however it is rare. Think about it. When you have the likes of the Nevilles, Scholes, Giggs, Beckahm etc all coming through at the same time and they came through the youth ranks then they are going to be pretty loyal to the club. It is hard to see anything else but them playing for the first team for 10+ years. and Giggs n Scholes prove the gae thing. They were/are world class players well into their thirties due to dedication and fitness levels. I agree with the Ferguson statements. Hate him all we want to and get tired of the moaning however have to admire his ability as a manager. Like Hansen said last year on MOTD when Arsenal were struggling towards the end of the season. Arsenal don't win when they play bad but if Ferguson managed them they'd win the league. Also agre on the Chelsea. I said the same thing on my brother in law the other night (he is Portuguese so of course supports Chelsea?) Chelsea lost late goals and I said it's because they are too old. They concede later in the games when they are tiring. The age statement isn't something I really agree with however. A lot of these teams have old first teamers because any younger players they buy as understudies don't make the grade however all these teams are paying out big money for youth. Arsenal spend a lot buying youth players. Chelsea bought Sturridge and others. Man U have bought in Ashley Cole, De Ghea and Phil Jones. They will have quite a young fresh squad in the next year or 2 and I can see them getting to where they were in the late nineties. Cole, Smalling, Jones, Rooney, Wellbeck, Nani. They are all pretty young. Add to that a couple of others about to come through or already there and then experience like Vidic and Valencia and I can see them really getting back to where they were. So in a couple of years the Top 3 will be young teams: 1 - Man U 2 - Saints 3 - Arsenal (Saints B)
I think you underestimate Guly. His style of play could go on for a fair few years at a peak. A bit like Patrick Viera, in a sense, but further up the pitch. He's built in a similar mould too. De Ridder has plenty of time. What is most efficient way of preparing for the future but still being competitive in the short term? Quite obviously, doing what Saints are doing. Did you not read the article, posted yesterday, or the day before, on processing the data on players..? Age is not a barrier. It is effectiveness which counts.
Guly is one player in a fair sized squad. He's not part of an all-conquering golden generation where we'd need to replace the lot all at once to have a future. Some players do peak for longer than others, but eventually tough decisions need to be made to keep the conveyor belt moving and not ending up with a spent golden generation like Chelsea. Overseas players are different and exciting, but it's dangerous to get too dependant on them. By overseas player, I'm referring more specifically to the ones that have been fully developed overseas, less so the ones like Morgan, who have been brought over at a young age and essentially 'adopted' by the Engliish style. Adapting and building team chemistry takes time and I'm worried that teams at the top are increasingly buying and relying on players that don't have enough left what with the physically demanding nature of the PL.
