So on my way to work this morning, I swung by a colleague who had car troubles and had asked me to pick him up. The company is based just outside Derby, so it’s a good 45 min drive. Typically it turned into a 45-min debate about football.

He is an AS Roma fan incidentally but with a soft spot for CFC as his missus is a ST holder at the Bridge. We discussed back and forth until he asked me a strange question – who would you pick, Danielle De Rossi or Oscar?

I thought this was a weird question as the two play in completely different positions. I reversed the question and asked him the same and he categorically stated that Oscar wasn’t fit to lace De Rossi’s boots purely because De Rossi was a stalwart in the game having been a top, top player for more than a decade and Oscar was just a kid who had proved nothing yet.

That then started a whole new debate – does having been a top player for so long automatically mean you’re a better player than a young player just starting out? This was no longer about De Rossi vs Oscar. That debate was over and done with [note, I avoided giving him my answer as they aren’t comparable imo].

I argued that while De Rossi is a ridiculously brilliant player, judging the two purely as footballers, that Oscar was the better footballer. He was outraged at the notion that 21 year old kid who’d proved nothing yet was better than his beloved De Rossi, a Roma legend.

So my question is, for arguments sake, does having been a top player for so long does automatically make you a better player than a youngster?