Are The Youngsters Being Frozen Out?

[P!ssed Off]

^^ yeah this pretty much.

We've been "spoilt" of late so to speak. Just because we've had an abnormally number of academy graduates representing the first team in recent years doesn't mean that now we don't there is a reason to panic, the future of the club is in jeopardy and the world is going to end.

Perspective, people.

Nothing abnormal about it at all.
Our academy has been steadily increasing in quality year on year since it's inception.

In 2006/7 we got to the quarter finals of the FA Youth Cup which was a fantastic achievement.

In 2008/9, the 06/07 U18 side made 45 Championship appearances for Reading.

In 2009/10, the 06/07 U18 side made 147 Championship appearances for Reading:
Simon Church (36)
Hal Robson-Kanu (17)
Jem Karacan (27)
Gylfi Sigurdsson (38)
Alex Pearce (25)
James Henry (3)
Nicholas Bignall (1)

3 seasons ago our U18s outdid the 06/07 youth team and got to the semi-finals of the Youth Cup.
That team will be lucky if their league opportunities reach double figures this season.

[Nameless]

I can't believe your selection criteria are 1. Age 2. Education3. Ability in that order !

There's no need to believe that, because obviously you've made it up.

I'm saying a company with a first class graduate scheme, that happens to be in tens of millions of debt, ought to focus on promoting from within rather than spending millions on external hires who will command a salary 5 to 10 times greater.
You can disagree, that's fine. But it's hardly an unbelievable suggestion...

Which of our signings cost millions ?
Which earn 10 times what Samuel, Cooper or Kelly earn ?
Most have been free transfers and won't be on 50k a week or even close.
And surely promotion comes when people are ready. We don't have a centre back who is even close to being as good as Moore right now, although we've got some who may be as good in a couple of years.
It's good to see you developing your argument as it was pretty thin before. It's still extremely dubious to say that we should play lots of academy graduates just because they are Academy graduates, and that for some reason not playing them will hurt us long term

[Nameless]

3 seasons ago our U18s outdid the 06/07 youth team and got to the semi-finals of the Youth Cup.
That team will be lucky if their league opportunities reach double figures this season.

Our Academy graduates will rack up more appearances than that. But not for us. Stam has said he has sent players on loan with specific development aims and we have a coach who's sole job is to ensure they are achieving those aims. I would expect Stacey, Fosu, Tanner, Dickie etc to come back next season either ready to be part of the first team or to leave. But this season is part of their development.

[Saaaaaaaammmmmm]

On the point of these foreign signings (if it's all part of some inbred agent conspiracy so be it), the thing is a lot of them are just bloating the squad and preventing our youngsters picking up valuable experience.

I just think we rarely make enough signings that genuinely improve the team. I think the agreed number of signings this summer is 11, and only 2 of those started on Tuesday night. That's a lot of signings who 'aren't good enough' for the first XI, and are therefore arguably just bloating our already bloated squad.

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

No, obviously they cannot all start, however my argument is that we would benefit in the long run if we had a squad depth made up of our own homegrown players. For example Moore as backup keeper, or Cooper/Dickie/Hyam as backup defenders, or Kelly as backup midfielder or Tanner/Fosu/Stacey as backup wingers and maybe even Samuel as a backup striker for once. They would gain a lot from those roles, rather than being 7th/8th choice in their position and only playing matches at various training centres like Hogwood or Staplewood in an Under 23 league or for a different team completely.

There is no point investing huge amounts of time and money into an Academy, if you are just going to sign 'squad players' that will block their progress into the first team

[P!ssed Off]

I can't believe your selection criteria are 1. Age 2. Education3. Ability in that order !

There's no need to believe that, because obviously you've made it up.

I'm saying a company with a first class graduate scheme, that happens to be in tens of millions of debt, ought to focus on promoting from within rather than spending millions on external hires who will command a salary 5 to 10 times greater.
You can disagree, that's fine. But it's hardly an unbelievable suggestion...

