When are you too old?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
lamby

lamby

Needs a cold shower
Oct 3, 2011
59,398
42,546
113
64
Mitcham, Surrey
When are footballers too old? Norwich have allegedly refused Holt a new contract at 31! IMO he still has at least three years left at the top. I'm sure if it was Rickie (now 30 we would be all be more than happy to sign him up again. Is top flight football just becoming a game for the under thirties?
 
Depends on the player really. Just been reading that Ledley King is contemplating retirement at the age of 31, but he's been plagued by injuries all his career so perhaps that's no surprise. Not sure how old Michael Owen is, but he's obviously still capable of finding the net at the top level. And wasn't Gordon Strachan, always known for his commitment to fitness, still playing at 38?

In general though, professional athletes have shorter careers these days, You see it in cricket and rugby as well. Ironically, increased levels of fitness lead to greater pressure on the body and a greater risk of injury.
 
It's a combination of age and money. I expect Grant to be one of if not the top earner at Norwich.
He had a reasonably successful season but already was far from being the 1st name on the team sheet. Whether its age or ability Lambert saw Holt as a player unable to start every premier league game. Fast forward a further three seasons and if Norwich remain the PL it's unlikely that Holt will start over half the matches, he will have zero value and still be one of the highest earners. For a club of Norwich's finances that's an unhealthy position to be in.
Man U can afford to do this with Giggs & Scholes but they have a firmer financial footing.
If longevity of contract is the real issue for Holt I think players over 30 have to appreciate the 3 year deal is a stretch too far for a lot of clubs
 
I think players are fitter now than they used to be, but usually finish because of injuries and how much longer it takes to recover from such injuries. A lot of players were past it at 27 when I was a girl (due to dodging dinosaurs I expect). Peak is now about 27-30, but surely Grant Holt must be worth a years extension at only 31! It may differ with the position you play, with strikers finishing sooner than defenders. Goalkeepers of course go on for years more, because experience is worth more than youthfullness. Lambert is fitter now than he has ever been and must have a couple of years left.
 
Archers Road said:
Depends on the player really. Just been reading that Ledley King is contemplating retirement at the age of 31, but he's been plagued by injuries all his career so perhaps that's no surprise. Not sure how old Michael Owen is, but he's obviously still capable of finding the net at the top level. And wasn't Gordon Strachan, always known for his commitment to fitness, still playing at 38?

In general though, professional athletes have shorter careers these days, You see it in cricket and rugby as well. Ironically, increased levels of fitness lead to greater pressure on the body and a greater risk of injury.
Click to expand...

Was with you until you said that generally professional athletes have shorter careers than they used to. I don't agree with that at all. Players are now much fitter than they used to be only 10-15 years ago, and certainly much fitter than 30+ years ago. There will always be exceptions like Stanley Matthews, who was a revelation, and decades ahead of his time. He played top class professional football until 50..! However, I believe players have longer careers nowadays, instead of the 30+- year old cutoff and retirement, as it used to be for many, back in 60/70s, etc... Plus, career threatening injuries are not so common as they used to be, because often they can recover from such injuries, whereas before they were shot full of cortisone, which can help bring on extreme arthritis, at an early age. Nowadays, they do the right thing.

fran-MLs little camera said:
I think players are fitter now than they used to be, but usually finish because of injuries and how much longer it takes to recover from such injuries. A lot of players were past it at 27 when I was a girl (due to dodging dinosaurs I expect). Peak is now about 27-30, but surely Grant Holt must be worth a years extension at only 31! It may differ with the position you play, with strikers finishing sooner than defenders. Goalkeepers of course go on for years more, because experience is worth more than youthfullness. Lambert is fitter now than he has ever been and must have a couple of years left.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
At 31 the days of 3-4 year contracts at certainly over surely? How many top rung strikers preform at a consistent level between 31 - 34+. If I was a chairman I would state upfront to player we don't offer improved contracts of more than 3 years for players 31 and over ;) It would be 2 year deals and possible 1 year extensions thereafter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back