The Pompey Effect

Really, I should try to flesh this one out more, and see if I can add my name to the increasing list of publishers gracing our cozy little corner of the internet footy world. But I need to get to work.

Quite simply, I'm sure many if not all of us have noticed the increased median age of players we are bringing to The Cottage. Is this a realization by Cookie that experienced players provide a better opportunity or is it a realization and tip of the hat to what is happening on the south coast of England in Portsmouth? Or both.

It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth was fighting the drop at the end of last season, which they barely escaped, and they were looking at a return to that dangerous form in the new season. But a funny thing happened in the offseason. The owner opened the bank and Harry Redknapp went to work, filling gaps with seasoned professionals who had been there and knew how to win. Now Portsmouth sits sixth in the table and within a win of fourth, and they don't seem to have lost any form nor show any signs of slowing down, as many might think a squad a little long in the teeth might do.

This approach seems to have caught the eye of at least one manager, Chris Coleman. While still providing opportunities for some of the younger lads on the squad (Liam Rosenior for instance), in the January transfer window Cookie has already shown a tendency to set his sights on proven talents such as Montella, Smertin, and Dhorassoo.

To me, this makes a lot of sense. The recent trend in many sports is to shun old talent in favor of "promising" potential. While the upside can be extraordinary if they pan out, all too often it seems Club and Fans are left waiting too long for this potential to be realized. Meanwhile, players and warriors, like Brian McBride, just continue to produce, and players like Teddy Sheringham and others keep their fitness into their late thirties or even early fourties.

So I applaud and support The Gaffer's new approach, if it can be called that. The object appears to be win now at The Cottage. Something the Club, Fans, and quite a few seasoned professionals can certainly respect.

 

Actually, I would say this is the Bolton approach. It works if you have money to replace the aging players when they are spent and can't contribute any more. I am not against this philosophy, but I am more in favor of a squad compirsed of young players and veterans as Fulham seems to be trying to put together.

Good post FFCinPCB!

 

Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

Totally agree with that. It is about balance. And it appears Cookie is finding Fulham's.

And, thank you both.

 

RE: Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

Excellent!

A few years ago the Crew got quite a bump bringing in John Harkes. Besides his playing skills, he managed the mid, and made it effective to have rookie Martino in there.
Sadly... the effect didnt last. Crew let him go next season and spent the money on fresh faces, though promising; who had no on-field guidance.

 

It makes sense to get kids and develop them if you have the power to keep them for awhile, like in baseball. However, they could leave anytime they want in football, so you end up developing them and when they get good, a ManU or Arsenal will come along and get the benefits of your hard work.

Also, I know the trend in American sports is for players to play effectively at more advanced ages than in the past. Is still something that football needs to improve on (training, conditioning, etc)?

 

Other advantages of veterans is that you know what they can do, and they tend to have better, more mature attitudes.

 

Now I'm doing research. So I should have my paper in by next week, Professor. No mention of footballers, European or American, but probably still applicable.

The peak years - research on age at which athletes are at their best

Psychology Today, Dec, 1988 by Jack C. Horn

The Peak Years

ATHLETES KEEP GETTING BETTER. They run faster, jump higher, lift more weight. With more athletes competing, using improved equipment and training methods, records are broken and rebroken regularly, with no end in sight.

But despite this steady improvement, one element stays curiously the same: the age at which athletes are at their best. Writing in The Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, Richard Schulz and Christine Curnow of the University of Pittsburgh explain how they analyzed records from track and field, swimming, baseball, tennis and golf to learn when athletes turned in their best performances.

In track and field, for example, they looked at Olympic results from 1896 through 1980 and calculated the age of each gold medal winner in seven running and three field events. Overall, the mean age of the winners in the years 1896 through 1936 was almost the same as that in the 1948 through 1980 Olympics. In the 1,500 meters, for example, the earlier winners averaged 25 years old, compared to 24.6 in the later years.

Comparing individual events, the average age increased with the length of the race: from an average of 22 for winners in the sprints to 24 in the middle distances (800 meters and 1,500 meters) and 27 in the 5,000 and 10,000 meters and marathon.

