MERGED: Giorgos Karagounis alledgely in London talking to Fulham

[Mr Fulham]

I will once again mention my fact. Which I have not checked. BUT against West Ham the starting 11 were the oldest team put out by Fulham in the Prem. So to add a 35 or whatever year old will not help that. I see no argument here. So despite people being excited by a few kids our squad is very very very old. No fault on poor Jol who I think was let down by somebody in the transfer window.

The argument that I want to bring into this discussion is that we've got so many immensely talented youngsters who are knocking at the door of the first team but are not quite there YET. Maybe that's the reason why we are signing players like Petric, Karagounis or Diarra on short-term deals.

But indeed you are right with the fact that Jol fielded Fulham's Oldest Premier League team so far. Average of 30.91 years. But it's just for the gallery that one. Frei, Kacaniklic, Trotta, Kasami, Briggs, and looking further ahead, even the likes of Mesca, Minkwitz, Kavanagh, Ryan Williams, Banya, Burn, Altman and Woodrow do have a very good chance to make the breakthrough within the next couple of years. Why sign expensive best-agers (22-26) now on long-term deals and for heavy fees when the future Fulham team is already there? We won the bloody league with the U18s!

[west kowloon white]

Couldn't and didn't put it better Mr Fulham.

[Lighthouse]

But as we know the youngsters often don't make the step up. So until they do it means little in terms of age. Kaka and Frei have come close so far. We await any other players making the grade despite the promise. A promise is just that until it is realised.

[alexbishop]

Doesn't help your average age when your goalkeeper is 39 haha.

[zzamora]

Doesn't help your average age when your goalkeeper is 39 haha.

This too. The figure is massively distorted by that.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

I wasn't arguing that we should buy players in their prime (and therefore when they are most expensive) when I said "What we really lack are the 23-29 year olds in their prime".

What is needed is a team with a spread of ages so that you don't lose a large number of mature players at the same time and young players are continually coming through to replace them. We have recently had a bulge of mature players with few players coming into their prime to replace them. Murphy's position is the prime example of that.

The youth policy is now in place so we hope that this replacement problem will no longer be a major issue in a few years time.

[Mr Fulham]

But as we know the youngsters often don't make the step up. So until they do it means little in terms of age. Kaka and Frei have come close so far. We await any other players making the grade despite the promise. A promise is just that until it is realised.

A lighthouse-esque answer. Yeah, definitely, but our academy setup has improved massively over the past few years and I'm very sure there are many players who will make the grade during the next couple of years.

[cebu]

I'm completely with Mr F on this one. It may well be too early to throw in the youngsters yet. But we should be confident that some of them will succeed in breaking into the first team squad in due course. Having players like Petric on board with shorter contracts seems very much connected to this strategy.

[zzamora]

But as we know the youngsters often don't make the step up. So until they do it means little in terms of age. Kaka and Frei have come close so far. We await any other players making the grade despite the promise. A promise is just that until it is realised.

A lighthouse-esque answer. Yeah, definitely, but our academy setup has improved massively over the past few years and I'm very sure there are many players who will make the grade during the next couple of years.

Just to add to this, our under 16's are immensely talented. I can say now that Emmo Hyndman, Dembele, Woodrow and a few others from the Under 21 will be Premier League class, especially Hyndman. Stupidly talented for a 16 year old.

[Jack Fulham]

Average can be changed in a transfer window if the club wanted too. It's really not an issue.

[HatterDon]

Why is there such an obsession with the average age of the squad. Results matter. Average age does not.

Not obsessed by it, my friend. Just remembering that the idea of getting rid of Zamora, Johnson, and Murphy was so "the squad could be younger." Signing guys older than those three and sending your young players off on loan doesn't make your squad younger. I just believe that Jol did not want veteran players who had played for Hodgson to remain in the club. Hangeland's on his way next and then who knows who?

If that's your aim, then that's fine, but the "we must get younger" stuff is a joke if the replacements are the same age and older.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Why is there such an obsession with the average age of the squad. Results matter. Average age does not.

Not obsessed by it, my friend. Just remembering that the idea of getting rid of Zamora, Johnson, and Murphy was so "the squad could be younger." Signing guys older than those three and sending your young players off on loan doesn't make your squad younger. I just believe that Jol did not want veteran players who had played for Hodgson to remain in the club. Hangeland's on his way next and then who knows who?

If that's your aim, then that's fine, but the "we must get younger" stuff is a joke if the replacements are the same age and older.

Johnson and Murphy were offered contract extensions and I don't think Jol wanted to lose Zamora so it was hardly a case of "getting rid of".

Sending young players out on loan is designed to accelerate their move into the first team by giving them competitive experience rather than having them restricted to practice matches.

The idea that "Jol did not want veteran players who had played for Hodgson to remain in the club" is odd. Yes, some have moved on but there has hardly been a clear out initiated by Jol.

And this Hangeland situation is just speculation at this stage.

[Mr Fulham]

Why is there such an obsession with the average age of the squad. Results matter. Average age does not.

Not obsessed by it, my friend. Just remembering that the idea of getting rid of Zamora, Johnson, and Murphy was so "the squad could be younger." Signing guys older than those three and sending your young players off on loan doesn't make your squad younger. I just believe that Jol did not want veteran players who had played for Hodgson to remain in the club. Hangeland's on his way next and then who knows who?

If that's your aim, then that's fine, but the "we must get younger" stuff is a joke if the replacements are the same age and older.

We replaced Johnson with Petric. Same age, Petric the better player.

