So in your view no players over 19 ever improve
The basics? Probably not. Decision making improves for some players, and players also get naturally stronger which will add to their game. But I am a great believer in :
a) truly great players have skills that can't be coached or taught, and they have those skills from a young age. All the top players now were better at 17/18 than the majority of senior pro's in their position.
b) the basics are so drilled into players from a young age that if they are making basic errors at 18 they'll be making them most of their career.
c) top flight players are special, very special. Once again a lot of what they have simply cannot be coached.
d) some players change their position in their career (or at least their manager does) and all of a sudden that player becomes brilliant. That is not down to a player improving, but a player being utilised correctly for the first time, e.g. Kevin Phillips started out as a right back!
e) players do improve as they get older, but it's not leaps and bounds. It's refinement rather than drastic improvement. I also think that players who tend to rely on athleticism tend to actually decline at an earlier age if they lose their agility, speed etc. That's why someone like Robbie Keane at 28 was an inferior player to Robbie Keane at 17.
One thing that can have a massive effect on performance is player character and confidence. Some young players come in and are fearless from the off (Owen, Rooney) and at 16 are better than the majority of players in their positions. Some young players are more nervous and will make uncharacteristic mistakes when they first break into a team due to those nerves. But usually that settles down after a few games. The exception being some foreign players may take a lot longer to settle as they have so many new things to adjust too.
I have had this very argument on here time and time again. First time around was under Hoddle, when I dared to suggest (and got slaughtered for it!) that Davies, Etherington and Gardner clearly weren't good enough. Then after his debut game I got ripped into because I said Ifil clearly isn't good enough. I was personally abused when I dared to suggest that Huddlestone would never be good enough to be an England regular etc. So I am not shocked that I am fighting a losing battle here, because I always am when I debate this point :lol:
I know people disagree with me but I look at Kaboul, Ekotto, Lennon, Huddlestone, Defoe and none of them are any better than when we first signed them. Sure their form waxes and wanes, but generally they haven't improved. That isn't a criticism of them either, because they've all done us proud. Even Bale really, who I think HAS improved due to getting stronger. But those first few games under Jol Bale was immense. Then he got injured and it took time to recover from that. We're also playing as a winger. So I wouldn't say Bale has massively improved since we signed him, more that he is back to the level he demonstrated when we first signed him.