Schulz and Curnow also used Olympic results for swimming, with somewhat different results. While the ages remained consistent over the years, distance didn't matter. For 100 meters, 400 meters, 800 meters or 1,500 meters, the average age was about 20 for men and 18 for women. This gender difference in age held for track and field, although there the difference was only one year.

In baseball, the researchers took statistics from The Bill James Baseball Abstract and The Baseball Encyclopedia to find the three best performances in major league history by pitchers and non-pitchers. For pitchers, there were six factors, including those shown in the chart below. For non-pitchers, there were 10 factors.

As the chart shows, the mean age of peak performance, for all players, was consistently 27 or 28. Apparently, as the researchers point out, "pure physical abilities and the skill required to take full advantage of them reach their peak in the late 20s."

For tennis and golf, Schulz and Curnow used data from the United States Tennis Association and the Professional Golfers Association to see which men and women ranked first in the world each year. In tennis, the mean ages were 25.4 for men and 24.5 for women. The figures were about the same before and after World War II. In golf, where there were no rankings until 1948 for men and 1966 for women, the mean age of the top players since 1966 has been 30.28 for the women, with the men about a year older.

After comparing the age of peak performances in all these sports (see chart), the researchers conclude that "the brute strength and speed events peak relatively early," compared to those requiring more diverse cognitive and motor skills. So while the best swimmers, sprinters and jumpers are usually in their late teens or early 20s, "the attributes of good golfers and baseball players have more to do with precise motor control that may require many years to develop." (Comment: Could scoring goals or making sharp passes be considered "precise motor control"??)

In explaining their findings, Schulz and Curnow talk about a "biological window" -- factors that define the lower and upper age limits of peak performance. But athletes now have ways to widen the window. Weight training, for example, was once nearly unthinkable for female athletes. Now it's standard procedure for runners such as Olympic sprint champion and world record holder Florence Griffith Joyner. Her ability to lift 320 pounds has helped build the strength behind the explosive start and leg drive that produced her world records of 10.49 seconds in the 100 meters and 21.34 seconds in the 200 meters this past year at the age of 28. [Chart Omitted]

COPYRIGHT 1988 Sussex Publishers, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Yes, this partly driven by my self-indulgent fantasies of still being an athlete.

Scrimmage - 2:00 Sunday
First Game - About two weeks.
Club - Red Bar United: http://eteamz.active.com/ballsout/

 

Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

Sorry Dave, I am going to disagree with you here. If you develop solid talent in players at a young age, you will reap the benefits of that either on or off the pitch. Your post makes sense as a fan because we never like to see younger players leave to the bigger clubs.

But, in the reality of things, smaller clubs like Fulham do not have the money to buy fantastic players year in and year out. Therefore, develping and selling young talent (I am referring to teenagers) is a great way to make some cash.

If I were a Southampton supporter, it would be nice to see Gareth Bale develop at St. Mary's, but if a club is coming in with a bid in excess of five million pounds, that is a no-brainer for a seventeen-year-old kid. He will likely be a great player, but this is a business where teams lke Fulham need to make money and spend it wisely. Therefore I would see Bale either in January or at the end of the season.

Now, if Fulham could develop a solid academy to the likes of West Ham or Boro then we would have to worry about letting young players leave. But until that happens, we have little to worry about....at least in terms of teenage stars which is what my post is specifically about.

 

Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

Good point Tom. I think I'm jaded since Fulham nas not developed young players (eithr through the academy or by singings of teenagers) since I've been a Fulham fan, plus when they sell a player they don't seem to use the money to get a replacement (so I haven't seen the benefits of selling players).

 

Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

I agree with you on this point. It would be nice to see the money earned on the sale of player used to get a suitable replacement or any player for that matter. Mo seems to pocket a good chunk of any 'extra' money rather than spend it on upgrading the squad.

 

RE: Re: RE: The Pompey Effect

I know Mo has put a lot of money in the club, but, for example, selling Boa netted us 5 mil pounds but it doesn't seem that the transfer kitty went up a cent.

That doesn't mean that the transfer kitty needs to go up the whole 5 mil, but shouldn't it go up some given the unexpected windfall? In other words, the transfer kitty does not seem to be related in any way to the amount received in sales. Sort of like the US budget...