The "reward youth" debate

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39405
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Nov 2017 16:18

Yep. Hadn't been especially impressed with what I'd seen of him previously (not bad by any stretch), but he's obviously doing well today. Hard to be 4-1 up without everyone having at least a decent game.

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Lower West » 05 Nov 2017 09:12

leon
Lower West Stam has shown good management with the introduction of Smith. Leave the decisions to him. As to when players are ready.


Hmm could have done it several games earlier. We might have a few more points.



More to introducing than simply announcing a name on the teamsheet.

User avatar
maffff
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5457
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 09:22

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by maffff » 05 Nov 2017 11:43

Seems we've pushed out a load of youth that were always seemingly a year or two away for a group a similar distance, but much younger and arguably with more potential when they reach the same age.

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by From Despair To Where? » 05 Nov 2017 14:56

maffff Seems we've pushed out a load of youth that were always seemingly a year or two away for a group a similar distance, but much younger and arguably with more potential when they reach the same age.


Which makes absolute sense. No point holding on to a player and stifling their career when there's potentially better coming up behind them.

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24935
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Hound » 05 Nov 2017 15:36

Agreed. Smith and Richards acquitted themselves well and Richards could have a little run now at LB

Fosu is still the only one who I think may come back to bite us, but you can’t keep hold of players his age forever in the fear they may fulfil their potential


User avatar
tidus_mi2
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7278
Joined: 15 Jun 2012 15:24

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by tidus_mi2 » 05 Nov 2017 16:35

Richard's emergence puts a lot of pressure on Blackett as well, who, with Obita's injury was left unchallenged. Now he find himself behind a youngster and a right back in the pecking order for that starting point at left back.

He'll either rise to the challenge and get back in contention or I feel Stam has to get rid, there have been arguments he's better as a centre back but in that area he is already at best, 4th choice.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39405
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Snowflake Royal » 05 Nov 2017 17:54

Hound Agreed. Smith and Richards acquitted themselves well and Richards could have a little run now at LB

Fosu is still the only one who I think may come back to bite us, but you can’t keep hold of players his age forever in the fear they may fulfil their potential


It's just sad we consistently brought in almost the equivalent to an entire new team three years running, rather than let players like Tanner, Stacey, Fosu and co play back up and get minutes from the bench and during injuries. A large part of making it is getting the chance to learn by playing in the side.

Here's hoping that more of Dickie, Novakovitch, Barrett, Smith, Loader and co get that chance than the last lot. Many of whom look to have got league careers ahead of them despite leaving us.

User avatar
tidus_mi2
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7278
Joined: 15 Jun 2012 15:24

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by tidus_mi2 » 05 Nov 2017 18:04

Of those three you mention, only Fosu is currently showing signs he could well have done a job for us at his new club.

User avatar
maffff
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5457
Joined: 25 Nov 2010 09:22

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by maffff » 05 Nov 2017 18:36

tidus_mi2 Of those three you mention, only Fosu is currently showing signs he could well have done a job for us at his new club.


And to get out of him what Charlton are he'd have to displace Swift (who is only 6 months older). Could have kept him over Clement I guess, although Clement looks like he'll be some player in a few years.


User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by From Despair To Where? » 05 Nov 2017 18:45

...and not forgetting Fosu had 2 years of underwhelming loan spells in League 2 under his belt. Maybe, just maybe playing in League 1 with more realistic expectations is what he needs to take his career forward.

It's no different to Swift taking a step down to play for us. Just because he's doing well, doesn't mean Chelsea were wrong to release him.

I think Stam's managing the academy players well, a staged and gradual introduction to the first team for those he seems have something to offer. We haven't got a Rooney or an Owen, someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of their age group and certain players had ample opportunity to go out on loan and prove themselves. I don't think the occasional 5 or 10 minutes off the bench when we are chasing or looking to close out a game is useful for the development of any youngster.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by SCIAG » 05 Nov 2017 20:12

From Despair To Where? It's no different to Swift taking a step down to play for us. Just because he's doing well, doesn't mean Chelsea were wrong to release him.

