As the chap I was replying to said, it's to give the (few) genuine talents a route into the first team
Isn't part of the problem that it takes time for players to come through, so we're currently going through the lot who were attracted to a fourth tier team when they joined?As i said, bar Howley and at an absolute push, Rus, there's no one from that squad that will ever do a job in the first team.
Yea thats a good point, but surely that talent shines out in the u18s? Wilson, Madders, Shippers, Bayliss, Stevenson, Eccles etc all shown at a young age they will progress
So why not sign them up on pro terms at 18, minimal of course, then either loan them out to a national league side or whatever, or throw them in and around the first team
As i said, bar Howley and at an absolute push, Rus, there's no one from that squad that will ever do a job in the first team.
Surely the equivalent budget of all the running of the u23s can be put to better use for the first team?
Perhaps the lack of players coming through at U/21/23 levels is why there’s been a change in the scouting system.Yea thats a good point, but surely that talent shines out in the u18s? Wilson, Madders, Shippers, Bayliss, Stevenson, Eccles etc all shown at a young age they will progress
So why not sign them up on pro terms at 18, minimal of course, then either loan them out to a national league side or whatever, or throw them in and around the first team
As i said, bar Howley and at an absolute push, Rus, there's no one from that squad that will ever do a job in the first team.
Surely the equivalent budget of all the running of the u23s can be put to better use for the first team?
17.I think the question is how much did the U23s play a part in that compared to the U18s, training with the first team and loans out?
Wilson was 17 on his debut, so was Madders, Shippers 19/20, Eccles 18, Burroughs 18 (?). Sure some went out on loan as part of their development then came back, but generally if you’re not close by 19ish you probably never will be. And if you are is the U23s more valuable than a loan or just first team training plus maybe a few reserve games with other non first teamers?
I assume all of the players you've named would've been tested at U23s level at a very young age (16-17) having stood out in the U18s. I might be wrong though as don't follow U23s much, but that's the role I see the U23s playing.I think the question is how much did the U23s play a part in that compared to the U18s, training with the first team and loans out?
Wilson was 17 on his debut, so was Madders, Shippers 19/20, Eccles 18, Burroughs 18 (?). Sure some went out on loan as part of their development then came back, but generally if you’re not close by 19ish you probably never will be. And if you are is the U23s more valuable than a loan or just first team training plus maybe a few reserve games with other non first teamers?
Pointless aswell because bar Howley and Maybe Rus none of them will ever make the first team.
Clearly costs us money we dont have so id bin off the whole u21 thing tbf
Keep the u18s and then if any of them are showing promise then sign them up on minimal terms and loan them out to see if they develop further
But if you think an academy player has good prospects but won't be ready for a while yet then offer them something like a three year deal to progress and give them that time. If you're only willing to give a kid 1 or 2 years then you have to ask whether you really believe in them.Disagree. You can be 17 and a decent prospect, but miles off the first team. Hence the need for a next level, under 21/23 team.
Also, as the original poster says, how will you get players coming back from injury fit?
How much do see as minimum terms ?Pointless aswell because bar Howley and Maybe Rus none of them will ever make the first team.
Clearly costs us money we dont have so id bin off the whole u21 thing tbf
Keep the u18s and then if any of them are showing promise then sign them up on minimal terms and loan them out to see if they develop further
Disagree. You can be 17 and a decent prospect, but miles off the first team. Hence the need for a next level, under 21/23 team.
Also, as the original poster says, how will you get players coming back from injury fit?
If you’re 17 and a decent prospect why wouldn’t you play in the U18s?
If you’re 18/19 and a decent prospect why can’t you get a loan?
Ok, so what if you cannot find a club to sent a player out of loan? Does he just train and play no games?
The Under 21's/23's is to be a step up in a players development to get them prepared for first team football. Any youth coach will tell you the same. Not to mention games where players such as Hamer and O'Hare this season can get match practice in after injuries and suspensions. Wanting it scrapped is a madness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?