How important is it for us to avoid buying older players?

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
35,065
Was reading this article earlier which looked at the make-up of the last 10 Champions League finalists' starting elevens. It notes that:

- The average player joined their team for €30.6 million at 22.8 years of age.
- More than 80% of the players who started the Champions League final were acquired by their clubs before their 27th birthday.
- Only two players were acquired in their 30s, namely Keylor Navas and Thiago Silva.
- Of the forwards, only two were signed over the age of 25. Namely Di Maria and Mahrez, both signed at 27.

This got me thinking about City's transfer business over the period they've been dominating the league. And again there we see signings heavily focused towards younger players.

Since Guardiola arrived they've made two significants signings aged 29 or older, namely Nolito and Bravo. Whereas we've made six, namely Casemiro, Eriksen, Ronaldo, Sanchez, Ibra and Cavani. So not only more signings in that age bracket, but much more prominent and costly signings.

And notably of those six signings four were forwards, the one position no CL finalist team over the last half decade has started a player bought after the age of 27. With our reported main target this summer again being a 30 year old striker reported to cost us somewhere between £80-100m.

With all of that in minds, how important do you think the actual age of the players we buy from now on is? Should we be operating in line with these sides and avoid signing ageing players, especially for big money? Or is it a non-issue?
 
Sometimes it's vital to get them in. I think getting in Zlatan for what Jose was trying to do made perfect sense at the time. It all depends.

As is, we won't get the best out of Casemiro without a major engine next to him. He doesn't have the legs for this all-inclusive midfield role. And Eriksen is Juan Mata out of possession.
 
Any player we sign north of 29 should be on a performance-based contract, and should not cost a bomb in transfer fees. I think there are plenty of exceptions to the rule that 30 is about the time a player starts to fall off a performance cliff, but we don’t seem to do well signing those exceptions.

I love Eriksen and Casemiro, but already we should be looking at lining up their long term replacements. If we have the funds, a constant yearly churn of players, sellinga handful to bring in one or two veterans, that’s fine. The issue seems to be a tight budget that can’t handle the outlay on a player that might need to be rotated.

So I’d hope we fished in the 22-25 year old waters. We need some stability and identity in how we play, and that seems hard to achieve with churn.
 
Theoretically it makes sense - you want to buy players who're hungry and will reach the peak with you rather than buying players past their best seeking a final paycheck.
 
Interesting thread, i do find our transfer policy of signing players the wrong Side of 30 to be frustrating. I don’t think any of the ones we’ve signed have had more than one good season and they always need replacing soon after being bought. It’s my main worry with signing Kane. He’s obviously a great striker but there’s legitimate reasons to question his longevity.
 
DDG, Eriksen, Varane, and Casemiro are on their 30ish. Bruno and Shaw are in the bracket of 28 years old this year. Imo is very important we use the money wisely not to buy ageing players anymore.
 
Suedesi said:
Theoretically it makes sense - you want to buy players who're hungry and will reach the peak with you rather than buying players past their best seeking a final paycheck.
Click to expand...

Another article I remember reading (I think about analytics-driven recruitment) framed it in terms of player contracts rather than age. As in whether you sign players on their first, second, third professional contract and so on.

The general point being that you should do everything you can to avoid the first contract a player signs with your club being the most lucrative of their career, but rather ideally have it be their second or third professional contract, with them needing to actually perform for you to earn what will be the most lucrative contract of their career.

The point obviously partly being what you suggest about motivation, but also more simply that if you hand a player the most lucrative contract of their career upon arrival you are by definition buying them at the point of least value.
 
sullydnl said:
Another article I remember reading (I think about analytics-driven recruitment) framed it in terms of player contracts rather than age. As in whether you sign players on their first, second, third professional contract and so on.

The general point being that you should do everything you can to avoid the first contract a player signs with your club being the most lucrative of their career, but rather ideally have it be their second or third professional contract, with them needing to actually perform for you to earn what will be the most lucrative contract of their career.

The point obviously partly being what you suggest about motivation, but also more simply that if you hand a player the most lucrative contract of their career upon arrival you are by definition buying them at the point of least value.
Click to expand...
What decent player would move clubs and take a pay cut?
 