Strictly speaking, they didn't release him, just as I don't think we released Fosu and Stacey (but we did release Tanner and Kuhl). He ran down his contract, Chelsea offered him equal or improved terms, and we had to pay them a sizeable compensation fee.

The young wingers should have been getting the minutes we've given to the likes of Hurtado, John, Harriott and Popa. Stacey could also have played wing-back when we were improvising with the likes of McCleary and Williams there. Tanner could potentially have got some of Grabban's minutes too. That's quite a sizeable amount of game time really, and would quite probably have been better for them than farming them out to play in a completely different style and a different position with a bunch of strangers and a manager who barely knows them.

We've thrown in a fairly ordinary left back and he's done just well. We've thrown in a striker who couldn't get in the U23s last year and the sky hasn't fallen in (I know it's been said already, but Smith being in the first team while Novakovich is on loan is a clear case of mismanagement). If these players are doing just fine and benefiting from the exposure then it seems safe to assume that better players would also have had a good chance of doing fine and benefiting from the exposure.

User avatar
WAZZOCK
Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 23:09

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by WAZZOCK » 05 Nov 2017 20:23

From Despair To Where? ...and not forgetting Fosu had 2 years of underwhelming loan spells in League 2 under his belt. Maybe, just maybe playing in League 1 with more realistic expectations is what he needs to take his career forward.

It's no different to Swift taking a step down to play for us. Just because he's doing well, doesn't mean Chelsea were wrong to release him.

I think Stam's managing the academy players well, a staged and gradual introduction to the first team for those he seems have something to offer. We haven't got a Rooney or an Owen, someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of their age group and certain players had ample opportunity to go out on loan and prove themselves. I don't think the occasional 5 or 10 minutes off the bench when we are chasing or looking to close out a game is useful for the development of any youngster.


And also not forgetting further that Fosu had the chance to impress 4 different managers and they all decided against giving him a chance.

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Lower West » 05 Nov 2017 20:46

From Despair To Where? It's no different to Swift taking a step down to play for us. Just because he's doing well, doesn't mean Chelsea were wrong to release him.



As with Moore. If you are unlikely to break into the first team anytime soon or get regular premiership football. Why spend your time being shunted from club to club on season long loans. Better to establish yourself somewhere.


User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by From Despair To Where? » 05 Nov 2017 21:39

SCIAG The young wingers should have been getting the minutes we've given to the likes of Hurtado, John, Harriott and Popa. Stacey could also have played wing-back when we were improvising with the likes of McCleary and Williams there. Tanner could potentially have got some of Grabban's minutes too. That's quite a sizeable amount of game time really, and would quite probably have been better for them than farming them out to play in a completely different style and a different position with a bunch of strangers and a manager who barely knows them.


Are you really arguing that players who struggled to get game time in League 2 should recalled and been selected ahead of an established international (Popa) and an established Championship striker (Grabban) in a team challenging for promotion to the Premiership?

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 29048
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by leon » 06 Nov 2017 00:44

Lower West
leon
Lower West Stam has shown good management with the introduction of Smith. Leave the decisions to him. As to when players are ready.


Hmm could have done it several games earlier. We might have a few more points.



More to introducing than simply announcing a name on the teamsheet.


Yes indeed. That was entirely my point.

Readingfanman
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:00

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Readingfanman » 06 Nov 2017 10:19

maffff
tidus_mi2 Could have kept him over Clement I guess, although Clement looks like he'll be some player in a few years.


