"The old player takes the young player's spot"

[Martin-Reza]

Here in Forums I repeatedly run across the same argument. It was a classic in Daei's late era, but now has a revival with Karimi's return to TM.

It's about people complaining that old players playing, take away the place of younger players.

I think that is complete nonsense. There might be specific situations in which a certain set of circumstances make it true, but normally it's simply not making sense.

The problem with old players playing instead of young has two different aspects.

The first is that the younger player is currently worse than the veteran, but could become better with more match praxis. But since he is being denied this match praxis, he doesn't develop well enough and remains worse than the old player, who then retires and leaves us with the bad unexperience youngster.

The second is that the young player is already better, but doesn't get a chance to prove it, because an older player due to his popularity, image and status is playing instead. So the youngster is not getting enough playing time to show himself.

I think both issues might be a problem on club level, but mostly not on national team level.

In connection with the first issue, one must think that every player plays about 35-50 games a year on club level. Plus he has about 250 training sessions. How much of a difference can a dozen national team games make in the end? And how much can a player above 20 develop anyway? Players are mostly done at that age and their main development takes place on club level, not in national team.

Also the second issue might be a problem on club level, but as he has his 35-50 games at club level every year, he has a sufficient stage to show himself and can hardly be overseen by a national team coach.

So as long as both players regulary are observed on club level and the old player is better in the coach's opinion, there is little sense in benching him for a worse younger player. So I think complaining about the coach making that logical decision, is not making sense at all.

Does anyone have anything to add?

[BehzadB]

ultimately, if the coach makes the decision, I am fine with it. In Iran, we have had a history with situations where players were selected to national team by people other than the coach himself. I am not saying it has been a common practice, but it has happened.

It happened with Branko as well. He admitted it AFTER the WC in an interview posted on IFO and ISP. He was clearly against Azizi's return to TM but Azizi was included with TM in WCQ games.

personally, I am one of those guys that likes to see the younger guy play and the older guy come of the bench in certain situations.

[kami_kakashi]

One can argue that Hashemian was a btter choice to play as target man and by insisting on playing Daei at the same time as him we effectivly put ourselves in a bad position because we could have played Shojai and Karimi at the same time in those days improving the careativity in the midfield.

In Karimi's case however there is no "might be better prospect". I do agree with the general concept that you are talking about. TM should not be age related but performance related. Did anyone watch Karimi vs Saipa? played one half only scored 2 and created 1.

I think ppl need to get off TM's and Karimi's back... give a high level view to the situaton and see how two of the best players in the league are Karim and Karimi with Karim being 37 (?) and Karimi almost 32. No youth program means this. TM and Ghotbi are not the reason for us not having a good target man or AM it only relates to the lack of invesment in talent.

Apperantly Steel Azin has teams in all the age groups with pretty good invesment, Esfehan clubs always had this all we need is the SS and PP coming on board with this behaviour as well. The minute we get rid of this false belive that TM is the place to create players is the minute we will start moving forward.

TM is the "Senior national team" there are plenty of youth teams for the young guys to get exposre just like all the good teams around the globe... all the teams have older super stars playing in their senior teams... Iran is no exception.

[Martin-Reza]

It happened with Branko as well. He admitted it AFTER the WC in an interview posted on IFO and ISP. He was clearly against Azizi's return to TM but Azizi was included with TM in WCQ games.

Actually I was talking a lot to Branko's assistant Human Afazeli at that time (autumn 2004) and it was Branko's decision alone to bring Azizi back. His reasons were not because he thought Azizi would be important to the team, but I don't know how much I am allowed to tell. Human would be the better person responding to this, but I can guarantee you Branko wasn't forced to make that invitation by anyone.

If there was such a decision by Branko, it was bringing Enayati and maybe Karimi to WC, although those issues are a bit more complicated than simple "orders" by some official.

[BehzadB]

Actually I was talking a lot to Branko's assistant Human Afazeli at that time (autumn 2004) and it was Branko's decision alone to bring Azizi back. His reasons were not because he thought Azizi would be important to the team, but I don't know how much I am allowed to tell. Human would be the better person responding to this, but I can guarantee you Branko wasn't forced to make that invitation by anyone.

If there was such a decision by Branko, it was bringing Enayati and maybe Karimi to WC, although those issues are a bit more complicated than simple "orders" by some official.

Martin, I know you are kinda friends with Human, but I am telling you, I saw Branko on TV complaining about "people" wanting Azizi back. this is not something I read in papers. I saw him talk about it.


