From: JK on 27 Apr 2010 18:15 MH wrote: > > Quite possibly, though I remember winners that were really quite young > (eg. Hughes - though I could be wrong about his age.) > >> These days, with seasons lasting 60 games, > > This is oversold. I know you are a Liverpool supporter, so it is > probably no surpise to you that Kenny Dalgish played 61 games his first > season, and also had seasons with 60, 59, and 57 games played total in > all competitions. His fewest games before he became manager was 50. > There were more league games back then, and first choice players, as you > correctly note below, played in every game in every competition when fit. > > > squad rotation, and the >> Arsene Wenger philosophy to the Carling Cup being adopted by half the >> teams in the Premier League, young players get plenty of first team >> opportunities. In the days of one sub per game, not so much. > > Subs certainly had changed the game. But I am not sure the number of > young players starting regularly in the top division would have changed > all that much -- in fact the influx of foreign players plus the increase > in squad sizes might have reduced opportunities for younger players to > break in. Sort of tangentially related: I saw recently that in Villa's championship season they only used 14 players. All season. That's just insane.
From: REDDEVIL6 on 27 Apr 2010 18:26 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:27:19 -0600, MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >Gabbage wrote: >> On Apr 26, 2:02 pm, "Mark V." <markvande...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 26, 10:25 am, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Benny wrote: >>>>> > Subject : PFA Awards Shock! >>>>> > From : markvande...(a)yahoo.com >>>>> > Isn't Milner old enough to be Ramsey's grandfather? >>>>> He's 24, the same age as Rooney. That's a funny definition of young. >>>> You would think the absolute limit would be U23 (eligibility for Olympic >>>> teams). U21 would make even more sense to me. >>> If you're 23 or younger when the season begins (I just looked this up) >>> you are eligible. If the award had been given, then, to the best- >>> performing eligible player, Rooney should have won! >> >> My guess is that when the award was established in the early 70s, >> there were good reasons to think of 23 year olds as young players. > >Quite possibly, though I remember winners that were really quite young >(eg. Hughes - though I could be wrong about his age.) > >> These days, with seasons lasting 60 games, > >This is oversold. I know you are a Liverpool supporter, so it is >probably no surpise to you that Kenny Dalgish played 61 games his first >season, and also had seasons with 60, 59, and 57 games played total in >all competitions. His fewest games before he became manager was 50. >There were more league games back then, and first choice players, as you >correctly note below, played in every game in every competition when fit. > > > squad rotation, and the >> Arsene Wenger philosophy to the Carling Cup being adopted by half the >> teams in the Premier League, young players get plenty of first team >> opportunities. In the days of one sub per game, not so much. > >Subs certainly had changed the game. But I am not sure the number of >young players starting regularly in the top division would have changed >all that much -- in fact the influx of foreign players plus the increase >in squad sizes might have reduced opportunities for younger players to >break in. One thing that has really affected the development of young players is the lack of a good reserve league. The old Central league was of a very good standard not at all like the reserve leagues of today
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Forget about it! Next: Luck of the Draw - The Lucky and Unlucky |