C Elias Pettersson - Växjö Lakers HC, SHL (2017, 5th, VAN) Part 2

[CanaFan]

Look through the lists of players that have produced good numbers in various league and aren't drafted high or aren't viewed as high end prospects. The list is very long, better production in a league doesn't mean you're going to be the better NHL player or prospect.

When you're drafting you aren't only looking at their D-1 production, if that was the case then guys would never rise or fall. All lists would stay the same. You hear question marks all the time about a late birth year players and how much "more" upside do they have, are their numbers due to their added size, strength, physical maturity as they're likely closer to reaching their physical maturity as an adult. If these questions weren't pertinent you wouldn't see players like Couturier, Patrick, Makar being questioned for dominating a league as an older player.

I'm only comparing what Pettersson did in his 17 YO season and what Pastrnak did in his, the fact Pettersson is late birthday doesn't change his production in his draft year. It only changes the way you would view how impressive what Pastrnak did at 17 compared to what Pettersson did at 18.

But they ARENT questioned, not by legit scouts anyway. If they were then Makar wouldn't have gone 4th overall. Matthews wouldn't have gone 1st. Patrick wouldn't have gone 2nd. Tkachuk wouldn't have gone 6th. Pettersson wouldn't have gone 5th. Meier wouldn't have gone 9th. If you assume that their draft year production is "inflated" by their age then why aren't they being "penalized" by NHL clubs?

If it actually IS such an advantage then this would be factored into their draft position and you'd see older players be draft lower than younger players with similar production.

The only people who "question" this are seemingly fans on this board. The actual draft results (both the rankings, the actual picks, and how the players eventually turn out) does not support that being an early or late birthday matters at all.

 

[CanaFan]

Again, both Pettersson and Pastrnak were in their 2nd year in the Allsvenskan during their draft year. That matters FAR more than their individual ages or cohort. By being in the same year of Allsvenskan play, they both had equal time to acclimatize to a pro league, earn ice time under their coach, develop their skills and improve their game after their rookie season. That puts them both on very similar footing.

Trying to compare Pastrnak's 2nd year after he had all those advantages with Pettersson's 1st year when he had none of them is ridiculous. One is a fresh, unproven rookie. The other already has a season under his belt to know what he is in store for in his second season. It's crazy that you ignore all that while insisting Pettersson has had more time to get "bigger and stronger" (161 lbs!) or somehow be more advanced than a guy who has already played a year of pro.

The argument that they have played against a different age cohort their whole lives ceases to be relevant once they are playing in the Allsvenskan league, which contains players of all different age cohorts. At that point all that is relevant is how long they've played at THAT level and developed and adapted against that level of play. Giving Pastrnak an extra year of Allsvenskan development >>>> whatever extra development you think Pettersson got back in midget or bantam.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Pettersson deserved to be a top 15 selection. His 17YR old season (last year) wasn't that impressive, but his 18YR old season (this year) was really good. I'd argue that he was a major reach at 5, but that doesn't change the fact that he had a tremendous statistical performance in 2016/17 and deserved to go high in this year's draft.

Pastrnak, on the other hand, was a major draft oversight. He was ranked within the top 30 by almost every major scouting service, but most had him in the second half of the 1st. His ridiculous numbers as a 17YR old in a men's league should have had him go in the top 15 as well.

You'd have to be crazy to think age isn't a consideration at the draft table.

This is a bizarre argurement because obviously Pastrnak was a massive steal at a late 1st and would have gone top 10 in a re-draft just like Petterson.

If Pastrnak had another year in Allsvenskan before he was drafted he would have probably been ranked ahead of Petterson, but that doesn't take anything away from how good Pettersson is or how good he can be it just mean that the Bruins got an absolute steal in Pastrnak because of the route he took and the leagues he played in up to his draft.

Patrnak just had 34 goals and 70pts in his 3rd year in the league as a late 1st pick. That's a crazy steal and Canuck fans would be ecstatic if Pettersson ever puts up numbers like that.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

This is ridiculous. Players start playing hockey at all different ages, and they play at the level that they are ready for. If a player plays up several age groups that doesn't mean they should be compared to older players, so why would you argue it matters whether someone played with other 98s or 99s growing up, because they were like 1 month older?

