Liverpool FC Forum

[Stu the Red]

That's kind of my question. Do we hold into a player because he's good enough? Or is it because we hold onto them so they improve? Somewhere in the middle is my answer. My overall point is that those that stay are good players. If we send a player on loan, we're more or less saying they're not as good as that top tier we once produced, like those mentioned.

Exactly. I grew up watching Owen, Fowler, McManaman, Carragher and Gerrard coming through the youth ranks (they all could have played in the same side too (that is f*cking annoying). We also had Wright, Warnock and Thompson come through who were all very capable of playing premier league football to a decent standard.

At the moment, the only one in the squad (excluding Gerrard) that looks like he's got it, for me, is Martin Kelly. Even he is probably only the same level as Warnock and Thompson. Wisdom should go on loan, I would like to see him play centre back, as a right back he's awful but he seems to have something about him although I can't decide if thats me hoping for more than he's got.

[JC_81]

Stu - don't disagree with a lot you say, but still think you underrate how important experience is.

'You never see a squad of 20 year olds but if you did and they had the right level of quality then experience wouldn't matter one iota' - is clearly untrue.

A squad of 20 year olds would never win, or even challenge for, the Premier league.  Why is it that players peak in their late twenties?  Physically they're not fitter and they're not much stronger than when they were 21.  In terms of mentality they're not going to change.  So it's the technical skills, tactical awareness and game smarts that can be developed (granted all players have their predetermined ceiling based on talent).  Simply put, it's easier to do something well the more times you've done it before, that's true for any skill not just football.

I'm not saying that experience makes a bad player or an average player a good one, but without it players don't reach their full potential.  Whether they get that experience at their 'parent club' if they're good enough, or another club on loan doesn't really matter.

[Stu the Red]

Stu - don't disagree with a lot you say, but still think you underrate how important experience is.

'You never see a squad of 20 year olds but if you did and they had the right level of quality then experience wouldn't matter one iota' - is clearly untrue.

A squad of 20 year olds would never win, or even challenge for, the Premier league.  Why is it that players peak in their late twenties?  Physically they're not fitter and they're not much stronger than when they were 21.  In terms of mentality they're not going to change.  So it's the technical skills, tactical awareness and game smarts that can be developed (granted all players have their predetermined ceiling based on talent).  Simply put, it's easier to do something well the more times you've done it before, that's true for any skill not just football.

I'm not saying that experience makes a bad player or an average player a good one, but without it players don't reach their full potential.  Whether they get that experience at their 'parent club' if they're good enough, or another club on loan doesn't really matter.

I'm sorry but can't agree with what you say about about a squad of twenty year olds not winning anything.

United (unfortunately I have to use them) in the nineties had an extremely young first team with Butt, Scholes, Giggs, Neville, Beckham and even Keane to an extent all under twenty five. Granted they had experience mixed in two... but the experienced players were only experienced because they were good.

As I said earlier, I'm not disagreeing it can improve a player, technically though, not a chance, a player is pretty much set technically at around 16/17, physically can be upto 21/22 (usually 20) and game intelligence is usually determined by 18 but in some cases can come in around 22/23.

From that, as I said earlier one, players learn how to mask what they can't do and to maximise what they can. This is where the improvement comes from. Also, it does matter where someone gets there experience. A style of play, or playing with certain players can mask weakness and emphasize strengths. It can add confidence and even in some cases destroy it.

[JC_81]

No way is a player set technically at 16/17 mate.  Technical skills can be improved well into a player's 20's.

Players like Lambert, Bullard, Britton and to a lesser extent Williams have shown that there is room for development in technical attributes later on.

I know someone who coached a current player who until this season was playing in the premier league, when this player was in his mid-late teens.  He assures me that the lad was nothing but a battering ram at that level and nowhere near the best player in the team with a dodgy first touch, but his technical development over the years through sheer hard work in training and lower league experience was unbelievable.

[RedAnt]

I'd not really accounted for the money made from selling the players who don't make the grade. It must add up to a fair whack, but where it stands against costs, I have no idea.

I like Stu's idea of a more focused search, assuming his theory was correct. By that theory though, we could do an intensive search of say Iceland, knowing there's at least one amazing player there. It may be true. George Weah and Jari Litmanen are examples of the worlds best who are guaranteed to never win a World Cup. I doubt it'd be cost effective though and could take a long time.

I'd argue that the quality if the players, club and facilities had a huge impact on players, and if Coady, for example, was good enough, he'd at least get a place on the bench here, learning from better player. I suspect though that he will be loaned around and eventually sold, and be rarely heard of again.

[Stu the Red]

No way is a player set technically at 16/17 mate.  Technical skills can be improved well into a player's 20's.

Players like Lambert, Bullard, Britton and to a lesser extent Williams have shown that there is room for development in technical attributes later on.

I know someone who coached a current player who until this season was playing in the premier league, when this player was in his mid-late teens.  He assures me that the lad was nothing but a battering ram at that level and nowhere near the best player in the team with a dodgy first touch, but his technical development over the years through sheer hard work in training and lower league experience was unbelievable.

Leon Britton has always been an excellent footballer, he's just physically never grown. Technically at 16 they were talking about him for England. He also started his career as a winger because he has great feet and good vision. It was only later in his career that people realised he was a better central midfield player. Bullard again had always been a cracking player, another player that was spoken about as a potential international, a peterborough fan was telling me about him when he was about 19 saying he's good enough to play for England... but due to the nature of his personality was never taken on by a top club since being released by West Ham. The other two I didn't see anything of as kids so I'm not going to comment on.

Technical attributes very rarely improve beyond the ages of 16, if you can't pass at 16, take up golf. Its common knowledge and something any top coach, manager or scout will back up. I'll find the clip of Wenger talking about it and post it on here. And just incase you think "I'm just saying that because Wenger says it" I'd advise you to look at my previous posts and pick out where I've ever conformed to others opinions

By the way, that post isn't meant to sound aggressive or nasty, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.

[JC_81]

'By the way, that post isn't meant to sound aggressive or nasty, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong'



You've mellowed

[Stu the Red]

I'd not really accounted for the money made from selling the players who don't make the grade. It must add up to a fair whack, but where it stands against costs, I have no idea.

I like Stu's idea of a more focused search, assuming his theory was correct. By that theory though, we could do an intensive search of say Iceland, knowing there's at least one amazing player there. It may be true. George Weah and Jari Litmanen are examples of the worlds best who are guaranteed to never win a World Cup. I doubt it'd be cost effective though and could take a long time.

I'd argue that the quality if the players, club and facilities had a huge impact on players, and if Coady, for example, was good enough, he'd at least get a place on the bench here, learning from better player. I suspect though that he will be loaned around and eventually sold, and be rarely heard of again.

It would be nice if they searched Liverpool properly. An area that is suprisingly neglected. Also the over coaching of kids kills the game for me. The try to cap natural flair. (Hence the reason I think Martinez is perfect for Ross Barkley) as he will encourage the lad to play while accepting his mistakes. Hopefully he'll make loads of mistakes against Liverpool though

[Benny The Noon]

What dumbfounds me is sending Suso on loan and then spending £ 7mil on a player with less top flight expirence and less ability !