Does he? He's 21 already, and I'm not really sure I've seen much to convince me he's much better than anyone in our youth side who was pushing to be on the bench,

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39405
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Snowflake Royal » 06 Nov 2017 17:04

From Despair To Where?
SCIAG The young wingers should have been getting the minutes we've given to the likes of Hurtado, John, Harriott and Popa. Stacey could also have played wing-back when we were improvising with the likes of McCleary and Williams there. Tanner could potentially have got some of Grabban's minutes too. That's quite a sizeable amount of game time really, and would quite probably have been better for them than farming them out to play in a completely different style and a different position with a bunch of strangers and a manager who barely knows them.


Are you really arguing that players who struggled to get game time in League 2 should recalled and been selected ahead of an established international (Popa) and an established Championship striker (Grabban) in a team challenging for promotion to the Premiership?

I think he's correctly saying those players shouldn't have been signed to bloat our squad when we had potential quality to fill their roles already at much cheaper wages, so we shouldn't have loaned them out.

We should be using the Academy players for cover and signing 2/3/5 quality new players, rather than 10/11/13.

John, Vydra, Grabban, Piazon, Meite... all utter disappointments. Popa's barely played. Absolutely no reason Fosu, Stacey and Tanner couldn't have been given 5-10 games to see how they did instead. (Obvs Vydra is an odd man out there as someone you could expect quality from).

They couldn't have contributed much less and they'd have saved us a huge amount of money.

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24935
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Hound » 06 Nov 2017 17:33

All of those players on paper should have delivered much more than they did. Nobody would have been happy at the time if we hadn’t signed Grabban/Vydra and played a youth player instead

Basically some signings work and some don’t. Swift for example has ‘worked’ as at the moment have the likes of Bacuna and Barrow. We nearly all called Meite a fantastic signing at the time

Stam and co obvs didn’t think Stacey etc had the required quality (unlike possibly Kelly, Smith and Richards who he has given chances to) and so let them go - fair enough imo

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22959
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by From Despair To Where? » 06 Nov 2017 18:06

Snowflake Royal
From Despair To Where?
SCIAG The young wingers should have been getting the minutes we've given to the likes of Hurtado, John, Harriott and Popa. Stacey could also have played wing-back when we were improvising with the likes of McCleary and Williams there. Tanner could potentially have got some of Grabban's minutes too. That's quite a sizeable amount of game time really, and would quite probably have been better for them than farming them out to play in a completely different style and a different position with a bunch of strangers and a manager who barely knows them.


Are you really arguing that players who struggled to get game time in League 2 should recalled and been selected ahead of an established international (Popa) and an established Championship striker (Grabban) in a team challenging for promotion to the Premiership?

I think he's correctly saying those players shouldn't have been signed to bloat our squad when we had potential quality to fill their roles already at much cheaper wages, so we shouldn't have loaned them out.

We should be using the Academy players for cover and signing 2/3/5 quality new players, rather than 10/11/13.

John, Vydra, Grabban, Piazon, Meite... all utter disappointments. Popa's barely played. Absolutely no reason Fosu, Stacey and Tanner couldn't have been given 5-10 games to see how they did instead. (Obvs Vydra is an odd man out there as someone you could expect quality from).

They couldn't have contributed much less and they'd have saved us a huge amount of money.


I agree that Clarke used far too many loans, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but that's a different set up and that season was a complete clusterfcuk.. The current management team seem to get a lot of unfair criticism in this respect. For someone who apparently isn't keen on the academy, how many academy players have actually made their first team debut under Stam?

Meite is young and was signed from a big European club and showed potential. Popa and Grabban were signed in January. The academy players were already out on loan. Fosu had spent a year in League 2 and shown nothing. If he had shown the same form for us as he showed for Colchester, he would have been absolutely hammered. Tanner was talking in terms of signing for a second loan in order to secure a permanent contract with Plymouth. He was used less and less and is now playing in Scotland. What does that tell you?

Are we going to recall these players from loans (assuming we could) on the promise of maybe a couple of games and with the knowledge that they are not performing at a lower level or do we play the percentages and sign an experienced player relatively cheaply with the aim of getting us up?