If you're going to compare a late birthday with an early birthday just account for the absolute age difference. Whether that's 1 month or 6 months or 11 months. Don't talk about 17yo season or 18yo season because if you're going to really care about this issue it's really their 17.9 or 18.1 season. On average players do become more physically gifted and understand the game better as their brains and bodies develop with age. That's the only thing worth considering when it comes to age, unless someone started playing when they're 14 or something.

This is all that needs to be said about that really.

 

[Hale The Villain]

This is a bizarre argurement because obviously Pastrnak was a massive steal at a late 1st and would have gone top 10 in a re-draft just like Petterson.

If Pastrnak had another year in Allsvenskan before he was drafted he would have probably been ranked ahead of Petterson, but that doesn't take anything away from how good Pettersson is or how good he can be it just mean that the Bruins got an absolute steal in Pastrnak because of the route he took and the leagues he played in up to his draft.

Patrnak just had 34 goals and 70pts in his 3rd year in the league as a late 1st pick. That's a crazy steal and Canuck fans would be ecstatic if Pettersson ever puts up numbers like that.

This is exactly my point.

If Pastrnak had an extra year in the Allsvenskan before being drafted he likely would have went a lot higher in 2015 than he did in 2014; just like how Pettersson went a lot higher in 2017 than he would have gone in 2016.

Nope 6 months younger actually.

And they were both in their 2nd pro season in the Allsvenskan.

If Pettersson was born January 1st 1999 and Pastrnak was born July 1st 1996 would you still be as rattled as you are now? It is so nonsensical to think that because EP's birth certificate says '98 instead of '99 that he has some sort of massive advantage over guys born 1.5 months later than him.

Again, it's birth year that matters when making comparisons, not months alive.

Pastrnak played 11 games in the Allsvenskan as a 16YR old. I'd hardly call that a full pro season. It was a stint. He played most of his 16YR old season in the SuperElit, the top Swedish junior league.

Making a comparison between a '98 and a '99 is equivalent to making a comparison between a 2016 draft eligible kid and a 2017 draft eligible kid. It's just not a fair comparison.

But how was it a consideration? Pastrnak was a '96. You've been arguing this makes his season "more impressive". Shouldn't that have resulted in him going higher in the draft then? Why didn't scouts recognize how much more impressive his season was (being a '96)? Why did they ignore that but have a late '95 like Draisaitl ranked so high? Draisaitl's 17 year old season wasn't even PPG which is pretty pathetic for a draft eligible.

It doesn't make sense if it's as important as you say.

Pastrnak has proved that he should have been a much higher selection. Look how his 17YR old season compared to other high Allsvenskan draftees:

Nylander: 35GP-15G-12A-27P
Pastrnak: 36GP-8G-16A-24P
Forsberg: 47GP-8G-9A-17P
Burakovsky: 43GP-4G-7A-11P
Pettersson: 25GP-3G-6A-9P
Berglund: 21GP-3G-1A-4P
Backlund: 18GP-1G-2A-3P

Should have been selected top 15 just like Nylander, Forsberg and Pettersson. Why NHL scouts let him fall to the last 1/3 of the 1st round, I don't know.

Draisaitl's 18YR old season was extremely impressive, just like Pettersson's 18YR old season. It wasn't their 17YR old seasons that got them selected high, it was because their late-birthdays afforded them an extra year in their respective leagues before being drafted, which they took full advantage of.

I'm not arguing that Pettersson's 18YR old season wasn't impressive, I'm arguing against comparing his 18YR old production to the production of 17YR olds.

 

[GetFocht]

Are we all in agreement that Pettersson has 90 point potential?

 

[Hale The Villain]

If you want to compare Pettersson's 18YR old season to other 18YR olds in the Allsvenskan, that comparison is as follows:

Berglund: 35GP-21G-27A-48P
Karlsson: 46GP-12G-33A-45P
Pettersson: 43GP-19G-22A-41P
Forsberg: 38GP-15G-18A-33P
Wennberg: 46GP-14G-18A-32P
Dahlen: 51GP-15G-14A-29P
Ekman-Larsson: 42GP-9G-17A-28P
Boqvist: 19GP-3G-9A-12P

Pastrnak, Nylander, Burakovsky and didn't play in the Allsvenskan as 18YR olds.

Pettersson's 18YR old production was extremely impressive compared to other 18YR olds who played in the Allsvenskan. One doesn't need to compare his 18YR old production to the production of 17YR olds to emphasize how impressive his season was statistically in 2016/17.