Extremely important. I'm not against signing older players if you have a young squad. Arsenal signing Troussard and Jorginho makes perfect sense considering the makeup of their squad.

Us on the other hand should absolutely avoid signing older players. Especially as we seem to sign older players who gave their best years to the previous clubs hoping that they lead us to trophies. Sanchez, Matic, Cavani, Eriksen are all players that should have been here five years earlier. Kane would be another example if we are silly enough to go for him at £100m.

Man City and Liverpool have basically shown us the blueprint for the last 7 years. Invest in players that can give you their peak years build around them. You have the added bonus of being able to sell them for great prices should they leave just as City did with Sterling and Jesus. Compare that to us receiving zilch for Ronaldo and Sanchez.
 
webbthepostie said:
If their first contract that they sign with you isn't their most lucrative yet it'd have to be less than with their previous club.
Click to expand...
The most lucrative of their career (including future contracts), not their most lucrative yet.
 
It's either we go all in for title next year with Harry Kane signing, or risk of building another young squad for 2-3 years.

The dilemma is whether we fully commit to the old players we have now and try to win major titles or wait.
 
webbthepostie said:
If their first contract that sign with you isn't their most lucrative yet it'd have to be less than with their previous club.
Click to expand...

Sorry I might not have been clear there, I meant their career overall rather than career so far.

Take Bruno, for example. He arrived here on the biggest contract of his career so far. But it was also very obvious given his profile as a signing that if he performed here his next contract at the club would be bigger again and likely represent his peak earnings as a footballer.

As compared to someone like Varane, say, where it was clear from the profile of signing that his first contract here represented the financial peak of his career. He knew upon arrival that whether he performed well or not, any subsequent contract here or elsewhere was always going to see him get payed less.

The point being that you generally want to target the former situation, not the latter. Because it will often mean better value and better motivation. That will align with age, but not strictly 1-1 as sometimes you'll get players in their early 20's further along their career progression than players in their mid 20's.
 
UNITED ACADEMY said:
DDG, Eriksen, Varane, and Casemiro are on their 30ish. Bruno and Shaw are in the bracket of 28 years old this year. Imo is very important we use the money wisely not to buy ageing players anymore.
Click to expand...
This. There's a post by @Bojan Djordjic of how Man City has never bought players over 27 y.o. in the last 6 years. That is an excellent planning there.

Buying older player does make sense as a backup (Cavani, Seringham), or in special occasion (RvP, VDS, and probably Varane).
 
sullydnl said:
Sorry I might not have been clear there, I meant their career overall rather than career so far.

Take Bruno, for example. He arrived here on the biggest contract of his career so far. But it was also very obvious given his profile as a signing that if he performed here his next contract at the club would be bigger again and likely represent his peak earnings as a footballer.

As compared to someone like Varane, say, where it was clear from the profile of signing that his first contract here represented the financial peak of his career. He knew upon arrival that whether he performed well or not, any subsequent contract here or elsewhere was always going to see him get payed less.

The point being that you generally want to target the former situation, not the latter. Because it will often mean better value and better motivation. That will align with age, but not strictly 1-1 as sometimes you'll get players in their early 20's further along their career progression than players in their mid 20's.
Click to expand...
Yep, got it. Cheers, probably me being thick.
 
More important Utd stop handing out ridiculous contracts…. the unsellables
 
Of course you don't want your squad Full of veterans. However, a few are fine if they are clearly better than younger alternatives. We got Lewandowski last summer and I think it was ok. I mean we don't have the money anymore to get Mbappe or Haaland so it's mostly imposible to get anyone better, young or otherwise.
 
Is it possible that these clubs don't necessarily reach a CL final, because they are buying young players, but rather, because they are stable elite clubs and that allows them to be patient and buy young(er) players - take the risks/give them the necessary time, because they don't need their transfers to immediale fix some holes within their squad.
 
meamth said:
It's either we go all in for title next year with Harry Kane signing, or risk of building another young squad for 2-3 years.