Which of our signings cost millions ?
Which earn 10 times what Samuel, Cooper or Kelly earn ?
Most have been free transfers and won't be on 50k a week or even close.
And surely promotion comes when people are ready. We don't have a centre back who is even close to being as good as Moore right now, although we've got some who may be as good in a couple of years.
It's good to see you developing your argument as it was pretty thin before. It's still extremely dubious to say that we should play lots of academy graduates just because they are Academy graduates, and that for some reason not playing them will hurt us long term

I didn't say they cost millions individually. Collectively the fees involved in signing 11 players this Summer will definitely be in the millions.
Liam Moore's transfer fee alone is reported to be £1M

The closest thing you'll get to a free transfer is transferring a youth team player to the 1st team.
Van den Berg got a signing fee, we have to give compensation to Chelsea for Swift; they weren't 'free'.

You're also overestimating how much our academy players are earning imo.
Beerens will be earning 5-10 times more than Fosu.
Harriot vs Stacey
Mendes vs Samuel.
VdB vs Kuhl
Swift vs Kelly
Gravenberch vs Dickie.
Moore will be on a significantly higher salary than Cooper.

We signed 11 players. Transfer fee + agent fees + wages for the season will be nearing on £10M.
I think with that extra £10m spent we'll finish 7th to 21st, which is likely where we'd have finished anyway.
Meanwhile the likes of Tanner, Kuhl, Stacey, Fosu, Dickie etc are now less likely to reach their potential than if they'd trained and had opportunities to play here.

[CountryRoyal]

Moore

Watson
Cooper
Dickie
Obita

Kelly
Kuhl
Rinomhota

Stacey
Samuel
Fosu

Is that what you'd like?
That team would be relegated by Christmas.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

The point being Samuel didn't get a go when we were not scoring.

[Royal Rother]

On the point of these foreign signings (if it's all part of some inbred agent conspiracy so be it), the thing is a lot of them are just bloating the squad and preventing our youngsters picking up valuable experience.

I just think we rarely make enough signings that genuinely improve the team. I think the agreed number of signings this summer is 11, and only 2 of those started on Tuesday night. That's a lot of signings who 'aren't good enough' for the first XI, and are therefore arguably just bloating our already bloated squad.

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

No, obviously they cannot all start, however my argument is that we would benefit in the long run if we had a squad depth made up of our own homegrown players. For example Moore as backup keeper, or Cooper/Dickie/Hyam as backup defenders, or Kelly as backup midfielder or Tanner/Fosu/Stacey as backup wingers and maybe even Samuel as a backup striker for once. They would gain a lot from those roles, rather than being 7th/8th choice in their position and only playing matches at various training centres like Hogwood or Staplewood in an Under 23 league or for a different team completely.

There is no point investing huge amounts of time and money into an Academy, if you are just going to sign 'squad players' that will block their progress into the first team

Totally absolutely agree.

[Nameless]

On the point of these foreign signings (if it's all part of some inbred agent conspiracy so be it), the thing is a lot of them are just bloating the squad and preventing our youngsters picking up valuable experience.

I just think we rarely make enough signings that genuinely improve the team. I think the agreed number of signings this summer is 11, and only 2 of those started on Tuesday night. That's a lot of signings who 'aren't good enough' for the first XI, and are therefore arguably just bloating our already bloated squad.

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

No, obviously they cannot all start, however my argument is that we would benefit in the long run if we had a squad depth made up of our own homegrown players. For example Moore as backup keeper, or Cooper/Dickie/Hyam as backup defenders, or Kelly as backup midfielder or Tanner/Fosu/Stacey as backup wingers and maybe even Samuel as a backup striker for once. They would gain a lot from those roles, rather than being 7th/8th choice in their position and only playing matches at various training centres like Hogwood or Staplewood in an Under 23 league or for a different team completely.

There is no point investing huge amounts of time and money into an Academy, if you are just going to sign 'squad players' that will block their progress into the first team

Of those players you mention only Wieser has played in u23 games this season I believe. Our U23 side has been made up of players as young as 17 and almost all are genuine Academy players.
Where do you stand on the imported Academy players ? Is Novacovic blocking a local lad ? Was bringing Gylfi in a bad move be use he was imported ? Should we have signed Hector given that he started at Millwall? What about Rimahota, another one we signed from another club rather than spotted at 7.

