Agree 100% and I’d go so far to say young Sterling has little chance of first team regular football at Chelsea hope I’m proved wrong though. What the parent clubs do, especially the Premiership clubs but championship clubs are doing it now too, Derby just have with Luke Thomas, is bang them on a 3/4 year deal thus nailing him to the floor see and how they get on. But what happens generally is at 23/24 players are looking for clubs but have hardly any first team games under their belts. We have just seen Adam Armstrong get a transfer to Blackburn, his first senior club, 4 years after hitting the headlines with us, his performances here should have been enough to earn him first team action at Newcastle, but on the flip side he will be a rich young man.I agree entirely. I think rich clubs hoarding lots of young talent (in many cases not because they think they're going to be good enough just that they don't want anyone else to benefit) is detrimental to the game overall and the international team.
For me, I'd bring in a maximum squad, say 40, of players on pro contracts. Doesn't matter what age, nationality etc - 40 max. That'd put a lot of these youngsters available for free at the end of their academy contracts, giving teams lower down the pyramid the chance to bring on better players and upping the overall standard as well as potentially levelling out the competition somewhat and making it more competitive. Other clubs have to put up with (and often pay a fee) for the errors as they learn and then the parent club gets a finished article for a relatively inexpensive initial outlay. Grossly unfair system.
In financial terms I think it'd lead to a huge disparity in wages because even more funds would become available to pay the top level players but I'm not overly bothered about truly top class individuals being highly paid. It's when you've got youngsters (essentially trainees), who've never played a first team game, on contracts 5x+ what first team regulars are on just a league or two further down. Imagine the office junior/intern on a wage many executives would be happy with!
Besides that it'd be good for the players development, getting into 'proper' games at men's level than U23/reserve level. So much potential is wasted in players sitting on pretty lucrative contracts until 24-25 when they end up being released and then struggle to cope when they have to face the realisation of what football is like for the vast majority of players because they've never experienced it.
Another thing that I'd consider is the U24 compensation rule being altered so that no compensation is due if said player hasn't played a first team/league game for their parent club in the previous season.
Shame JH isn't around for a second revolution!
The problems both Grimmer and Sterling have is that they are o9ften let down by the midfielder playing in front of them not giving them enough cover. Sterling is especially vulnerable as Bayliss is (justifiably) often playing higher up the field - the first goal against Scunthorpe was a perfect illustration - Bayliss lost the ball, Scunthorpe broke and Sterling was exposed and they duly scored. Not entirely Sterling's fault - as many have said, it's a big difference in playing L1 football to Premiership U23/Youth games.
We should, at least while the game is being played, give our whole-hearted support to every player, and then analyse their performance fairly after the event.
Young lad, coming to terms with League 1. Also with the formation we are currently playing he doesn't really have any cover, so at times ( probably the times many people think he's ball watching etc) he has 2 players up against him. The perfect example of this was when Doyle had a go at him. However Sterling then pointed out he was actually having to cover a midfielder who had run past Abs and Doyle...
Quoting Meatloaf, eh ?There were only 5 words in his post, 3 out of 5 isn't bad
Care to expand on the above? Actually I'm going to give you a like as I agree with nearly all you've said.I agree entirely. I think rich clubs hoarding lots of young talent (in many cases not because they think they're going to be good enough just that they don't want anyone else to benefit) is detrimental to the game overall and the international team.
For me, I'd bring in a maximum squad, say 40, of players on pro contracts. Doesn't matter what age, nationality etc - 40 max. That'd put a lot of these youngsters available for free at the end of their academy contracts, giving teams lower down the pyramid the chance to bring on better players and upping the overall standard as well as potentially levelling out the competition somewhat and making it more competitive. Other clubs have to put up with (and often pay a fee) for the errors as they learn and then the parent club gets a finished article for a relatively inexpensive initial outlay. Grossly unfair system.
In financial terms I think it'd lead to a huge disparity in wages because even more funds would become available to pay the top level players but I'm not overly bothered about truly top class individuals being highly paid. It's when you've got youngsters (essentially trainees), who've never played a first team game, on contracts 5x+ what first team regulars are on just a league or two further down. Imagine the office junior/intern on a wage many executives would be happy with!
Besides that it'd be good for the players development, getting into 'proper' games at men's level than U23/reserve level. So much potential is wasted in players sitting on pretty lucrative contracts until 24-25 when they end up being released and then struggle to cope when they have to face the realisation of what football is like for the vast majority of players because they've never experienced it.
Another thing that I'd consider is the U24 compensation rule being altered so that no compensation is due if said player hasn't played a first team/league game for their parent club in the previous season.
Shame JH isn't around for a second revolution!
Now this is a mad theory and one just conjured up in my head, but....... I decided to share it anyway.
Is there any possibility that the squad isn't happy due to the fact there's this unwritten law whereby Chelsea have suggested that Sterling needs to be playing every week and the squad aren't happy about it and also added to that, that Jack Grimmer is a very popular player at the club.
Maybe bonkers, but I know if we say sent Ponticelli down to a non-league club we would want him to be playing every week and if he wasn't playing and just on the bench we would be thinking 'what's the point'.
Nor the manager it seemsMost of the squad will ever have even met Grimmer who are playing
No, I realise that, but when they came they must have known how popular he was and we do still have Jones and Andreu and Burge and Doyle and Kelly and Shipley and JCH and Biamou and Ponticelli and Bayliss, so a fair few existing from last year's squad.Most of the squad will ever have even met Grimmer who are playing
Had a decent game today. Still panics occasionally as he did in second half with a clearance that almost went for a corner when it should have been up towards the half way line. Definitely improved since his horror show at Bristol though.He's gone from rabbit in the headlights to confident premier league loanee.
Crazy stuff. I’m starting to think that young players, who’ve never kicked a ball in a professional league, can improve after a few games. Develop even?
I’m also opening up to the possibility that players generally can improve in form, even grow into a team, the more they play.
Fuck it, I’m going to go all out and not call for the manager’s head after a loss or two, nor proclaim we will win the World Cup if we win by a couple of goals. In fact, I am going to make a judgement after 20+ games and even then support the team and see where we end up.
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?