experience-based only or + study and analyse

hello,

may ask you guys opinion on the takes to improve ur chess skill,,

recently, my friend (note tht we're some what casual highschooler chess player and play them b'cos we're in the chess club w/o any coach) had said tht "we just need to practise hard to improve our skill, and we dont need to buy and read the 100++ pges of chess book,, experience is important."
In my opinion, if we only rely on our own mere experience without 1500 years of chess analyse (correct if i'm wrong), i dont think we can go futher with tht. i mean like we need to study some openings, tech, patterns, principle

well, what do you guys think bout this,?  what should i say to my friend here,,? i'm not trying to win our agrument here, but she keep insisting this and told this to our junior in the club. i would love for us to improve our club achievement.

ps: pls be nice :) , there's still a lot of things i dont know bout chess 

Coach Heisman emphasizes the need for three things to improve.  If any are absent or out of balance, your progress will suffer.  Study, play, review your games.

I think most players dont review their games. Chessplayers like to play and they also like to learn (read or watching instruction videos). Reviewing own games is pretty boring.

I've never reviewed a complete game. Sometimes an endgame or a critical point in the game. That's probably the reason why I still pretty much suck.

Yeah, just because I can relay good advice doesn't mean I follow it either.  Too much temptation to throw an engine at the game and pretend that's a review.  

I may be in the minority, but I rather enjoy reviewing my own games. A chess board, note book, and a pot of tea... it's just relaxing somehow.  It helps me understand where I went wrong, and it's reassuring to find that I did a few things right.