And are Stacey etc getting better experience playing proper competitive football every week rather than being part of our squad but getting the odd sub appearance ?
The youngsters haven't been put out on loan as a form of punishment ! They have been sent out so they get proper experience in the bag exactly so they can then be genuine contenders for first team spots.

[Ian Royal]

The point being Samuel didn't get a go when we were not scoring.

Lets focus on the here and now. Last season he hot injured again and the went on loan, so wasn't really available.

Do his performances this season warrant taking Kermie's place? Not by most accounts of those 'who've seen him play.

[Top Flight]

I suspect we will only give our youngsters a go when there is no other option
Its the British way

We can't just give our youngsters a go in the first team for the sake of it. Our first team is not the academy. It is not a school. It is the real world where results and performance matter. Only the very best can play for our first team.

If our youngsters are good enough for our first team then they will get the opportunity. Tshibola was good enough and he got the chance. Cooper was good enough and he got the chance as well. If our youngsters are not good enough for our first team then they have to find their level in some one else's first team. Jake Taylor was given enough opportunity to develop but he is a league two standard player. That's just what he is. Brendan Rogers persisted with a lot of young players in his time with us and got us in to trouble. Why did he keep playing Scott Davies? He has developed in to a National League South player! If you play National League South players in a championship first team and reduce the level then there is only one direction the club is headed. Thankfully McDermott had better judgement and not only saved us but steered us to the Premier League just two years later.

We would all love to see Fosu and Stacey in our first team but they may only be League 1 or 2 standard players. We can't weaken our first team by playing these young lads. We need to be strong in the championship and get results.

If these young players are good enough then they will be old enough and they will get in the team. There are plenty of examples that prove this.

[The Quiet Man]

With that logic why bother with an academy that can't produce first team players? Look at our recent signings, products of other teams academies and all in their early twenties (Moore, Blackett, Swift & Evans) - they are at a similar age as our guys. It would suggest that our lot have been overhyped considerably. Work hasn't started at Bearwood, Dolan replaced by Herron but no replacement announced for him, maybe greater consideration is being given to just how useful and how expensive a top level academy is?

[Maneki Neko]

man united man city and Chelsea have better academies than us and can attract better players

who knew.

moor cant get a game for his club and has dropped a division. he's hardly maldini

[Saaaaaaaammmmmm]

On the point of these foreign signings (if it's all part of some inbred agent conspiracy so be it), the thing is a lot of them are just bloating the squad and preventing our youngsters picking up valuable experience.

I just think we rarely make enough signings that genuinely improve the team. I think the agreed number of signings this summer is 11, and only 2 of those started on Tuesday night. That's a lot of signings who 'aren't good enough' for the first XI, and are therefore arguably just bloating our already bloated squad.

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

No, obviously they cannot all start, however my argument is that we would benefit in the long run if we had a squad depth made up of our own homegrown players. For example Moore as backup keeper, or Cooper/Dickie/Hyam as backup defenders, or Kelly as backup midfielder or Tanner/Fosu/Stacey as backup wingers and maybe even Samuel as a backup striker for once. They would gain a lot from those roles, rather than being 7th/8th choice in their position and only playing matches at various training centres like Hogwood or Staplewood in an Under 23 league or for a different team completely.

There is no point investing huge amounts of time and money into an Academy, if you are just going to sign 'squad players' that will block their progress into the first team

Of those players you mention only Wieser has played in u23 games this season I believe. Our U23 side has been made up of players as young as 17 and almost all are genuine Academy players.
Where do you stand on the imported Academy players ? Is Novacovic blocking a local lad ? Was bringing Gylfi in a bad move be use he was imported ? Should we have signed Hector given that he started at Millwall? What about Rimahota, another one we signed from another club rather than spotted at 7.

And are Stacey etc getting better experience playing proper competitive football every week rather than being part of our squad but getting the odd sub appearance ?
The youngsters haven't been put out on loan as a form of punishment ! They have been sent out so they get proper experience in the bag exactly so they can then be genuine contenders for first team spots.