Murphy wanted regular pitch time (not guaranteed with Dembele and Diarra) and a two-year contract. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say 'Poor management that we didn't keep hold of Murphy' but Jol apparently had clear signals that Dembele wanted to stay for another (half) year. So Jol let him go - reluctantly.

And Zamora wanted a fresh challenge and didn't see eye to eye with Jol. We replaced him with Pogrebnyak (short term) and Berbatov (same age and arguably the superior player)

We added Rodallega and lost Orlando Sa - Rodallega is three years older than Sa - but again, he's the better player.

[HatterDon]

Why is there such an obsession with the average age of the squad. Results matter. Average age does not.

Not obsessed by it, my friend. Just remembering that the idea of getting rid of Zamora, Johnson, and Murphy was so "the squad could be younger." Signing guys older than those three and sending your young players off on loan doesn't make your squad younger. I just believe that Jol did not want veteran players who had played for Hodgson to remain in the club. Hangeland's on his way next and then who knows who?

If that's your aim, then that's fine, but the "we must get younger" stuff is a joke if the replacements are the same age and older.

We replaced Johnson with Petric. Same age, Petric the better player.

Murphy wanted regular pitch time (not guaranteed with Dembele and Diarra) and a two-year contract. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say 'Poor management that we didn't keep hold of Murphy' but Jol apparently had clear signals that Dembele wanted to stay for another (half) year. So Jol let him go - reluctantly.

And Zamora wanted a fresh challenge and didn't see eye to eye with Jol. We replaced him with Pogrebnyak (short term) and Berbatov (same age and arguably the superior player)

We added Rodallega and lost Orlando Sa - Rodallega is three years older than Sa - but again, he's the better player.

I haven't talked at all about anything you've just said. Who is better than whom is a good discussion. Whether someone had to go or should go is another good discussion.

MY comment was about making the squad older instead of making the squad younger. Unless you can convince me that last week's starting XI was actually quite young, and that signing a 35-year-old Greek midfielder while loaning out Briggs, Stockdale, and Trotta will make the squad younger, then there's no real need to respond to this post any more.

Now there will be plenty of chances to talk about Rodallega's value to the squad, but this isn't the conversation that I thought I was starting. 

[Mr Fulham]

I haven't talked at all about anything you've just said. Who is better than whom is a good discussion. Whether someone had to go or should go is another good discussion.

You were going on about why we sold these players if I remember correctly. I say they left because we had very good reasons for that. And we have made the squad even better - we have replaced Johnson with a better player, Zamora with a better player, have added another quality forward for free and have at the very least a 15m kitty for a quality CM in January

Your view is incredibly short-sighted Don. You say "why are we signing old players" (not older players by the way, Petric/Berbatov are almost exactly AS OLD AS Johnson/Zamora) - we are signing old players on short-term deals because we have faith in our youth setup and we are not prepared to spend fees/big wages on 'best agers'.

We are making the squad younger. There's absolutely no doubt about that. But you should look at it in the long term. You don't do that at the moment, and this is a bit weird actually.

There are at least 10 players in the Academy who do have a very good chance to make it. YES, they may not make it but if the club is confident then SO AM I.

Karagounis is a short-term option, I frankly don't know why so many people are moaning about the average age of the squad.

Kasami, Trotta, Stockdale need a loan because they are not there just yet. They will be. Up until then we've got the old guard.

And OBVIOUSLY is the value of players like Rodallega of importance for this discussion.

[LRCN]

our first team was old. but wasnt our bench remarkably young? and that is the first team of the next 2/3 seasons

[BarryP]

Karagounis is a short-term option, I frankly don't know why so many people are moaning about the average age of the squad.

My concern is less about the age of the squad for the short-term and more about the fact that Karagounis has no experience in the Prem and why if he is such a good option did no team sign him before the window closed.  He may come in and be fantastic or he may come in and need time to adapt to the league.  If it is the latter and he needs time to adapt then this could be a worthless signing.  Since what Fulham needs is a creative body in CM I will certainly hope for the best if he signs but I could easily see this being a bust for a lot of reasons.

[Black, White and Fred]

Karagounis is a short-term option, I frankly don't know why so many people are moaning about the average age of the squad.

My concern is less about the age of the squad for the short-term and more about the fact that Karagounis has no experience in the Prem and why if he is such a good option did no team sign him before the window closed.  He may come in and be fantastic or he may come in and need time to adapt to the league.  If it is the latter and he needs time to adapt then this could be a worthless signing.  Since what Fulham needs is a creative body in CM I will certainly hope for the best if he signs but I could easily see this being a bust for a lot of reasons.

You could say the same about Diarra could you not?

[ToodlesMcToot]

Karagounis is a short-term option, I frankly don't know why so many people are moaning about the average age of the squad.

My concern is less about the age of the squad for the short-term and more about the fact that Karagounis has no experience in the Prem and why if he is such a good option did no team sign him before the window closed.  He may come in and be fantastic or he may come in and need time to adapt to the league.  If it is the latter and he needs time to adapt then this could be a worthless signing.  Since what Fulham needs is a creative body in CM I will certainly hope for the best if he signs but I could easily see this being a bust for a lot of reasons.

You could say the same about Diarra could you not?

Not really. When Diarra was signed, we had much more depth in midfield. I felt he was a luxury signing at the time - if he works out it's fantastic, if he doesn't it's not that big of a deal. While I'm not down on the Karagounis signing at all, there's a greater need for him to come good IMHO.

[epsomraver]

Have we signed him? if not are any nearer signing him?