Liverpool FC Forum

[JC_81]

Yakka - no wires were crossed.  That's what he claims. 'Best Liverpool midfield he's seen'.  He's not yet denied stating this because it's true.

Stu - I'm simply pointing out that for the amount of abuse you gave Sissoko at the time, and for the amount of abuse you gave Rafa for playing Gerrard wide, to come out with that statement is a joke.  I'll also add that Kewell made 40 appearances that season scoring 3 and assisting 3.  Hardly great for a creative wide attacker.  I remember he had a stormer in the FA cup semi v Chelsea that year but not much else sticks in the memory that season. I'm not denying Kewell had talent and I certainly am not denying that Alonso/Gerrard were and are top players.

I find it tiresome your over-the-top criticism of current players, while you have an equal tendency to see ex-players and teams through rose-tinted specs, as well as over-rating players in rival teams.  And I'll say it again, you're clearly a 'the grass is greener' type of guy.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

Stu the Red

Alonso and Gerrard were outstanding players and Kewell on the left, when fit and playing well contributed immensely to that season with use of the ball, work rate and way he balanced the team. 82 points and one point behind second place I may add.

What I used to "complain" about was I believed we could do a lot better than Sissoko, who wasn't a bad player for us, just not a great one.

But I suppose that's really daft of me wanting one of our weakest links improving.

that midfield of yours wouldnt even be in my top 10!
as i said stu hendo and allen are only 23, it`s way too early to write them off, especially when they have shown that they have performances like last sundays in their locker. they cant be that sh.1.te if they were at the heart of one of our best performances in decades, infact that win at WHL was our biggest win there in our entire 120 year history.

[Stu the Red]

Stu the Red

Alonso and Gerrard were outstanding players and Kewell on the left, when fit and playing well contributed immensely to that season with use of the ball, work rate and way he balanced the team. 82 points and one point behind second place I may add.

What I used to "complain" about was I believed we could do a lot better than Sissoko, who wasn't a bad player for us, just not a great one.

But I suppose that's really daft of me wanting one of our weakest links improving.

that midfield of yours wouldnt even be in my top 10!
as i said stu hendo and allen are only 23, it`s way too early to write them off, especially when they have shown that they have performances like last sundays in their locker. they cant be that sh.1.te if they were at the heart of one of our best performances in decades, infact that win at WHL was our biggest win there in our entire 120 year history.

And? Would you like a medal for being older than me?

Bit of a strange comment that really...

I'm not stating that its the best midfield ever, simply the best I've seen in my years of supporting Liverpool (and being at an age which is old enough to understand the game). It was a good midfield, anyone who thinks otherwise, again is talking out their *****. You don't get eighty two points in the league with a poor one.

To be quite honest, you can bang on about about Allen and Henderson's odd game here and there all you like. The fact is, in two years, they've shown nothing except slightly above average ability on occasions. As I said, its quite laughable that people now think all of a sudden, players who've done nothing for two years are now upto it and "need time". They've had time, plenty of it. And if Gerrard being in the side is some sort of burden to them rather than inspiration then I'm sorry, but they aren't worthy of the shirt.

You're also making that performance out to be far better than it actually was. We were excellent yes, but Spurs were woefully inept. To be quite honest, the performance was simply embarrassing. Tactically its the worst performance I've ever seen from a premier league side. Its only down to the fact they have players with ability that the score wasn't well into double figures.

Spurs did not attack our weaknesses, they didn't play to their strengths and they didn't stifle ours. Add that to a complete lack of fight and leadership and coming up against a decent side in form then you're going to get your backside handed to you.

We'll have a far better idea of where we are after the next three games. Until then I'm not getting overly excited. If we go and do that to City and Chelsea then maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen.

I still maintain we'll be lucky to finish top four and to be quite honset, if we fail, its bye bye Suarez then another "rebuilding job".

[devaney]

I think I'll join this debate PROPERLY on 2nd January 2014. Just for now I think it is far to early to get overly excited about a midfield that includes Sterling, Allen and Henderson. The three of them have still got one hell of a lot to prove. For me Gerrard Alonso Macherano Garcia (especially in European games ) took a lot of beating. Sorry Stu Kewell wasn't for me. Did a lot of running but created very little and hardly ever scored.

[SouthCoastShankly]

It is commonly accepted a player is at his peak at 27/28. So your theory that a player is as good as he'll ever be in terms of technical ability, physicality or game intelligence is bollox. Something must be improving between then and 23. Gerrard was not as good at 23 as he was at 27/28 - that is an undeniable fact.