The dilemma is whether we fully commit to the old players we have now and try to win major titles or wait.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside any question of whether we could/couldn't push for the title regardless of who we sign, I think it's important not to fall into the trap of thinking it's a dichotomy between pushing for the title with an older player or building a squad with a younger signing.

Taking the other CF we've most talked about on here as an example, it's entirely possible that a signing like Osimhen helps you push for the title next season every bit as much as an older Kane signing does, just while also offering greater potential longevity. It's only an either/or if you believe Kane is the only signing who can hit the ground running.

Those CL sides who barely sign a forward over 25 aren't doing so because they're happy to wait years before challenging, but rather because they think the best way to challenge in the shorter terms is with those signings.
 
do.ob said:
Is it possible that these clubs don't necessarily reach a CL final, because they are buying young players, but rather, because they are stable elite clubs and that allows them to buy young(er) players - take the risks/give them the necessary time.
Click to expand...
Chelsea and Spurs are on the list.
 
DOTA said:
Chelsea and Spurs are on the list.
Click to expand...

Spurs were a one hit wonder, stars algining to be there really, and Chelsea are actually a club that had a couple of older purchases, like Mendy, Jorginho and Silva starting.

I think the whole premise of this thread is a bit random - if you can afford to sign young players with higher development potential and resale value, then obviously you will do that. So the question isn't whether that's a "better" strategy, the question is whether the club is in a position where they can play the long game and whether the scouting/player development is good enough to actually pull it off, because plenty has already been spent on younger players.
 
Last edited:
do.ob said:
Spurs were a one hit wonder, stars algining to be there really, and Chelsea are actually a club that had a couple of older purchases, like Mendy, Jorginho and Silva starting.

I think the whole premise of this thread is a bit random - if you can afford to sign young players with higher development potential and resale value, then obviously you will do that. So the question isn't whether that's a "better" strategy, the question is whether the club is in a position where they can play the long game and whether the scouting/player development is good enough to actually pull it off, because plenty has already been spent on younger players.
Click to expand...

And Chelsea has usually had good players in volume plus are a cup team.

Just show us the core players from those teams, about 8 players who will give you 7 of 10 or 8 of 10 during the matches and then when the other players raise their game, they are hard to best.

Buying players over 29 has to be limited, but they also have to be a clear upgrade and slot into your team.

Varane is still a strong buy and is no longer an international for France. Casemiro is captain of Brazil and is quality. Eriksen was intended to be a squad player but he fits what EtH wants from that position rather than what was available in Fred, McTominay, etc.

Lisandro, Malacia, AWB, Dalot, Rashford, Sancho, Garnacho, Antony, Amad, Pellestri. That young core is massively short on a GK, CB, 2 CMs, and a CF to form a solid and good younger core. That's how much work needs to be done in the next 3 years.
 
One of Uniteds big issues in the last few years has been the hotchpotch recruiting without anything resembly some sort of long-term plan. That ended in us not having a solid backbone of proven players of at least international class that makes sure the squad is stable. This is visible in the lack of leader figures and supposedly weak mentality. Therefore, it kind of made sense for United to bring in experienced players to artificially create some sort of backbone. It just didn't work. For me, good squad composition means that you have 12-14 very good players close to or close after or within their physical peaks (on average). You have a bench that consists of younger players trying to replace one of the 1st teamers, of 1st team players who fell out of the 1st team (based on performance for example) plus a two or three academy players or veterans (like the sort of Gary Neville in his last two years) plus maybe two or three utility players.
Currently our squad composition is faulty for a few reasons - biggest in my point of view is that we are (at least) missing players who are there to take over from Varane, Casemiro, Eriksen. Such players should now probably be available as backups/rotation players.

Answering the question: yes right now we should avoid buying older players as long as they there are connected with serious financial outlays. Not every squad member needs to be 23 of course but the composition has to be right. Right now, we are on course of hitting a cliff in probably 2 years time needing to replace a few players that are 1st teamers right now. Adding another with Kane wouldn't be a smart move - not because the player wouldn't be able to contribute, but because of the money.

