Age of footballers: How old is too old?

[FMBlade1]

I was quite surprised to read in the Philip Billing post in the rumour section several comments stating that at aged 29 he is too old and not worth the potential fee we would be paying.

It depends on the players, but many more are becoming better conditioned and can have an impact into their mid thirties, and we have had a decent track record with older players including McGoldrick, Speed, McGrath to name a handful (whilst recognizing that some like Rush didn't work out).

We need experience in our squad so I can understand why we are looking at Ings and Redmond (though will leave the question whether they are the right answers for what we need for elsewhere).

Obviously we don't want to pay out £40k a week for a has-been crock and I get we need to think about resale of players, which has been our strategy for several years, but has this attitude gone too far?

 

[Willglynning]

I don't think age really matters at all. It all depends on the sort of player, the role they play and how fit they are.


For example:

Ben Mee at nearly 36 seems like a no-brainer.

Nathan Redmond at 31 seems like a really risky move.

 

[Silent Blade]

If you are still good enough then you aren't too old yet.

 

[Blademan89]

James Milner - 39 years young and still playing premier league football & probably one of the fittest in his team.

 

[derfblade.3]

Sir Stanley Matthews played his last game for Stoke just after his 50th birthday...........and he was still better than Dean Hammond!

 

[Blademan89]

Sir Stanley Matthews played his last game for Stoke just after his 50th birthday...........and he was still better than Dean Hammond!

Its some feat but completely different opponents.

Modern day players are athletes and often young athletes around 20-25. Which you can see a trend of regular footballers age getting lower and lower.

 

[Silent Blade]

Sir Stanley Matthews played his last game for Stoke just after his 50th birthday...........and he was still better than Dean Hammond!

He was playing regularly until he was 48. Made 9 league appearances during the 63-64 season then didn't play for a long time until his 50th birthday which was a special occasion and his only league game of 64 65 season

 

[SwissBlade]

I was quite surprised to read in the Philip Billing post in the rumour section several comments stating that at aged 29 he is too old and not worth the potential fee we would be paying.

It depends on the players, but many more are becoming better conditioned and can have an impact into their mid thirties, and we have had a decent track record with older players including McGoldrick, Speed, McGrath to name a handful (whilst recognizing that some like Rush didn't work out).

We need experience in our squad so I can understand why we are looking at Ings and Redmond (though will leave the question whether they are the right answers for what we need for elsewhere).

Obviously we don't want to pay out £40k a week for a has-been crock and I get we need to think about resale of players, which has been our strategy for several years, but has this attitude gone too far?

32-33 is probably the limit for the elite level (Champions league, UEFA, top of the Prem) but i think there are certainly players capable to play consistently in the mid / lower end of the Premier League and top end Championship up to 35 really.

Beyond that its League one and League two.

But it does really depend on the player and their position. Players relying on pace and multiple sprints per game are more susceptible to injuries and will need longer recovery time, even younger players need more recovery between games because of the intensity in games.

A solid midfielder or Striker with a big engine, if they're an intelligent player in those positions they can keep going.

Interesting you mention McGrath, an alcoholic with dodgy knees, could train, but read the game better than any player i've watched live and just made short sprints when he had to, almost defied logic

Billy and Didsy are still going and look in their prime. Jags was going for a long time, Kyle Walker still at the top level. Speed and McCall definitely didn't look in their prime, but were so intelligent that they could get away with it.

 

[Yogi]

It surely depends on the situation and what the expectations are for that player.

For example for a club like United if you’re paying a large fee for a player then it makes sense to target a player who hasn’t yet hit their prime as if you are correct in identifying a good player their value should only increase and you can then sell on for a profit hopefully repeating that process with players of increasingly better profile and advancing the club along with it.

However if the fee is low or nothing, the wages are reasonable and the contract length short then you can take a gamble on getting good contributions from players past their peak as you’re not committing a big chunk of your resources to that player. You also increase the chances of that older player being successful if you have a squad situation where you can rest that player when needed and don’t need them to play every minute of every game.

What United need to avoid and haven’t in the past is paying big fees for players in their prime and at the peak of their market value. We’ve also recently not been good at correctly identifying young players worth spending big on.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Billy and Didsy are still going and look in their prime. Jags was going for a long time, Kyle Walker still at the top level. Speed and McCall definitely didn't look in their prime, but were so intelligent that they could get away with it.

I love them, but Billy and Didsy don’t look anywhere near their prime. They’re in and out of lower league teams - a far cry from when they were scoring in the top flight. It’s still great to see them doing well though.

 

[Need4speed]

Apart from the obvious when physically a player is too old to play at Championship and above level which could be anywhere between 34 and 38, depending on position and excluding goal keepers. I think too old is often that the player will have no resale value. So sign a Billing at 29 on a three or four year contract you are basically writing off the fee you pay to buy him. Depending on wages there is also the problem that you will not be able to shift him should you wish too.

