From: JK on
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
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