I understand the urge to make something happen while Casemiro, Eriksen and Varane are around relatively close to their peak but the chances of this happening next season are slim and I don't think, they warrant the big risk of investing in the future. (Based on our recent success with big money signings, I probably would try to avoid them alltogether, at least for one or two years)
 
It stinks of a club policy of desperation - trying to get back to the top quickly, rather than building a team properly, even if it takes longer to create.

When you’re on top you have the additional luxury of adding younger players and letting them settle in, slowly rotating out older ones.

Signing an older player should be done only when the team is pretty much there and just needs that one extra ingredient to make you a contender. When you’re a fair distance off it makes less sense because the window is way too short and you end up back to square one pretty quickly.
 
edcunited1878 said:
And Chelsea has usually had good players in volume plus are a cup team.

Just show us the core players from those teams, about 8 players who will give you 7 of 10 or 8 of 10 during the matches and then when the other players raise their game, they are hard to best.

Buying players over 29 has to be limited, but they also have to be a clear upgrade and slot into your team.

Varane is still a strong buy and is no longer an international for France. Casemiro is captain of Brazil and is quality. Eriksen was intended to be a squad player but he fits what EtH wants from that position rather than what was available in Fred, McTominay, etc.

Lisandro, Malacia, AWB, Dalot, Rashford, Sancho, Garnacho, Antony, Amad, Pellestri. That young core is massively short on a GK, CB, 2 CMs, and a CF to form a solid and good younger core. That's how much work needs to be done in the next 3 years.
Click to expand...
I'd add that your list in the last line even contains player who partly have serious question marks over their heads in terms of quality. Malacia seems raw but promising, AWB is playing a better 2nd half this season but hasn't really set the world alight. Sancho and Antony - I think both of them will not hit the jackpot at United. Amad looks very promising but very early days and Pellistri looked interesting in the very few minutes the manager gave him.

So I am totally with you - the amount of work to be done is very big.
 
We’re not in the position to be able to afford doing that yet. Top 4 is still a struggle, we’ll only think about proper long-term planning once we’re confident we’ll get that.

I would personally take a few more years of irrelevance and focus on building a team for the future, but it’s clearly not financially appealing.
 
At least 23-25 or May be 26 should be what we are aiming for. Like Martinez. We bought him when he was 24. Perfect age for rebuilding project like what arsenal did. We have already bought enough ageing ones to provide experience and winning mentality, we need to balance it by adding some young ones not adding more ageing players.
 
Last edited:
Even when we signed Casmeiro I said that we should look at a younger profile and it’s simple because we are a work in progress that isn’t winning the league and perfecting our system for another 2-3 years by which time we want our new signings to be in their prime. Granted Casemiero proved me wrong and if all goes well he’d have played a big part in getting top 4 (not done at all) and a trophy after 6 years - maybe we needed experience to turn around our rubbish mentality ?

But in general I believe that’s the way to go. I don’t see the point now in adding more old players while we spend years transitioning.
 
I think its about having a mix. City have kind of developed a bunch of older, experienced players who've played in the later stages of the champions league and won league titles with De Bruyne, Walker and Stones and so on. We dont have that because we haven't been playing or competing at the level we want to be so have to bring it in from outside. A lack of leadership gets brought up semi regularly over the years.
Casemiro and Varane are a good start but past them, its kind of thin. Eriksen somewhat. De Gea won a title a million years ago. We could do with a mix of both really. Or ideally just start winning stuff so Rashford, Shaw and Bruno become the experienced older heads.
 
Question is

are the club and fans be willing to give EtH 3-5 years to build what we think is the best squad to just CHALLENGE for the tittle?

Is EtH is intended to be here to just try to build a squad to challenge for the tittle for at least 5 years?

What we seems to forget is city was buying very good players from the position of strength. They were buying under 26/7 yrs old players the last 6 yrs but what about before that and during that period they were also have a core group of old and experience players already and were building the whole club structure to prepare for Pep arrival. Plus what is their strongest point is that they have money and they will keep buying players until they get the right one. Any other club simply cant do that.