 

[Smeagoal]

Are we all in agreement that Pettersson has 90 point potential?

No. Still just you who keeps saying that.

Why do you keep posting in this thread, on like every other page about his 90 point potential.

Like cool you feel he has the potential, now just wait, if he reaches it in 10 years, come back on here claiming you were the FIRST AINEC to say it.

 

[CanaFan]

Are we all in agreement that Pettersson has 90 point potential?

3/10 for effort. Pick up your game son.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

If you want to compare Pettersson's 18YR old season to other 18YR olds in the Allsvenskan, that comparison is as follows:

Berglund: 35GP-21G-27A-48P
Karlsson: 46GP-12G-33A-45P
Pettersson: 43GP-19G-22A-41P
Forsberg: 38GP-15G-18A-33P
Wennberg: 46GP-14G-18A-32P
Dahlen: 51GP-15G-14A-29P
Ekman-Larsson: 42GP-9G-17A-28P
Boqvist: 19GP-3G-9A-12P

Pastrnak, Nylander, Burakovsky and didn't play in the Allsvenskan as 18YR olds.

Pettersson's 18YR old production was extremely impressive compared to other 18YR olds who played in the Allsvenskan. One doesn't need to compare his 18YR old production to the production of 17YR olds to emphasize how impressive his season was statistically in 2016/17.

Brick wall here

 

[Orca Smash]

If you want to compare Pettersson's 18YR old season to other 18YR olds in the Allsvenskan, that comparison is as follows:

Berglund: 35GP-21G-27A-48P
Karlsson: 46GP-12G-33A-45P
Pettersson: 43GP-19G-22A-41P
Forsberg: 38GP-15G-18A-33P
Wennberg: 46GP-14G-18A-32P
Dahlen: 51GP-15G-14A-29P
Ekman-Larsson: 42GP-9G-17A-28P
Boqvist: 19GP-3G-9A-12P

Pastrnak, Nylander, Burakovsky and didn't play in the Allsvenskan as 18YR olds.

Pettersson's 18YR old production was extremely impressive compared to other 18YR olds who played in the Allsvenskan. One doesn't need to compare his 18YR old production to the production of 17YR olds to emphasize how impressive his season was statistically in 2016/17.

Neither draft year or birth year is right or wrong, you evaluate players how you want and others can evaluate a prospect draft/birth year how they want and lets end this. If you choose to evaluate based on birth year then go ahead, but it does not mean its an absolute correct way of evaluating players and both sides have expressed disagreement on one method or another.

I wish i could find that tweet the other day where a member of the analytics community expressed why neither method is right or wrong and this is never going to end because your insistent your method in this conversation is correct. I do question your motives however considering you came into this thread firing insults how canucks fans are overvaluing prospects as usual and then chose to spend an exorbitant amount of time looking up information that fits your opinion.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

This birthday discussion is horrible. Can we just talk about the prospect cause every time i see new posts about Pettersson im wondering if is something new but its just some crap about being born in a certain month

Just because you don't appreciate an in-depth debate on how to properly evaluate development age doesn't mean others are the same.

Go outside or something if you don't like it.

 

[lawrence]

No. Still just you who keeps saying that.

Why do you keep posting in this thread, on like every other page about his 90 point potential.

Like cool you feel he has the potential, now just wait, if he reaches it in 10 years, come back on here claiming you were the FIRST AINEC to say it.

He wants to sabatoge the entire fan base.

Other fans might not read the whole thread, but to have one guy say he's. a 90 point player is good enough evidence for some to attack an a entire fan base for overrating him.

 

[Dodospice]

I'm in agreement that when you draft a player you don't look at their D-1 year to determine their worth, you look at their draft year. You see what kind of progression they've made from one year to the next. There has been players that dominate because of their age/size that is partly because they're an older player. If age/date of birth wasn't a concern we'd see a lot of 20YO CHLers going high in the draft.

I'm only saying that if you're going to compare Pastrnak and Pettersson draft seasons, it's not a great comparison because one was an 18 year old and one was a 17 year old. While maybe not the as applicable in a men's league, it is a concern in the CHL to some degree. Just because they're a late birthday doesn't mean you discredit the season they had, it's just another factor that has to be considered. It's probably not even that applicable to the high end prospects, as they're high end for a reason.