All players have potential and for some it is clear that they are extremely gifted and are better than their peers. But to suggest that any player who isn't setting the world alight at 23 will never do is just stupid. I don't understand why you consider yourself some authority on all things football? All of our opinions (including you), although interesting at times are irrelevant. That is why I err on the side of professional opinions who actually have some form of credibility.

Really? You "err on the side of professional opinions"?

Who do you know personally who's opinions count? All of your opinions/knowledge/lack of are based on media bias, nothing more, nothing less. If the media praise a player, you think he's good, if they don't mention them, you're laughing them off as poor.

You actually compared Gerrard (of today) to Alonso of years ago, you say players like Sessegnon and plenty of others are poor because they don't play for "top sides". Quite frankly, most of the stuff you post is clueless happy clappy rubbish that means absoloutely f*ck all.

Again I will repeat to you, as its absolutely crystal clear that you don't understand what potential is in a player.

Players generally reach the maximum level technically when they're 16/17. A player who isn't good enough technically at that age WILL NEVER EVER EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH. At 16/17, the foundations are in place... as the player goes through his career, the only technical improvement as such they will make is a consistency to do sometime well. They won't effectively learn new and better technique.

At 18/19 tactically the player needs to understand the game, have natural movement and reading of the game aswell as decision making. They need to have composure in place. From the age 18/19, the improvements people in this area that players make are usually to do with a system and the ability to understand how to use their attributes and how to mask their weaknesses.

Physically players develop at different rates, some are ready at 16, others aren't ready till they're 21... such is life.

Mentally players don't fully develop till about 22/23.

You're arguement that all players peak at 27 is complete and utter rubbish. All players peak at different ages, there is no set age. 27 was plucked from the air years ago as its an age in the middle of a career when physical decline hasn't set in while experience is very high. Distin 35, Owen 20, Fowler 20, Barry 30, Gerrard 26 to name a few players as I really can't be bothered going over this proven arguement yet again.

Sissoko was heralded as the "new Vieira" on here by many. When he learns to pass. He never learnt, because at 23, he couldn't pass.

Baros was mooted as "world class" (by yourself it may have been, may be mistaken) and will be "better than Owen" when he learns to get his head up. And guess what? Despite us signing him at a young age, he never "got his head up".

Babel was "the new Henry" with strength... when he learns to be consistent and make good decisions and link up the play he'll be immense... again. He "never learnt" because he was passed that stage of his career (again being a young player).

And the best one of the lot, Steven Gerrard came through at 18... yet even now at 33 he's exactly the same player but without the physical aspect of his game which is starting to bring to light his glaring tactical deficiencies which you, amoung others used to give me absolutely loads for daring to suggest he had.

Oh, who can forget Traore, he only needed to learn "positioning" and "decision making" and he was the next Thuram.

The difference is, I can see it a mile off, you obviously can't. I don't really have a problem a with that, but when you constantly dismiss others who are more experienced and better qualified then really, it makes you look at bit daft.

You're arguement that you use earlier about airing on the side of professional's is something I do myself, the difference being I know a lot of them, from kids coaches, to players, managers, scouts, and first team coaches. I'd say I agree with 95% of the opinions most top managers and coaches have and voice. There are certain things that certain ones "say for effect" and their are certain things I don't agree with with them on. However, you can be sure if I don't agree with one top manager on an issue, their is another top manager or coach that will disagree with that manager too.

I dunno whose posts you've been confusing with me but to suggest I change my opinions based on the media is just misleading. I have and always will be about giving players and managers time to prove their worth, not decide their future potential based on how they have played when they are 23.

My media sources I respect the most are those who back their statements up with fact, the type of journalist or football writer who get a lot of respect for their opinion. A great example is Tony Barrett from the Times. Very close to Liverpool and based on the views he writes would likely disagree on most things with you. But then you must be used to that.

So you think that the 27/28 peak rule is a myth? If that's true and you actually think that the age is 23, then the league will have more 23 year olds playing than 27/28's right? After all why would the majority of clubs play players past their best, when they have peak players ready and waiting.

Oh hang on, actually the league has a heavy bias to players in their late twenties. It's simple statistics Stu. The players that are most able, developed and perform most consistently are those hitting their late 20's.

