Exactly the point I was not articulating well in my earlier post, I feel alot of people mistake age for being more experienced, particularly when speaking about a teams weaknesses. From what I understand, Cumbernaulds budget is nowhere near the same level of others in either the lowland league or the junior game. To suggest that every defeat or poor performance comes down to a lack of experience (based on a person's age and not their ability) is simply misinformed. Could Cumbernauld be doing with better players year on year, absolutely, but so could every other team at every other level of the game. This sometimes isn't possible. But to be clear - what I was meaning (maybe not clearly) was that it is far too simple an argument to suggest that having an older team will bring more success to a team.
Jinky, I remain interested in what you would deem experience in football terms. Having followed this thread you have passed comment on the colts lack of experience for this level, at least a couple of times now, I am unsure as to the benefit of continuous comments regarding experience? From what I gather you are referring to age, assuming that your previous posts about the age of colts squad, are linked with what you would deem experience or inexperience. Now in my view, having played at every level of the adult game, some of the worst players I have played with have been older and some of the youngest have shown an understanding of the game that is far better than their older team mates. I simply cannot understand why a person's age would ever be deemed to guarantee a level of experience...........