We have been building the squad for 10 years now and the best case scenario is to have a balance squad of young, middle, and experience (18-22, 23-27, 28-31). EtH is doing that with his signings. Being old is not the problem, quality and fit the system or not is the problem. And, Utd havent been buying enough quaity players.
 
Reyoji-Utd said:
Question is

are the club and fans be willing to give EtH 3-5 years to build what we think is the best squad to just CHALLENGE for the tittle?

Is EtH is intended to be here to just try to build a squad to challenge for the tittle for at least 5 years?

What we seems to forget is city was buying very good players from the position of strength. They were buying under 26/7 yrs old players the last 6 yrs but what about before that and during that period they were also have a core group of old and experience players already and were building the whole club structure to prepare for Pep arrival. Plus what is their strongest point is that they have money and they will keep buying players until they get the right one. Any other club simply cant do that.

We have been building the squad for 10 years now and the best case scenario is to have a balance squad of young, middle, and experience (18-22, 23-27, 28-31). EtH is doing that with his signings. Being old is not the problem, quality and fit the system or not is the problem. And, Utd havent been buying enough quaity players.
Click to expand...

There has been no continuity with United since Moyes didn't sign anyone of quality or actual need. Since that time, no style of player or quality has been identified to fit a modern or adaptable tactical style.

EtH is a football nerd and is able to get a tune out of his squad. Unfortunately this United team is again a Frankenstein squad. Jose and LVG leftovers, combined with Ole and EtH holdovers. That's 2 to 3 contract lifespans.

I am more than happy to give EtH multiple years of building a top 3 team and winning cups while trying to go head to head for the title. CL might be easier to get through because a lot has to do with form, draw, and timing.

Toppling City continues to be so difficult because of their manager and ability to bring in and take out players quality players at will.
 
You need a blend always. Our attack is way too young, so by that logic an experienced head like Kane makes sense. Midfield is way too old, need younger guys to balance it and have natural successors. Defence is a good blend though
 
sullydnl said:
Was reading this article earlier which looked at the make-up of the last 10 Champions League finalists' starting elevens. It notes that:

- The average player joined their team for €30.6 million at 22.8 years of age.
- More than 80% of the players who started the Champions League final were acquired by their clubs before their 27th birthday.
- Only two players were acquired in their 30s, namely Keylor Navas and Thiago Silva.
- Of the forwards, only two were signed over the age of 25. Namely Di Maria and Mahrez, both signed at 27.

This got me thinking about City's transfer business over the period they've been dominating the league. And again there we see signings heavily focused towards younger players.

Since Guardiola arrived they've made two significants signings aged 29 or older, namely Nolito and Bravo. Whereas we've made six, namely Casemiro, Eriksen, Ronaldo, Sanchez, Ibra and Cavani. So not only more signings in that age bracket, but much more prominent and costly signings.

And notably of those six signings four were forwards, the one position no CL finalist team over the last half decade has started a player bought after the age of 27. With our reported main target this summer again being a 30 year old striker reported to cost us somewhere between £80-100m.

With all of that in minds, how important do you think the actual age of the players we buy from now on is? Should we be operating in line with these sides and avoid signing ageing players, especially for big money? Or is it a non-issue?
Click to expand...
Context: Pep had David Silva, Aguero, Fernandinho had important role for first few seasons. I already disregarded Kompany who was too injury prone to have a prominence role; or Yaya Toure who only played a bit part in Pep first season.

Pep inherited an experienced team (not just in age, but title winning experience). He did need to refresh the squad ridding some older players like Sagna, Clichy, Koralov all whom played a lot in his first season.

Our issue is we got the foundation of the title winning team removed after Moyes season. The swing in style upon managerial change means different overhaul of players, so we don't really have a solid foundation of title winning experienced players.

Only Liverpool and Tottenham made to CL final building from scratch in this decade. Teams like Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Juventus, PSG, Bayern... still had the foundation of winning something in their league, domestic cups at their clubs. They built upon the foundation of those players for the following few years.

Age is only a number. The player calibre, experience of doing thing right. Ronaldo left us at 22 to go to Real Madrid. That 22 year old Ronaldo is much better than a host of 30 year old, let alone the majority of U22. The issue is it's super rare for a player of that calibre to become available. If 30 year old Benzema leave Real Madrid, would it be bad than picking up 22 year old Martial in an alternative reality where Martial leave couple years later than in our reality?