[devaney]

SCS this is not an exact science. What your evidence doesn't show is how much better the 27 and 28 year olds are than when they were 23. Stu's argument ( I think) is that players don't develop beyond 23 when they have reached their mental and physical peak. It is a broad statement and I certainly don't agree with it as a generalisation. Is Suarez for example better now and more developed than when he was 23? I would say that he is. It really wouldn't take very long to produce a list of players that make Stu's argument look a bit weak. I think most top flight defenders are slower to develop and reach the absolute peak of their powers. Sami when he was 23 was fantastic but at 28 he was phenomenal. Alonso was certainly a better a more developed player at 28 than he was at 23. The same to some extent applies to goalkeepers. Look at Brad Friedel - the old bugger was nowhere near the finished article at 23. I don't think these players are exceptions to the rule. Messi and Ronaldo IMHO are certainly better today and more developed than they were at 23. Am I missing the point you are trying to make Stu?

[SouthCoastShankly]

SCS this is not an exact science. What your evidence doesn't show is how much better the 27 and 28 year olds are than when they were 23. Stu's argument ( I think) is that players don't develop beyond 23 when they have reached their mental and physical peak. It is a broad statement and I certainly don't agree with it as a generalisation. Is Suarez for example better now and more developed than when he was 23? I would say that he is. It really wouldn't take very long to produce a list of players that make Stu's argument look a bit weak. I think most top flight defenders are slower to develop and reach the absolute peak of their powers. Sami when he was 23 was fantastic but at 28 he was phenomenal. Alonso was certainly a better a more developed player at 28 than he was at 23. The same to some extent applies to goalkeepers. Look at Brad Friedel - the old bugger was nowhere near the finished article at 23. I don't think these players are exceptions to the rule. Messi and Ronaldo IMHO are certainly better today and more developed than they were at 23. Am I missing the point you are trying to make Stu?

I agree it is not an exact science, how could it be - we know there are some phenomenal talents who develop very early.

The point is, statistically, players get sold for more between 26-28 than any other age and that various analysis show 26-28 to be the sweet spot for performance.

The numbers support the theory that a players peak is 27. The theory has been touted for years now, and the numbers support it.

Recently Arsenal have pursued a younger squad philosophy and have suffered a trophy draught commonly attributed to lack of experience. Despite this there is a renaissance about signing younger relatively inexperienced talent, however this driven larger by financial reasons rather than the acceptance that a player peaks when he is young. Escalating transfer fees and higher wage expectations, fuelled by the growing flow of money global football is producing, mean that clubs who aren't cash rich have to find an alternative squad strategy that does not involve huge cash layouts that experienced peak age (26-28) players bring.

I agree totally that certain positions develop at different rates, from the same website I posted before - they show the breakdown of peak performance by position (note: these stats are built from data since 2010).



Defensive positions tend to develop later, attacking positions tend to develop earlier than defensive players (not early 20s though). Regardless the overall average is still 26-28. Thats the great thing with statistical averages, it doesn't care about one off outliers. With a large enough sample size the numbers will always reflect the majority.

[Stu the Red]

So you think that the 27/28 peak rule is a myth? If that's true and you actually think that the age is 23, then the league will have more 23 year olds playing than 27/28's right? After all why would the majority of clubs play players past their best, when they have peak players ready and waiting.

Proves you either:

A: Didn't read the post and are just looking for an arguement
B: Not intelligent to comprehend what was said so therefore made up your own arguement.

I'll underline something for you in the post. Go back and have a look.

[Stu the Red]

SCS this is not an exact science. What your evidence doesn't show is how much better the 27 and 28 year olds are than when they were 23. Stu's argument ( I think) is that players don't develop beyond 23 when they have reached their mental and physical peak. It is a broad statement and I certainly don't agree with it as a generalisation. Is Suarez for example better now and more developed than when he was 23? I would say that he is. It really wouldn't take very long to produce a list of players that make Stu's argument look a bit weak. I think most top flight defenders are slower to develop and reach the absolute peak of their powers. Sami when he was 23 was fantastic but at 28 he was phenomenal. Alonso was certainly a better a more developed player at 28 than he was at 23. The same to some extent applies to goalkeepers. Look at Brad Friedel - the old bugger was nowhere near the finished article at 23. I don't think these players are exceptions to the rule. Messi and Ronaldo IMHO are certainly better today and more developed than they were at 23. Am I missing the point you are trying to make Stu?

There is a difference in gaining confidence and maturing as a person than actually increasing in technical and general ability.

