Big Red Rich Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 Don't know about anyone else but this phrase really annoys me. Can anyone give me an example of a time when a player doesn't need to be playing? If the player is young were told the "at this stage of his career he needs games so it's a good idea for him to go out on loan for some first team experience". If he's at the latter stages of his career "he needs to be playing week in week out at this stage of his career"..... So when does a player not need to be playing games? When he's still in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 When he's injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 If you look at a footballer's career then it is acceptable to be bench warming for a season, possibly two, before getting regular first team football somewhere. If somebody is still bench warming at 25 then their playing career hasn't started and probably won't; they'll be released. It also works at the other end, if a player is 32 and bench warming then they will be let go when their contract ends. In both cases they need to be playing first team football. Exception for goalkeepers where every team needs a good second keeper who will rarely play but will still have their contract renewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 by the time they are 21-23 they need to be playing in order to carry on with their development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 It depends which club you are at I guess. I mean, there can't be many footballers who wouldn't jump at the chance to compromise and settle for a place on Rovers' bench, if it meant just being part of their meteoric rise through the football pyramid. Also being the 6th richest club in the country would be splendid financial reward for accepting such a bit part role in the squad. Of course, not all players will be lucky enough to have such an opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 I guess if you're not a regular first-teamer but have 100+ apps to your name then you have had the sufficient experience to enable development, if the potential is there. If you hit your mid-twenties and have hardly strung 50 appearances together then you've not really had chance to develop. Really though, football does not seem an industry of sense - "we went down there and got a result", for example - every completed football match will produce a result. There's plenty of trite slogans and cliches, meaningful communication is limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 50 minutes ago, WTFiGO!?! said: I guess if you're not a regular first-teamer but have 100+ apps to your name then you have had the sufficient experience to enable development, if the potential is there. There must be an exception to this rule?.......................I give you...........NICKY HUNT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timp2109 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 I can think of a few city players over the years who shouldn't have played at any stage. Guf Caesar Gary Stanley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.