In my opinion, it's the same old player quality, manager quality, the compatibility (vision/philosophy/structure/scouting) which is most important. This kind of ageism trivial is obvious in position of strength. It's much more difficult building from the ground up going Liverpool way.
 
Last edited:
bosnian_red said:
You need a blend always. Our attack is way too young, so by that logic an experienced head like Kane makes sense. Midfield is way too old, need younger guys to balance it and have natural successors. Defence is a good blend though
Click to expand...

Can't argue with this. In theory, the players here for the long term are Rashford, Garnacho, Antony, Amad and Lisandro and probably one of the RBs if only as a backup. Malacia and Alvaro give us some young options at LB.

So you look at that and it's clear we need some under-27 players in central and defensive midfield, and RCB. It's why I'm not against signing Declan Rice. I have no idea if Ten Hag would play him as a 6, 8 or RCB, but instantly our squad looks more balanced. Same for Caicedo without the RCB part.
 
We had to buy older players in. Fergie always had a crop of older players to guide the younger players through teach the ways the mentality etc. when rooney and carrick left or stopped we only really had Ashley young and de gea who knew the demands and behaviours etc. zlatan tried to lead as did cavani and matic too.

solskjaer done well get varane in he’s older has basically won everything and pass on his does and fonts was probably hoping ronaldo would done it a bit more too.

ten Haag bringing Casemiro and Eriksen creates that short term influence on the younger lads and when they move on the likes of rashford antony wan bissaka etc will be in a position to take over the mantle and so forth.

looking back over history and watching documentaries it looks like similar happened when busby retired similar happened, and fergie got leaders like Bruce mcclair hughes etc in to straighten it up

if we can recover the values and mentality that used to pass down from age group to age group we can dominate again
 
edcunited1878 said:
There has been no continuity with United since Moyes didn't sign anyone of quality or actual need. Since that time, no style of player or quality has been identified to fit a modern or adaptable tactical style.

EtH is a football nerd and is able to get a tune out of his squad. Unfortunately this United team is again a Frankenstein squad. Jose and LVG leftovers, combined with Ole and EtH holdovers. That's 2 to 3 contract lifespans.

I am more than happy to give EtH multiple years of building a top 3 team and winning cups while trying to go head to head for the title. CL might be easier to get through because a lot has to do with form, draw, and timing.

Toppling City continues to be so difficult because of their manager and ability to bring in and take out players quality players at will.
Click to expand...
I am willing to give him time too but then club also have to. EtH is buying the right profile of players that he think will help with implement what he wants to play but we see that fans will be on their back with just a few matches of bad performances (just see Antony...etc). Then fans is on EtH back too when the performances are up and down as expect if we buy alot of young players. We need to buy a set of balance between old and young together.
 
@sullydnl good thread.

I remember when Alex Ferguson left I was hoping beyond hope we didn't start making the same mistakes AC Milan did in the 90's/00's. That is to say, that once their star faded a bit, instead of trying to go after hungry young players they instead bought way too many aging star players to keep their fans happy. Of course Kaka changed that but that's part of the overall point I think.

It's sort of a way of chasing your losses - the reason we signed Zlatan, Cristiano, and Sanchez wasn't -exactly- to improve our squad, though I'm sure the management that signed them thought they might. It was partly a dearth of ideas, resources, and a desperate need to prove that we are still a "big club" to the fans and get excitement generated - when the reality is that big players come with huge paychecks and similarly sized ego's, and no longer feel the need to improve within a team - they've done it already, what do THEY have to prove after all?

And our transfer strategy ironically in Ole's first season with Amad and Pellestri is probably the best way forward - and not the one after with Ronaldo and Varane. We need to be patient and build a real team from the ground up again, but the fans especially on Redcafe won't accept that as a strategy long term - see the underwhelmed responses to the signings above compared with Ronaldo etc. So we have to play a sort of careful balance in order to appease the fans AND move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.