The management team will have looked at the academy players and either decided they needed further development out on loan, or gave them a chance to prove themselves in the first team squad. Some did well (Kelly), some showed they have potential (Watson), some there was something missing (Samuel).

I actually don't think academy players should be used wholesale as cover. We should have a first team core of 20-23 players with
the academy earning a place on merit or filling the odd gap on the fringe. Some academy players have the good fortune to progress because of injury but the path to the first team should be based on merit and ability. The club staff see a lot more of these players than anyone on here and are much better placed to judge.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39405
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: The "reward youth" debate

by Snowflake Royal » 06 Nov 2017 21:13

From Despair To Where?
I agree that Clarke used far too many loans, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but that's a different set up and that season was a complete clusterfcuk.. The current management team seem to get a lot of unfair criticism in this respect. For someone who apparently isn't keen on the academy, how many academy players have actually made their first team debut under Stam?

I don't think Stam has been particularly bad. I make it Kelly, Watson, Richards and Smith, but depending on what you count it could include Andressen, Dickie, Rinomhota and maybe others. It's not just about one sub appearance / start though. it's about 2,3,4,5 across the season.

From Despair To Where? Meite is young and was signed from a big European club and showed potential. Popa and Grabban were signed in January. The academy players were already out on loan. Fosu had spent a year in League 2 and shown nothing. If he had shown the same form for us as he showed for Colchester, he would have been absolutely hammered. Tanner was talking in terms of signing for a second loan in order to secure a permanent contract with Plymouth. He was used less and less and is now playing in Scotland. What does that tell you?

I think you have to understand that I think making it in football often comes down to luck and circumstance. And that just because a player didn't have great loans, or hasn't gone on to be a roaring success since leaving, doesn't mean they didn't have a chance here and couldn't have done something good. And the point is that we'll never know, because 3 players who impressed here, and achieved something pretty special in our Academy, got less than 10 appearances between them, at a time when we were shit.

I wasn't Fosu's biggest fan. But it's disappointing he didn't get more of a chance.

From Despair To Where? Are we going to recall these players from loans (assuming we could) on the promise of maybe a couple of games and with the knowledge that they are not performing at a lower level or do we play the percentages and sign an experienced player relatively cheaply with the aim of getting us up?

I say we incorporate them into the squad more closely from the start of the season, put them on the bench. Give them sub appearances and occasional starts where there's injuries / cup games. We're not far from this as it is. If they're not impressing or they've not got a kick send them on loan in January. January signings are always desirable because it's hard to get good players.

From Despair To Where? The management team will have looked at the academy players and either decided they needed further development out on loan, or gave them a chance to prove themselves in the first team squad. Some did well (Kelly), some showed they have potential (Watson), some there was something missing (Samuel).

I just think they're being too cautious with the young players. And taking too many unnecessary punts on senior signings. Any signing is an unknown quantity. A youth player is less so.

From Despair To Where? I actually don't think academy players should be used wholesale as cover. We should have a first team core of 20-23 players with
the academy earning a place on merit or filling the odd gap on the fringe. Some academy players have the good fortune to progress because of injury but the path to the first team should be based on merit and ability. The club staff see a lot more of these players than anyone on here and are much better placed to judge.

Our squad is about the right size now. But it's skewed. Too many midfielders, forwards and wingers, maybe centrebacks too - not enough strikers or fullbacks. Ditch a winger, a midfielder and a centreback for a full back and a striker, and involve Barrett, Dickie & Holsgrove / Rinomhota etc.

Given our injuries, chances are Smith and Richards still get their chances. We've got a much clearer first XI. We're not paying Popa to do nothing.

I don't think we're very far from being in complete agreement. I'd just rather we moved our risk taking slightly more towards the academy players and away from the signings. I just don't think it's healthy signing 10+ players each season.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 6ft Kerplunk, Bing [Bot], Biscuit goalie, Google Adsense [Bot] and 496 guests

It is currently 29 Mar 2024 13:13