Just seen a post reffering to cisse, and it said "he is turning 30 how-ever" 30, So got me thinking about his age, and what is the prime age to be buying players. Do you go for a young squad and hope it works, then you have a team for years. Do we need more experienced players, as the squad is already young. Ideally it would be a mix, but what do we need, and what works out to be better value for money? Older experienced players, but cost more and demand higher wages, or young one's that are cheaper and can be more of a gamble. The 30 comment, will split people, as some will think it's to old, then you have players 30+ who do a helluva job. Maldini played till 40, Philips is nearly 38, Beckham 36, Henry 33. Bolo 34 So when does a player become to old for us to be interested in?
I know its obvious but we need to mix it, last season could have been better, IMO, if in some games the experiance af a Bolo was used instead of the youthful potential of a Hendo. One thing that I always rmember of the Kean years was his use of York
Well it was me who posted the Cisse turning 30 comment so I see it apt I reply first. First off I would have no problem with us signing a 30 year old if performances on the pitch justified it. Every player is different and 'peak' at different stages of there career. I think keepers and defenders like fine wine only get better with age. Steve Bould an example, considered a dinasour by many buy many but was possibly the best centre half I have seen in red and white. When you start to get further up the pitch I feel pace plays a bigger part in a players game and is something that obviously diminishes with age, you have to think that forwards start to decline when they get to 28. For a club like Sunderland I think we should be looking to buy players under 30, point being value for money and level and longevity of service and also potential sell on value. We all know we are after a marquee striker so I would be dumbstruck if the signing wasn't 28 or younger.