With swagger and arrogance things like composure, aggression and bottle and can increase. Also as you get older, you don't get "technically better" or physically quicker (I'm talking from 23 onwards). You start to learn to mask weaknesses and play to your strengths and learn to win rather than play (that's what experience actually is). You can give any 19 year old all the "time" in the world, if he can't control a ball at 19, he never will be able to.

Suarez touch, technical attributes, physical attributes and most of mental attributes (and he is mental ) were all pretty there when he signed.

Everything I've seen this season from him I've already seen over the last few seasons and during his international career and early in his Ajax career... the only difference is he's doing it more consistently now as he knows his own game a lot better.

[Stu the Red]

I agree it is not an exact science, how could it be - we know there are some phenomenal talents who develop very early.

The point is, statistically, players get sold for more between 26-28 than any other age and that various analysis show 26-28 to be the sweet spot for performance.

The numbers support the theory that a players peak is 27. The theory has been touted for years now, and the numbers support it.

Recently Arsenal have pursued a younger squad philosophy and have suffered a trophy draught commonly attributed to lack of experience. Despite this there is a renaissance about signing younger relatively inexperienced talent, however this driven larger by financial reasons rather than the acceptance that a player peaks when he is young. Escalating transfer fees and higher wage expectations, fuelled by the growing flow of money global football is producing, mean that clubs who aren't cash rich have to find an alternative squad strategy that does not involve huge cash layouts that experienced peak age (26-28) players bring.

I agree totally that certain positions develop at different rates, from the same website I posted before - they show the breakdown of peak performance by position (note: these stats are built from data since 2010).



Defensive positions tend to develop later, attacking positions tend to develop earlier than defensive players (not early 20s though). Regardless the overall average is still 26-28. Thats the great thing with statistical averages, it doesn't care about one off outliers. With a large enough sample size the numbers will always reflect the majority.

Rubbish.

Arsenal's "lack of a trophy" was f*ck all to do with the age of the team or inexperience. It was a from a lack of quality. Plain and simple.

Again you miss the point, your arguement was that players peak at 27... I said that different players peak at different times during their career.

Are you now backtracking on yourself?

[SouthCoastShankly]

I agree it is not an exact science, how could it be - we know there are some phenomenal talents who develop very early.

The point is, statistically, players get sold for more between 26-28 than any other age and that various analysis show 26-28 to be the sweet spot for performance.

The numbers support the theory that a players peak is 27. The theory has been touted for years now, and the numbers support it.

Recently Arsenal have pursued a younger squad philosophy and have suffered a trophy draught commonly attributed to lack of experience. Despite this there is a renaissance about signing younger relatively inexperienced talent, however this driven larger by financial reasons rather than the acceptance that a player peaks when he is young. Escalating transfer fees and higher wage expectations, fuelled by the growing flow of money global football is producing, mean that clubs who aren't cash rich have to find an alternative squad strategy that does not involve huge cash layouts that experienced peak age (26-28) players bring.

I agree totally that certain positions develop at different rates, from the same website I posted before - they show the breakdown of peak performance by position (note: these stats are built from data since 2010).



Defensive positions tend to develop later, attacking positions tend to develop earlier than defensive players (not early 20s though). Regardless the overall average is still 26-28. Thats the great thing with statistical averages, it doesn't care about one off outliers. With a large enough sample size the numbers will always reflect the majority.

Rubbish.

Arsenal's "lack of a trophy" was f*ck all to do with the age of the team or inexperience. It was a from a lack of quality. Plain and simple.

Again you miss the point, your arguement was that players peak at 27... I said that different players peak at different times during their career.

Are you now backtracking on yourself?

Not backtracking at all.

My point is on average a player peaks between 26-28 (the average of that being 27). At no point did I say all players peak at 27 (that was your little addition). Sure you get a few players who are the exception to the rule who come good earlier or later than that but generally speaking most players hit their peak within the 26-28 age range. Argue it all you like, but your only arguing with facts. Your call.

Cast you mind back to this statement which started your latest rant -

How can you say "no-one knows how good they will become"? Its crystal clear to anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the game. You look at their attributes. Its as simple as that.

I totally disagree, so many players grow and develop under the right leadership and development. Have you ever considered that the raw talent was there with some players but was never unearthed until the right coach came along?

You start your whole egotistical argument saying "anyone with an ounce of knowledge" (which by the way is nothing more than a 'no true scotsman' argument used by those who have no ability to make a reasoned argument) can tell if a player will come good or not, yet later on you go on to say that the players who do develop late on, do so by masking their failures/weaknesses. And you have a go at me for backtracking. 