I just think if we're going to compare Pettersson's 18 year old season to a season of Pastrnak's it's best to use his 18 year old season in the AHL/NHL. There's no right or wrong answer to this discussion as player evaluation is a constantly evolving process and no 2 players are the same.

 

[Love]

For those obsessing about birth year answer this for me:

Why on earth was Auston Matthews selected ahead of Patrik Laine? Also, why ther HELL was Leon Draisaitl was absolute **** in his 17 year old season compared to Sam Bennett's 17 year old season. BTW, the age difference between Matthews and Laine was larger than the difference between Pettersson and Pastrnak relative to their draft years.

When we compare "17 year old seasons" between Laine and Matthews, Laine blows Matthews out of the water. So why did Matthews go 1st and Laine went 2nd? If birth year is so important why was it overlooked in this case? Or... why is it overlooked in literally every other case with every prospect ever? Why was Draisaitl selected over Bennett despite Bennett's 17 year old season being astronomically better than Draisaitl's? Exact same could be said about Reinhart vs. Bennett.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Neither draft year or birth year is right or wrong, you evaluate players how you want and others can evaluate a prospect draft/birth year how they want and lets end this. If you choose to evaluate based on birth year then go ahead, but it does not mean its an absolute correct way of evaluating players and both sides have expressed disagreement on one method or another.

I wish i could find that tweet the other day where a member of the analytics community expressed why neither method is right or wrong and this is never going to end because your insistent your method in this conversation is correct. I do question your motives however considering you came into this thread firing insults how canucks fans are overvaluing prospects as usual and then chose to spend an exorbitant amount of time looking up information that fits your opinion.

Birth year is objectively the correct way to compare prospects.

Two kids are born - one on September 14 and one on September 15 of 1999. Since they were both born in the same year, they go to school in the same grade and they play on a hockey team with other kids born in the same year, and will graduate high school in the same year.

The kid born on September 14 will be drafted in 2017
The kid born on September 15 will be drafted in 2018

The argument you seem to be making is that the kid born on September 15, 1999 should be compared to 2000-born players, since he's drafted in 2018 because of an arbitrary cut-off, while the kid born on September 14, 1999 should be compared to 1999-born players, since he's drafted in 2017.

Compare players by their birth year and you compare them with their peers. Compare players by draft year and you risk comparing apples to oranges - or more accurately, a redder and riper apple to a sour and undeveloped apple.

 

[Hale The Villain]

For those obsessing about birth year answer this for me:

Why on earth was Auston Matthews selected ahead of Patrik Laine? Also, why ther HELL was Leon Draisaitl was absolute **** in his 17 year old season compared to Sam Bennett's 17 year old season. BTW, the age difference between Matthews and Laine was larger than the difference between Pettersson and Pastrnak relative to their draft years.

When we compare "17 year old seasons" between Laine and Matthews, Laine blows Matthews out of the water. So why did Matthews go 1st and Laine went 2nd? If birth year is so important why was it overlooked in this case? Or... why is it overlooked in literally every other case with every prospect ever? Why was Draisaitl selected over Bennett despite Bennett's 17 year old season being astronomically better than Draisaitl's? Exact same could be said about Reinhart vs. Bennett.

Matthews was selected ahead of Laine because scouts felt he was the better prospect, and Draisaitl was selected ahead of Bennett because scouts felt he was the better prospect.

Birth year isn't overlooked in "literally every other case with every prospect ever", as you so elegantly put it, you just picked two isolated examples of a cases where scouts valued attributes that don't show up on a stat sheet high enough to justify selecting a player with less production over a player with higher production at the same age.

 

[lawrence]

I'm in agreement that when you draft a player you don't look at their D-1 year to determine their worth, you look at their draft year. You see what kind of progression they've made from one year to the next. There has been players that dominate because of their age/size that is partly because they're an older player. If age/date of birth wasn't a concern we'd see a lot of 20YO CHLers going high in the draft.

I'm only saying that if you're going to compare Pastrnak and Pettersson draft seasons, it's not a great comparison because one was an 18 year old and one was a 17 year old. While maybe not the as applicable in a men's league, it is a concern in the CHL to some degree. Just because they're a late birthday doesn't mean you discredit the season they had, it's just another factor that has to be considered. It's probably not even that applicable to the high end prospects, as they're high end for a reason.

