Does age matter ..?

[david in sweden]

..do you think we have a " young " squad ?.

When AP signed Seabourne (22) and Harding (25) and then Dickson (23) and suddenly I felt they were a bit "younger " (not TOO young )..because they all had good experience.

 

Since NA's arrival we've gained... Chaplow (was 25) and Forte (then 24) and now we've gained Cork (22) and De Ridder (24).

In the existing team; Alex, of course only 17, Schneiderlin still barely 21 and Lallana 23.

 

OK! Butterfield is already 31, Connolly now 34 and Jaidi is 36 (surely his last season)... but Kelvin's 34 is fairly average - for a goalie.

 

Ted Bates often quoted his famous phrase " the right blend of youth and experience"

 

so my question really is,... Do we have a " young squad ? "..or ...

(answer might depend on if you are a teenager reading this... or a 30 year + fan.)

Edited 26 July, 2011 by david in sweden

[Saint Garrett]

I'd say we've got the right balance, some good 'old pros' mixed with some exciting young talent. Ever the optimist!!

[Verbal]

Football is much more about athleticism today than when Ted Bates managed - and that means a greater bias towards youth is a pretty natural consequence.

[Made in Southampton]

Youth and experience ....... yes.

 

But that experience has to come from the right sort of player. One that the younger players can look to and repect. I think that with the exception of Butterfield, Connolly and Jiadi are players that the youth team can look to for advise wheather its verbal advise or just watching them on their work ethics.

 

Edit - That isnt a pop at Butterfield, its just that he hasnt had the same career as the other two.

[david in sweden]

Football is much more about athleticism today than when Ted Bates managed - and that means a greater bias towards youth is a pretty natural consequence.

 

You're right there, but there were still young debutants even 20 -30 years ago; Chivers, Channon, Stokes, Moran, Shearer, the Wallaces and MLT were all teenagers when they played their first games. But consider the differences...the terrible state of some pitches in those days. All the grass was gone before Christmas and the pitch was waterlogged after rain or frost damaged in the winter and thensanded for the rest of the season.

 

The players wore hard boots more suited to army manoevers and the leather "cannon" ball they used could weigh over 2kg. when it got really wet in wintertime. The best players were those who could move well in the mud, and the 11 men you started with were there for the whole 90 mins.

Badly injured players went off if they could no longer run and those who took less serious knocks became a " passenger " out on the wing - in vain hope - they could be of some use during the rest of the game.

 

A lot of difference ...when todays players wear lightweight shoes, kick a " beach ball " from end to end on pitches that would do a credit to many cricket grounds, and with the slightest hint of an injury a player can be replaced with a sub.

Edited 26 July, 2011 by david in sweden