Yeah which has been good, the guys going out on loan has had a benefit in that younger lads are getting a chance in things like the EFL Trophy, although maybe not benefitting results (youth football always throws up a results vs development debate). Wieser and Gravenberch I think are the only ones who have played U23s football so far but I'm concerned that to give the backup players 'game time' we might start exercising the Over 23 rule (although I think Wieser and Denz sneak under that age this season) over the next few months and those teenagers mentioned will have their chances limited.

Where do I stand on imported Academy players? Well an Academy player is someone who comes through our system at some point, whether that's all the way from Reading Under 9s or joining the 18s as a scholar from another part of the world. Their development at some point is as a result of our investment in our Academy, and they go through a system that we are currently investing a lot into and are quite proud of at this moment in time. My worry is this investment will be wasted if we are blocking their progression into the first team due to unnecessary signings or an impatience for results. (We've been awful the past few seasons anyway, and that's without giving Academy players a go).

It's no good putting the time and effort into developing them 90% of the way, only to fail them in that final 10%

[Maneki Neko]

depends if we sell enough of em to lower league clubs, for enough money to begin covering our outlay

[muirinho]

depends if we sell enough of em to lower league clubs, for enough money to begin covering our outlay

Tshibola and Gylfi have covered our outlay on the Academy to be honest. So any player that gets game time is a bonus. The thing is, you've got to balance the rewards from using Academy products vs players we had to buy with the rewards from the team doing well.

BTW I wouldn't rush to include wages in any cost/benefit calculations. Any Academy player that is playing for the first team is going to be put on a first team salary pretty quickly, as otherwise he will leave. We may also be paying some of the players who've come in from, say, the Polish league, not much more than your academy players anyway.

[Top Flight]

On the point of these foreign signings (if it's all part of some inbred agent conspiracy so be it), the thing is a lot of them are just bloating the squad and preventing our youngsters picking up valuable experience.

I just think we rarely make enough signings that genuinely improve the team. I think the agreed number of signings this summer is 11, and only 2 of those started on Tuesday night. That's a lot of signings who 'aren't good enough' for the first XI, and are therefore arguably just bloating our already bloated squad.

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

No, obviously they cannot all start, however my argument is that we would benefit in the long run if we had a squad depth made up of our own homegrown players. For example Moore as backup keeper, or Cooper/Dickie/Hyam as backup defenders, or Kelly as backup midfielder or Tanner/Fosu/Stacey as backup wingers and maybe even Samuel as a backup striker for once. They would gain a lot from those roles, rather than being 7th/8th choice in their position and only playing matches at various training centres like Hogwood or Staplewood in an Under 23 league or for a different team completely.

There is no point investing huge amounts of time and money into an Academy, if you are just going to sign 'squad players' that will block their progress into the first team

Of those players you mention only Wieser has played in u23 games this season I believe. Our U23 side has been made up of players as young as 17 and almost all are genuine Academy players.
Where do you stand on the imported Academy players ? Is Novacovic blocking a local lad ? Was bringing Gylfi in a bad move be use he was imported ? Should we have signed Hector given that he started at Millwall? What about Rimahota, another one we signed from another club rather than spotted at 7.

And are Stacey etc getting better experience playing proper competitive football every week rather than being part of our squad but getting the odd sub appearance ?
The youngsters haven't been put out on loan as a form of punishment ! They have been sent out so they get proper experience in the bag exactly so they can then be genuine contenders for first team spots.

Yeah which has been good, the guys going out on loan has had a benefit in that younger lads are getting a chance in things like the EFL Trophy, although maybe not benefitting results (youth football always throws up a results vs development debate). Wieser and Gravenberch I think are the only ones who have played U23s football so far but I'm concerned that to give the backup players 'game time' we might start exercising the Over 23 rule (although I think Wieser and Denz sneak under that age this season) over the next few months and those teenagers mentioned will have their chances limited.

