Hobo
Well-Known Member
Whatever turns you on Nick - is it the uniform?
Match Thread Telford friendly (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter DazzleTommyDazzle
- Start date
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I was amazed that we didn't have any fit centre backs to play this game - we've got seven in the squad overall, albeit one of them out on loan.
I know that we had another friendly on the same day but surely the likes of Williams and Drysdale, and possibly even Pask, could've been utilised in this game leaving Hyam, McFadzean and Rose to play the other one?
I just don't see what we'd have got from those games either in terms of fitness and/or tactics if we're playing people out of position while not really giving those understudies the minutes elsewhere?
I'm also surprised that we've brought in four trialists. We've got quite a bloated U23 squad and are looking to farm a number of them out on loan. I'm all for looking to improve the squad anywhere possible but I think we need to concentrate our funds on filling those couple of missing jigsaw pieces in the first team.
I know that we had another friendly on the same day but surely the likes of Williams and Drysdale, and possibly even Pask, could've been utilised in this game leaving Hyam, McFadzean and Rose to play the other one?
I just don't see what we'd have got from those games either in terms of fitness and/or tactics if we're playing people out of position while not really giving those understudies the minutes elsewhere?
I'm also surprised that we've brought in four trialists. We've got quite a bloated U23 squad and are looking to farm a number of them out on loan. I'm all for looking to improve the squad anywhere possible but I think we need to concentrate our funds on filling those couple of missing jigsaw pieces in the first team.
Last edited:
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
This is long-term planning; a deliberate attempt to build for the future and avoid spending every sou on first team players. I'm happy with it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm supportive of such a policy as well.
It's just that we seem to be offering these youngsters two years deals (occasionally three), so really after a year they should be looking at breaking into the first team otherwise chances are they're just going to get released. We bring a player in in a certain position and then 6 months later bring in another, so was that poor recruitment with the first player if within six months you've found someone you think is better? How are they supposed to progress if they aren't even getting all the game time in U23 unless we're just bringing them in intending to loan them out? We're still having to bring in players to replace first teamers rather than one of the youngsters stepping up most of the time.
To me it seems more like the academy and youth policy of clubs like Chelsea - bring in a large number, farm them out on loan and end up releasing them. Which given we've got Adi Viveash maybe isn't a surprise, but we haven't got the resources to do that.
It's just that we seem to be offering these youngsters two years deals (occasionally three), so really after a year they should be looking at breaking into the first team otherwise chances are they're just going to get released. We bring a player in in a certain position and then 6 months later bring in another, so was that poor recruitment with the first player if within six months you've found someone you think is better? How are they supposed to progress if they aren't even getting all the game time in U23 unless we're just bringing them in intending to loan them out? We're still having to bring in players to replace first teamers rather than one of the youngsters stepping up most of the time.
To me it seems more like the academy and youth policy of clubs like Chelsea - bring in a large number, farm them out on loan and end up releasing them. Which given we've got Adi Viveash maybe isn't a surprise, but we haven't got the resources to do that.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It doesn't no.
But take yesterday - we had the young midfielder in that scored. We only signed a young midfielder less than a month ago from a trial last season. Last season we brought in Bosma, and a few months before that Westbrooke after a trial. Not to mention the likes of Eccles, Maycock who we've signed up from the academy as well as N'Gandu and Jack Burroughs.
But so far none of them are really stepping up to be regular first teamers and we've brought in Jamie Allen. Even then there's Shipley as back up before these U23 get a sniff.
Plus with a large U23 squad it restricts the chances for the U18 academy scholars to be tested in U23 games which is something we used to do quite a bit in their final year to see how well they coped. So it's also potentially hampering the ability of the academy.
Is it proving an effective policy to progress youngsters to the first team?
But take yesterday - we had the young midfielder in that scored. We only signed a young midfielder less than a month ago from a trial last season. Last season we brought in Bosma, and a few months before that Westbrooke after a trial. Not to mention the likes of Eccles, Maycock who we've signed up from the academy as well as N'Gandu and Jack Burroughs.
But so far none of them are really stepping up to be regular first teamers and we've brought in Jamie Allen. Even then there's Shipley as back up before these U23 get a sniff.
Plus with a large U23 squad it restricts the chances for the U18 academy scholars to be tested in U23 games which is something we used to do quite a bit in their final year to see how well they coped. So it's also potentially hampering the ability of the academy.
Is it proving an effective policy to progress youngsters to the first team?
Last edited:
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
They won't be on big money; they get used to our way of playing - if they get loaned out for experience, we recoup some of their wages, and we have some available to cover for first team injuries. Not sure what is wrong with that. It's a bit like not putting all your eggs in one basket. Some may not make it, but then neither do some so called first team squad. Both Bayliss and Shipley broke through, and I expect Burroughs and one or two others to do similar. We need an academy to attract potential, and need to top it up occasionally with other promising players. Alternative is all funds to the first team but no academy, which would surely be a bad thing, given what has come through it.
skyblueelephant76
Well-Known Member
Last year we were named in the top 10 academies in the country over the last ten years for producing players.
They have a clear strategy and the trial players will be coming in to fill specific positions, not just to add numbers.
For the friendly yesterday they prioritised the first team which is exactly what we should be doing at this stage of pre-season.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The likes of Bayliss, Shipley, Wilson, Thomas, Maddison, Stevenson etc all came through at a time when our U23 were pretty much made up from our academy graduates. That's how it should be used IMO - a stepping stone between academy and first team. If we've got that much faith in Burroughs and N'Gandu breaking through why are we signing players a bit older than them who we don't think have more potential?