I just think if we're going to compare Pettersson's 18 year old season to a season of Pastrnak's it's best to use his 18 year old season in the AHL/NHL. There's no right or wrong answer to this discussion as player evaluation is a constantly evolving process and no 2 players are the same.

Now why the Heck are we comparing Pettersson to Pastrnak again? What is hail your villains true agenda right now?


Already mentioned Petterson is 6 months older then Pastrnark at draft day and he missed having a 1999 Birthday by 6 weeks. He finished top 10 in scoring in a mens leauge as an 18 year old, who is still 18 and will be 18 until late this year. He is not Draft +1. This is his earliest draft year, nothing more. It's not like he missed his actual draft year and went a year later, this is not the case for him.

Just because you don't appreciate an in-depth debate on how to properly evaluate development age doesn't mean others are the same.

Go outside or something if you don't like it.

He's made a good point, it's not like he turned 19 before he got drafted by the Canucks. He's still very much 18 years old and will be 18 years old still when he starts next season. this d+1 is overblown by hailryourvillain, who seems to have a different agenda and why is he targeting a prospect is beyond me.

 

[lawrence]

Matthews was selected ahead of Laine because scouts felt he was the better prospect, and Draisaitl was selected ahead of Bennett because scouts felt he was the better prospect.

Birth year isn't overlooked in "literally every other case with every prospect ever", as you so elegantly put it, you just picked two isolated examples of a cases where scouts valued attributes that don't show up on a stat sheet high enough to justify selecting a player with less production over a player with higher production at the same age.

what is your problem right now? it's not even on topic. And since when the heck were your a boston fan.

 

[Hale The Villain]

what is your problem right now? it's not even on topic. And since when the heck were your a boston fan.

I'm not a Boston fan. I'm a fan of logic and reason.

Comparing Pettersson's 18YR old draft-year production to the 17YR old draft-year production of Forsberg/Burakovsky is illogical, which is what started this whole debate.

 

[Dodospice]

For those obsessing about birth year answer this for me:

Why on earth was Auston Matthews selected ahead of Patrik Laine? Also, why ther HELL was Leon Draisaitl was absolute **** in his 17 year old season compared to Sam Bennett's 17 year old season. BTW, the age difference between Matthews and Laine was larger than the difference between Pettersson and Pastrnak relative to their draft years.

When we compare "17 year old seasons" between Laine and Matthews, Laine blows Matthews out of the water. So why did Matthews go 1st and Laine went 2nd? If birth year is so important why was it overlooked in this case? Or... why is it overlooked in literally every other case with every prospect ever? Why was Draisaitl selected over Bennett despite Bennett's 17 year old season being astronomically better than Draisaitl's? Exact same could be said about Reinhart vs. Bennett.

The reason why those players were drafted over the others is that they were viewed as better prospects, just because they have a late birthday doesn't mean they aren't deserving to go ahead of them. I have no agenda against a late born player who misses a draft cut off, in fact I've stated that I don't believe it makes a significant difference when talking about elite level prospects. I'm only saying that when you're comparing what Pettersson did this year in Sweden, it's best to compare his numbers to other 98 born players or if it's a 99 born player to the numbers they produce next year. Comparing a player to their age group makes more sense, if you went by draft year why aren't all international tournaments based on when a player is not first draft eligible?

If you were going to evaluate two players in the CHL, one a late born 98 and one a 99, wouldn't it make more sense to compare their numbers relative to what other players in their age group produced? I'm going to choose to compare the late born 98's numbers to what other 98's are doing and not 99's as they've had another year to develop at this level over a 99. When I watch the World Juniors, I'm going to see how the late 98 did relative to other 98's and not only guys that were in their draft years.

These comparisons aren't the determining factor in their draft position, it's a small factor in the grand scheme of things. I'm only arguing that it's best to compare 98 born players to other 98s in the grand scheme of things and not a late 98 to a 99.

Now why the Heck are we comparing Pettersson to Pastrnak again? What is hail your villains true agenda right now?


Already mentioned Petterson is 6 months older then Pastrnark at draft day and he missed having a 1999 Birthday by 6 weeks. He finished top 10 in scoring in a mens leauge as an 18 year old, who is still 18 and will be 18 until late this year. He is not Draft +1. This is his earliest draft year, nothing more. It's not like he missed his actual draft year and went a year later, this is not the case for him.