Where do I stand on imported Academy players? Well an Academy player is someone who comes through our system at some point, whether that's all the way from Reading Under 9s or joining the 18s as a scholar from another part of the world. Their development at some point is as a result of our investment in our Academy, and they go through a system that we are currently investing a lot into and are quite proud of at this moment in time. My worry is this investment will be wasted if we are blocking their progression into the first team due to unnecessary signings or an impatience for results. (We've been awful the past few seasons anyway, and that's without giving Academy players a go).

It's no good putting the time and effort into developing them 90% of the way, only to fail them in that final 10%

They can't all make it. Everyone has to find their level in the end. Even if they don't make it with us but have a succesful career with Exeter then the academy has done its job.

The better players coming through like Gylfi and Tish find their level above the Royals and we make money on their sale. Our academy is highly successful. It's a nonsense to say the youth are not getting a chance. They are. To play in our defence you have to be better then McShane and Moore. If they are not then they have to go elsewhere. It's as simple as that.

[mambo3]

The point being Samuel didn't get a go when we were not scoring.

Lets focus on the here and now. Last season he hot injured again and the went on loan, so wasn't really available.

Do his performances this season warrant taking Kermie's place? Not by most accounts of those 'who've seen him play.

I would say having 2 successful loans in league 1 and then playing U23 must be hard to take.

[SCIAG]

Yes, we should probably give the signings a chance to prove themselves and they can't be judged on whether they make the team within the first two months, but our youngsters are having their chances limited in both first team and even Under 23 matches because we have players like Gravenberch, Mendes, Jaakola, Meite (youngster but not 'our' youngster), Harriott, Wieser and Blackett taking up squad roles - despite not being seen as good enough at present to start matches.

Of those players you mention only Wieser has played in u23 games this season I believe. Our U23 side has been made up of players as young as 17 and almost all are genuine Academy players.

Gravenbech and Mendes have both played in the U23s this season. I don't think it's a huge deal if they play there to regain fitness, that's part of what a reserve side is for. I do have a problem when they're not good enough for the first team.

If our youngsters are good enough for our first team then they will get the opportunity. Tshibola was good enough and he got the chance. Cooper was good enough and he got the chance as well. If our youngsters are not good enough for our first team then they have to find their level in some one else's first team. Jake Taylor was given enough opportunity to develop but he is a league two standard player. That's just what he is. Brendan Rogers persisted with a lot of young players in his time with us and got us in to trouble. Why did he keep playing Scott Davies? He has developed in to a National League South player! If you play National League South players in a championship first team and reduce the level then there is only one direction the club is headed. Thankfully McDermott had better judgement and not only saved us but steered us to the Premier League just two years later.

This post is largely incorrect.

When Rodgers played Davies, he had just had a successful season on loan in League 2, scoring 13 goals. Later that season, he went to League One and scored 3 goals in 15 matches. Rodgers gave him four matches at the start of the season after a good pre-season including a MOTM performance against Chelsea, but he was out of the team once we signed Brian Howard. His career's gone to toilet, but it's ridiculous to suggest Rodgers "persisted" with a "National League South" (!) player.

It's also plainly obvious to anyone who has paid the remotest bit of attention to football in recent years that sometimes players who are good enough don't actually get opportunities for whatever reason. Paul Pogba at Man United and Kevin De Bruyne at Chelsea are the obvious examples. Aaron Tshibola should have been playing for us at least a year before he actually got in the team. Aaron Kuhl was good enough for Reading two years ago but he's now in the Conference. Rodgers wanted to release Shane Long. It's a naive simplification to think that players have a single "level". There are lots of factors other than ability that determine whether a player will "make" it at a club, and so sometimes we're going to not get the most out of talented players because we mishandle them.

The best thing we can do for them is to keep a fairly stable environment so that the players know what's expected of them, and the manager feels secure in risking a talented-but-wet player for a few matches. I think a few of the older lads have been screwed over by our constant changes in management.

[Ian Royal]

The point being Samuel didn't get a go when we were not scoring.

Lets focus on the here and now. Last season he hot injured again and the went on loan, so wasn't really available.

Do his performances this season warrant taking Kermie's place? Not by most accounts of those 'who've seen him play.

I would say having 2 successful loans in league 1 and then playing U23 must be hard to take.

Not if you've got the mentality to succeed. Of if you've spent half your career injured.