 

[skegblade]

James Milners still playing in premiership

 

[Aston max]

Just look at Ronaldo !! Hey but here's a thought that I thought would be on the rumours section, Ericson still without a club

 

[Pollingtonblade]

I'd have sharp and didzy now over cannon and brewster

 

[DifferentClass]

James Milner - 39 years young and still playing premier league football & probably one of the fittest in his team.

Came on as a sub for dirties against us in FA Cup in 03!

 

[1889]

There is no fixed age, it’s down to the individual and their desire and dedication.

Don’t forget Ronaldo is older than Wayne Rooney

 

[PokerBlade]

It's about expectations and expense and balancing the squad. As it stands, the only one we've got that's the wrong side of thirty is Robinson. After that I think Hamer is the oldest player we have at 28.

We can't sign Ings expecting him to play every week but he's experienced at a higher level. I wouldn't give him a three year deal but if the wages are right then he could be a good addition. Mee could improve us as well. Both seem to be good professionals too. I wouldn't take Redmond, but point is that these would be the only older players in the squad.

 

[DifferentClass]

There is no fixed age, it’s down to the individual and their desire and dedication.

Don’t forget Ronaldo is older than Wayne Rooney

Has a better thatch doctor unall.

 

[SwissBlade]

I love them, but Billy and Didsy don’t look anywhere near their prime. They’re in and out of lower league teams - a far cry from when they were scoring in the top flight. It’s still great to see them doing well though.

Probably worded badly, not in a football sense but fitness wise they look in better shape now than at 25

 

[I should coco]

Jags and Deano mark II, we're excellent for us.

Beattie and Bent mark II, were liabilities.

Age isn't anywhere near as important as attitude.

 

[MayorOJC]

I was quite surprised to read in the Philip Billing post in the rumour section several comments stating that at aged 29 he is too old and not worth the potential fee we would be paying.

It depends on the players, but many more are becoming better conditioned and can have an impact into their mid thirties, and we have had a decent track record with older players including McGoldrick, Speed, McGrath to name a handful (whilst recognizing that some like Rush didn't work out).

We need experience in our squad so I can understand why we are looking at Ings and Redmond (though will leave the question whether they are the right answers for what we need for elsewhere).

Obviously we don't want to pay out £40k a week for a has-been crock and I get we need to think about resale of players, which has been our strategy for several years, but has this attitude gone too far?

Think the key is resale value. It's not that Billing is too old at 29, it's that in 2 years he'll be 31 and his resale value will be tiny. Whereas signing Vini Souza as a 24 year old means that we were still able to get a good fee for him at 26.

 

[Badger Blade]

All depends what we need them for and what we want out of them. Do clubs want a quick fix or are they playing the long game? Regardless, in between times, you still need to be winning games and being competitive regardless of what the 1/3/5/10 year plan is.

One thing the owners have probably cottoned onto is that we sign players and most of them over the past few years left for nothing at the end of their contracts, hence the desire to sign younger ones through AI and whatnot, before they hit their peak and sell them for a profit which begs the question, through this method of who is "too old" or not.

In reality, there are players who are over the age of 30 and still have plenty to offer if signing them is recouped through other means.

Messi and Ronaldo are still going because they are big money, big name attractions who generate millions in merch sales in growing markets. They'll both leave for nothing but what they brought for their clubs is very profitable. Zlatan Ibrahimovic scored more goals in his 30's than in his 20's. Jamie Vardy has his wife's legal fees to cover!

James Milner is still going because he'll bring benefits on and off the field in terms of doing a decent job when called upon while being a talisman for the younger players to follow. Likewise Ryan Giggs (excluding his extra-curricular activities) who played until he was 40. Having these guys among ones 20 years younger can help them prove that they can still be making good money running round a field for a long time if they want to knuckle down and do that.

The influence of an older, more experienced player like a Ben Mee on a Nils Zatterstrom could pay dividends on a young, potential cash cow than by not having them there.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

Depends on the player and how he's looked after himself. Messing and Ronaldo are still going, Mousset was pretty much done at 25.

 

[FMBlade1]

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

The wrapper might be wrinkled, but don’t mean the candy ain’t sweet.

 

[lazyfecklessblade]

It’s not the age, it’s the mileage. Some players go on forever without showing wear and tear, others knees pack in at 28. Probably down to genetics/injuries/lifestyle, and up to the medical team to work out who still has gas in the tank (gulp).

 

[Gin&Juice]

You’re Never too old

 

[diode_blade]

Wasn't Stuart McCall 40 when he played for us? if i am not mistaken