He's made a good point, it's not like he turned 19 before he got drafted by the Canucks. He's still very much 18 years old and will be 18 years old still when he starts next season. this d+1 is overblown by hailryourvillain, who seems to have a different agenda and why is he targeting a prospect is beyond me.

He's not D+1 but he is D+1 relative to other 98's. He's going to be considered a 19 year old player next year for international hockey purposes and that's how you determine a players age group, not by draft year. Pettersson's numbers as an 18 year old are absolutely fantastic, he's a fantastic prospect, that isn't changed by his draft age. The fact he's a late born 98 only changes that you should compare his numbers and himself to other 98 born players and not to the 99's.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm not a Boston fan. I'm a fan of logic and reason.

Comparing Pettersson's 18YR old draft-year production to the 17YR old draft-year production of Forsberg/Burakovsky is illogical, which is what started this whole debate.

Makes more sense than comparing a player's first year in Allsvenskan with a player's second year when they are only 6 months apart in age.

 

[Orca Smash]

Birth year is objectively the correct way to compare prospects.

Two kids are born - one on September 14 and one on September 15 of 1999. Since they were both born in the same year, they go to school in the same grade and they play on a hockey team with other kids born in the same year, and will graduate high school in the same year.

The kid born on September 14 will be drafted in 2017
The kid born on September 15 will be drafted in 2018

The argument you seem to be making is that the kid born on September 15, 1999 should be compared to 2000-born players, since he's drafted in 2018 because of an arbitrary cut-off, while the kid born on September 14, 1999 should be compared to 1999-born players, since he's drafted in 2017.

Compare players by their birth year and you compare them with their peers. Compare players by draft year and you risk comparing apples to oranges - or more accurately, a redder and riper apple to a sour and undeveloped apple.

I disagree and so do others, however some do agree with you on birth year on analyzing players, but I dont agree birth year is the correct way for the reasons discussed in this thread and covered already, both have very large flaws imo.

I think the issue here is entirely you believe your way is the correct way and people who dont agree are wrong. And its something thats not binary and has no absolute correct answer. When I evaluate players I do consider how many months apart they are in development but its not something that can be quantified imo, but that seems to be what people have attempted to do in order to better compare players, unfortunately I think both methods just have to many holes. Likewise you can also mention someone born december 31st and Janurary 1st on the other side of the coin and considering them a year apart, I see issues with regards to player physical and mental development as well.

 

[lawrence]

I'm not a Boston fan. I'm a fan of logic and reason.

Comparing Pettersson's 18YR old draft-year production to the 17YR old draft-year production of Forsberg/Burakovsky is illogical, which is what started this whole debate.

my gosh...

some players turn 18 year old 7 or 8 months into their season. Petterson turned 18 year olds 1.5 months into his season. Your blowing this way out of proportion.

did I mention he missed having a 1999 birthday by 6 weeks only? give me a break.

Likewise you can also mention someone born december 31st and Janurary 1st on the other side of the coin and considering them a year apart, I see issues with regards to player physical and mental development as well.

He obviously have a different agenda right now. It all started with him bringing up how we overrated every player we drafted.

 

[ulvvf]

This is ridiculous. Players start playing hockey at all different ages, and they play at the level that they are ready for. If a player plays up several age groups that doesn't mean they should be compared to older players, so why would you argue it matters whether someone played with other 98s or 99s growing up, because they were like 1 month older?

If you're going to compare a late birthday with an early birthday just account for the absolute age difference. Whether that's 1 month or 6 months or 11 months. Don't talk about 17yo season or 18yo season because if you're going to really care about this issue it's really their 17.9 or 18.1 season. On average players do become more physically gifted and understand the game better as their brains and bodies develop with age. That's the only thing worth considering when it comes to age, unless someone started playing when they're 14 or something.

I agree, if anything it is seasons that matter not birth year, since that is their working year, when the season start that is when the real hockey year starts. But like you say, if we should focus so much on age then it should be the absolute age difference.

As you say, good players tend to play against older players anyway, at least in the domestic leagues.

Btw, my issue is how inconsistent people are with it. Why didnt we hear more about this when it comes to for example Matthews? Why is this all the suddently intresting when it comes to Pettersson but not others?