Listen, I will happily bow to your expertise, if you show me something credible to suggest you know what your talking about. Other than the pathetic, substance-less claims like  "i used to play semi-pro", "I know coaches", etc.

You clearly are passionate about football, but your passion turns into baseless arrogance more often than not.

[Stu the Red]

How can you say "no-one knows how good they will become"? Its crystal clear to anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the game. You look at their attributes. Its as simple as that.

I totally disagree, so many players grow and develop under the right leadership and development. Have you ever considered that the raw talent was there with some players but was never unearthed until the right coach came along?

You start your whole egotistical argument saying "anyone with an ounce of knowledge" (which by the way is nothing more than a 'no true scotsman' argument used by those who have no ability to make a reasoned argument) can tell if a player will come good or not, yet later on you go on to say that the players who do develop late on, do so by masking their failures/weaknesses. And you have a go at me for backtracking. 

Listen, I will happily bow to your expertise, if you show me something credible to suggest you know what your talking about. Other than the pathetic, substance-less claims like  "i used to play semi-pro", "I know coaches", etc.

You clearly are passionate about football, but your passion turns into baseless arrogance more often than not.

First off, when you're talking about a player "growing and developing" you're talking about a player being utilized correctly.

If you have a spanner and try to use it to dig up a pavement that doesn't mean the spanner is any worse. That doesn't mean its characteristics (or attributes) for that matter are any worse. It simply means its being used incorrectly and in a way it wasn't intended. Its exactly the same with footballers.

Some managers will use certain players far better than others do. That's just part of the game. Hence the reason some players will adapt better at certain clubs than at others.

Sometimes you might get multi-talented individuals that can adapt too all circumstances.

Secondly, you've again missed the point. At 23/24 Joe Allen and Henderson aren't going to become technically world class, they aren't going to develop lightening pace, they aren't going to become dominant in the air, neither are going to become like Roy Keane in the tackle, they aren't going to start taking players on ala Steve McManaman. Its never ever going to happen, at that age they aren't going to learn how to become something they aren't, they aren't going to gain attributes they don't already have. Its never happened in the past, it will never happen in the future.

They have their attributes already. Its crystal clear to see how good they will become because they already are "that good".

Great players mask attributes by playing to their strengths and not trying to do things they know they don't have in their locker. They become slightly more accustomed to their attributes as they get older meaning they often make "safer" decisions rather than instinctive ones. The difference in the two is a matter of opinion and instinctive decisions can sometimes be "technically the wrong thing" but can end up as the correct thing.

To be quite honest, I'm bored of discussing player development with people who don't understand it because I just seem to end up repeating myself.

My last comments on the matter...

Wayne Rooney at 16 was good enough technically, infact, I'd say technically at 16 he was probably as good as anything in the league (look at his goal for Everton vs Arsenal). Wayne was pretty much the same player at 16 as he is now, he had awareness, touch, passing ability and a great shot. Now, he has improved since 16, but the point is, you could see at that age what he was good at, his strengths are still the same, he's not all of a sudden "learnt" millions of new attributes. The only technical attribute I would add is between 16 and 20 he became capable in the air.

Owen at 17/18 was ripping teams to pieces with his skill, speed, movement and finishing ability.

Fowler at 19/20 was scoring 30+ goals in a season.

Babel at 20 had poor decision making and still has.

Baros never learnt to lift his head.

Players with bad habbits at 20, will have bad habbits at 30, players that don't have attributes at 20, won't have them by the time they're thirty.

If they did, Traore, Babel, Plessis, Leto, Baros and Cisse would all have been huge successes, as physically, they had what the leymans call "potential".

I'll add to that, look up Arsene Wenger on "building a footballer".

Mind you, what would Wenger know? Its not like he understands player development now is it?

[Stu the Red]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8E01bn7J4 A link for you.

Actually, having reviewed what Arsene said, I disagree with him slightly. I think you develop technically upto about 17... in some cases.

Physically he says 17 you start to see if the player is quick enough and strong enough etc. Sometimes that can be seen earlier, that often depends on growth. There are for me two levels of this side of development. Ferdinand, Gerrard and Ronaldo being examples. They were physically good enough to play to a good level, but after 21 they become much bigger, stronger and quicker which pushed their game up various levels.

Tactically I agree with, and then "the roof" part I agree with, that then comes down to experience, dedication etc.

[stmichael]

Brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rixkZpYlKQ

[red till i die!!]

rodgers reveals he looked at the spurs job 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... Spurs.html