On his Interview after the WC (which was posted on IFO and ISP) he did mention Enayatee, but he didn't mention Karimi. So I know about the few (I think besides Enayatee he wasn't crazy about kazemian either) that he didn't want for the WC team, but that Azizi issue was Dadkan who wanted him.

[Martin-Reza]

Yes, a big share of the fans wanted him back, and after Azizi played 2 games, not so many wanted him back anymore. Don't want to say more, but he definitely was not forced by Dadkan or anyone else. It was a reaction to public will, but not a decision forced upon him.

I can't imagine Branko said sth differently in that interview, maybe you misunderstood.

As said, Enayati was Dadkan's favourite. I don't think he was forced to bring him, but it was sth like a favour to Dadkan. That was a mistake in my eyes. On the other hand, he didn't play, so Branko simply had a 22-men roster.

And Branko wanted to drop Karimi because of his bad behaviour in the preperation camp and then was persuaded by pretty much everyone to keep him. Including Dadkan and Human. Hard to tell if that was a good idea actually.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

I still have two problems:

1, for letting Daei to play FULL 90 mins versus Laos islands, Maledives Islands, Bangladesh as the ONLY forward, so he can make his 100+ goals

really, really, at least in those games couldn't we let that highly honoured royal excellency majesty to play 60 mins? to let ye badbakhteh bichareh to gain at least 30 mins experience against Laos?

ON that I will not change my mind


2, In WC2006 Hashemain was off his rightful place just to make space for Ali daei, who was absolutely inefficient, and yet Daei played FULL 90 mins....

ON that I will not change my mind




What I say, in all politeness is, could it maybe be possible that in case of Ali Daei Branco did exaggerate a little bit??? just a tiny little bit?

[Martin-Reza]

^ On the first point, of what benefit for Iran would 30 mins against Laos for Borhani have been for Iranian football?

I mean of the two issues I mentioned in my initial post. Would it have improved Borhani significally or would it have proved to us Borhani is actually better than Daei?

I think neither of the two things would have been the case, so there was no sense to play him actually.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

^
and thats right there, where we disagree

[kaz]

The problem with Daei is that he didn't know when was when (or enough being enough).

Usually discussions around older players and promising youngsters is inevitable in all teams. Usually however, the player that is older is not 37...but in his early 30s.

Daei was a liability. Everyone prior and at the world cup mentioned so. People from all over the world, not even intimate with our football, were asking why Daei is playing. I will never forget Rafael Marquez (Mexican defender) essentially letting go of marking Daei and joining in the attack - basically Daei was useless and immobile.

[Martin-Reza]

^ Ok, but if he was so weak, why was he playing? There are 2 possible responses, one is the usual conspiracy theory reply saying he was worse than the alternatives but was so influential that he unrightfully played. The second is he still was better than the alternatives and then it comes down to the fact that we had noone.

But the Daei case is sth we shouldn't solely discuss, as the normal case is that the old player is rated higher than the younger, but yet he is asked to retire by many for the sake of the youngster. Now what exactly is the benefit for our football in that? That is the question.

^
and thats right there, where we disagree

And that is the interesting point. How do you disagree in particular? Would Borhani now be so much of a better player with basically 1% more playing time a year? Was he always better and playing 30 mins against Laos would have proved it? Or is there another point I missed out on?

[kaz]

He was playing because Daei wielded significant power in the dressing room and was an ally for Branko - a valuable one since everybody was on his neck.

[toofan]

its fine to have him there.but im not too sure about 90 mins.mayeb a young
talent to sub him out to gain experience.

[Martin-Reza]

He was playing because Daei wielded significant power in the dressing room and was an ally for Branko - a valuable one since everybody was on his neck.

I guess generally we all agree that in a case where a player plays for non-sporting reasons is of course inacceptable. But this is not the issue here, nor is it the question here if that was the case with Daei. No secret that I can only shake my head in disbelief when I hear accusations of that kind against Daei and Branko.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

And that is the interesting point. How do you disagree in particular? Would Borhani now be so much of a better player with basically 1% more playing time a year? Was he always better and playing 30 mins against Laos would have proved it? Or is there another point I missed out on?

yes. Beacause I actually do believe that the qualities of Borhani (and a younger Mohsen Khalili) were not eloborated correctly!
I do believe that more playing AT THEIR YOUNGER ages would have resulted that after the retirement of Daei, we wouldn't stay in the middle of nowhere....

full 90 mins as a SINGLE FORWARD versus those Laos, Maledives Islands was really not neccessary.

Branco could have at least tried 2 forwards versus those nations if he really had to keep Daei...

so really, this is were I have a totally different point of view on Daei.