For me, if you're bringing someone in from outside as an U23 it should be because they're very close to being ready for the first team with just a few things to iron out. The expectation should be that they will be fighting for that first team place and training with the first team to test them, not being ready to be farmed out. It just seems that a number of those we've brought in are nowhere near that stage and are barely, if any better, than those we've developed in the academy.
It's like it's being treated as a separate team rather than something to improve the first team and make sure those not being picked get some match time.
Covkid1968#
Well-Known Member
Throw in 2 balloons and a goldfish and he’s ours.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
I get your point, but judging by the number of players who progress from the academy to challenge for a first team spot, there aren't enough of sufficient quality. The likes of Bremang etc are to (hopefully) boost the level of quality to challenge for the first team, and cover for gaps where the Academy is struggling.
Mcbean
Well-Known Member
That’s called facial recognition and breaks every privacy law in the business - it’s why MI6 use it
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The academy is not the same as the U23's. And over the last 10 years our U23's has been made up almost solely from those we've brought through the academy. That is arguably one of the reasons it's been so successful - it has allowed young players the chance to progress to a slightly higher standard earlier on.
Last two years we've released a large number of the academy scholars. That has coincided with us signing more U23/development players.
Now it may well be that was because the standard in the academy has not been quite as good as it has been for the few years previously. For what I've heard there is a great deal of excitement over some of those that have just been taken on and the slightly younger age groups.
But will those youngsters get the chance to play up a level in the U23 if it's packed with these development players who aren't really in genuine contention of the first team? It could hold them back a bit.
One of the draws of our academy has been the pathway to the first team. That is in danger of being blocked by players we're bringing in as 'limbo' players - neither first team nor youth.
skyblueelephant76
Well-Known Member
Hyam, Westbrooke and McCallum were all brought in as development players and have progressed to the first team so it's not as if the process isn't working.
In the same time Shipley and Bayliss have come through from the youth setup.
Ngandu, Borroughs and Bapaga have all been playing above their age levels - if the players are good enough they will come through.
I really don't see any players routes being blocked.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Westbrooke and McCallum are still very much bit part players in first team terms, as is Williams. However you did miss out Mason who was brought in as U23/understudy to Brown. It just feels like there are some who've been brought in just to fill out the numbers rather than with the expectation they'll make it - I'd rather see an U18 pushed forward and see how they cope.
As you say the likes of N'Gandu and Burroughs played U23 last year. But then why are they ahead of those we brought in? It has to be either poor recruitment and scouting or they're being brought in to make up numbers.
I'm not that bothered if the U23 don't perform brilliantly in the PDL2 - I'd much rather it be used to test how academy players step up. It'd also be a good way to see how they react to potential adversity and set backs - you learn more about someone's character when they lose than when they win and would provide vital info as to mentality and whether they're worth giving a pro contract to.
As you say the likes of N'Gandu and Burroughs played U23 last year. But then why are they ahead of those we brought in? It has to be either poor recruitment and scouting or they're being brought in to make up numbers.
I'm not that bothered if the U23 don't perform brilliantly in the PDL2 - I'd much rather it be used to test how academy players step up. It'd also be a good way to see how they react to potential adversity and set backs - you learn more about someone's character when they lose than when they win and would provide vital info as to mentality and whether they're worth giving a pro contract to.
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
Yes, Jack is a CM in the U23s. George is a defender, 1st year scholar.
higgs
Well-Known Member
skybluegod
Well-Known Member
We have only tended to bring in players to fill positions which we have struggled with?
Bosma- rubbish and is being released
Williams- huge potential and already stepped up
Drysdale- meant to have huge potential
Bremang- we had no strikers so he was brought in to fill that gap?
Westbrooke- added depth at first team level. And was brought in at time when the u18's weren't quite ready.
Walters- again filled a position which the academy don't have standout players coming through.
Typically we have tended to fill positions either to fill holes in the u23 team with players of better potential. Or players to support the depth of the first team and are at a more advance stage than the u18's with high potential.
If anything we now have a much better system as it pushes the youngsters to fight for a spot and there is a better level of quality throughout the u23's rather than academy players getting contacts to just make up the numbers.
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
Johhny Blue
Well-Known Member
You’re thinking of Jack’s brother Nuneaton
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
TIme will tell as it's still too early in the 'buying development players' era to say if it is improving the academy players or holding them back.
The way I look at it is that a team should preferably have two players vying for each first team place. The one who is not being picked drops down to get match time. In turn the youngsters, either academy or bought in, fight with that player for a spot in that team and so have to reach a better level of quality to usurp them. If they manage it the player is pushed on to then fight for the first team. Everyone has competition.
It's why I'd much prefer it to be a 'reserves' league rather than age specific U23/U21 - it gives younger players the chance to come up against better/older players and test them to a greater degree in a way that will be more reminiscent of first team football.
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
I agree about U23 competition not stretching young players compared with the old 'reserve' leagues which included a significant proportion of senior players. For the young players, it results in a very big jump from U23 to first team. It also makes it difficult for coaches to fully assess young players ability to step up to the senior game. In that respect, assessing and recruiting young players from decent non-league sides is less risky than from U23, because you can see them playing against seniors. If I was a scout I'd be checking both U23 and non-league players.