Stop overplaying youngsters?

comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 26 minutes ago
Most done by the time they're 30 unless they are a fitness freak. I'd hazard a guess Pato and Torres would be similar and it's something I've said for a while.

There are stars around minutes played by the age of 21 and players like Ox, Fowler, Torres, Pato, etc all played about 100 games by that point. There's too much football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias?

Maldini, Seedorf, Zlatan, Aguero, Messi, C Ronaldo, they'd all played well over 100 games by that age too. AS, I'd venture a guess, had most of the names on that twitter list.

This whole list seems to have been triggered by the fact Rashford has looked awful for some time. He might never get back to where he was or continue to develop his game further, or he might overcome a blip related to loss of belief due to playing for years in a dysfunctional team, who knows. But that, anyway, is the story of football - always has been, always will.

The vast majority of pro footballers would bite your hand off for 10 or 12 seasons at the highest level, what does it matter if those years are between the ages of 18 and 28/30 or 24 and 34/36? Not to mention the fact that a lot of those who do reach the highest level after the age of 24 will also be done by the time they're 30 or 32...

I have heard of it yeah. Not sure Ageuro is strengthening your case, or in fact if you could name any more. I can fwiw.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
Sorry, TopLad, does that bloke give any source for the number of minutes on his list? I think he's just used total minutes as they appear on transfermarkt, because that's the exact tally I get if I add up Dinho's minutes according to that site. The problem is that from his time in Brazil it only counts 10 appearances in the 1998 Libertadores, when by the time he cam to Europe he'd already made a further 115 appearances on top of those 10 (plus a significant number for Brazil's senior and Olympic teams. Even at a conservative estimate of 50 minutes per game, that would still well over 5,000 minutes missing from his total.

This isn't to further state my case, because Dinho if anything was one of those who bottomed out rather early, but in addition to the omissions in the list I mentioned earlier, you'd also have to ask how these figures have been tallied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think all the Brazilian players on that list may be wrong, I would think to just leave them out. Seen a reply on that thread stating to use Soccerway for mins played rather than transfermarkt like you mentioned, seems to omit some stats.

The rest of the numbers seem to be correct

comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 12 minutes ago
I have heard of it yeah. Not sure Ageuro is strengthening your case, or in fact if you could name any more. I can fwiw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean "most of the names on that twitter list" is still too short a number for you? Either way, I'm just replying in kind with an anecdotal list to another couple of anecdotal lists.

Yes, I would say Aguero strengthens my case because he's had a long career, over a decade at the top, nearly 700 games, winning silverware from beginning to end, and has retired because of a heart condition which I think you'd be extremely hard pushed to prove is due to playing too much as a teenager.

And two more points besides:

1) many, many footballers decline after turning 30, regardless of whether they broke through at 18, 22, or 25.

2) You also don't need to break through at 18 and play 100+ games by the time you're 21 in order to be injury prone.

What I don't get is why you think Aguero would've been better off if he'd played less as a teenager and hit his prime later - why?

@TopLad - thanks for that, I don't have a twitter account, so nowadays it's a pain in the bum trying to access entire threads, as it bars you from accessing other pages by clicking through from the one you land on.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
@TopLad - thanks for that, I don't have a twitter account, so nowadays it's a pain in the bum trying to access entire threads, as it bars you from accessing other pages by clicking through from the one you land on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No worries, you should sign up, just to get some news and see threads too. You don't need to really tweet anything but a lot of good(and very bad) discussions and stats can be found on there.

Thanks for the tip mate, but I shouldn't even be spending the amount of time I spend on here!

comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Most done by the time they're 30 unless they are a fitness freak. I'd hazard a guess Pato and Torres would be similar and it's something I've said for a while.

There are stars around minutes played by the age of 21 and players like Ox, Fowler, Torres, Pato, etc all played about 100 games by that point. There's too much football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much greedy bastirts wanting to screw money out the game.

Then too many under pressure managers thinking short term.

Players tbf just want to play the sport they love and are unlikely to argue too much.

I think the biggest issue is over paying youngsters.

Rashford on £200k cannot be bothered or motivated becuase he has everything, and everything is given to him whether he delivers or not.

Imagine if, for doing the same job, you were suddenly offered huge huge sums of money, and whether you performed or not didnt matter, that money was guaranteed for years.

The lad has no hunger (no pun intended) and he's not alone. Kids getting too much too early is a bigger problem than being over played IMO.

The list isn't even bad