Our u21s (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

We really aren't utilising them at all properly to get players minutes.

Players like Kelly and Moore should be in there for minutes and sharpness.

It's no wonder we get so many injuries with players sat on the bench and then expected to be fresh.

I know we have more than usual amount of players out, this has been happening for years. Hopefully walker, godden and fadz get some minutes in the trees l reserves rather than just throwing them in randomly.

 

---

[Saddlebrains]

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

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I've seen this point repeatedly pushed but I don't really see the benefit. Surely it just increases the chances of them suffering injury unnecessarily.

Perhaps see the benefit for long term absentees to get them into the swing of playing an unfamiliar opposition but don't really see the merit in continually using it to give fringe players game time. Not when our squad is so thin on the ground.

Also they'll take part in a training game within their sessions won't they? Surely that should be enough to give them the minutes needed to get them to the level required, just in a more controlled manner.

Don't really see how playing an U23 side is really a significant improvement on that.

 

[AOM]

We really aren't utilising them at all properly to get players minutes.

Players like Kelly and Moore should be in there for minutes and sharpness.

It's no wonder we get so many injuries with players sat on the bench and then expected to be fresh.

I know we have more than usual amount of players out, this has been happening for years. Hopefully walker, godden and fadz get some minutes in the trees l reserves rather than just throwing them in randomly.

I recall Robins a few weeks ago mentioned trying to sort a behind closed doors friendly for late January to get Walker, Godden, McFadzean and maybe Eccles some game time.

Agree about the players currently not injured not getting reserve game time though.
Both Moore and Kelly have come in to recent games with little to no game time and have been miles off the pace

 

[Nick]

In which case surely players shouldn't train in case they get injured?

Friendlies and reserve games are a step up from training in terms of match fitness surely?

You can't have players sat on the bench for weeks or 5 minutes here or there and then expect them to be sharp.

Absolutely no reason why Moore for example can't be playing while he's number 2. Same with Kelly, just thrown in randomly and miles off the pace.

Not saying u21 football will make him a spring chicken but much better for him than being on the bench and then coming on completely un match for.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

In which case surely players shouldn't train in case they get injured?

Friendlies and reserve games are a step up from training in terms of match fitness surely?

You can't have players sat on the bench for weeks or 5 minutes here or there and then expect them to be sharp.

Absolutely no reason why Moore for example can't be playing while he's number 2. Same with Kelly, just thrown in randomly and miles off the pace.

Not saying u21 football will make him a spring chicken but much better for him than being on the bench and then coming on completely un match for.

Well no because similarly to training the in-house training games will be played in a more controlled manner and players can subsequently be monitored more closely.

It'll obviously be nowhere near as intense as a normal game but it at least gives players the opportunity to get minutes under their belt in a game setting.

It also avoids the chances of some over-eager U23 player with something to prove from kicking lumps out of our own players.

The issue with Kelly is he's just not good enough and perhaps is probably past it and Moore clearly has a serious confidence issue that he can't seem to shake and his early form last season probably flattered to deceive. Not really sure why you think playing against U23 teams week in week out is going to dramatically iron out these issues.

 

[Nick]

Well no because similarly to training the in-house training games will be played in a more controlled manner and players can subsequently be monitored more closely.

It'll obviously be nowhere near as intense as a normal game but it at least gives players the opportunity to get minutes under their belt in a game setting.

It also avoids the chances of some over-eager U23 player with something to prove from kicking lumps out of our own players.

The issue with Kelly is he's just not good enough and perhaps is probably past it and Moore clearly has a serious confidence issue that he can't seem to shake and his early form last season probably flattered to deceive. Not really sure why you think playing against U23 teams week in week out is going to dramatically iron out these issues.

You can't see why playing for the reserves can help match fitness or confidence issues?

 

[PVA]

We saw Hamer play in the 21s when he was suspended so he obviously uses the option when he sees fit.

I don't see the point in playing Moore over one of the youth players, that seems pointless. I could imagine Godden and Walker getting a few mins for the 21s when they're back though.

 

[chiefdave]

In which case surely players shouldn't train in case they get injured?

some of ours look like they don't do much training

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

You can't see why playing for the reserves can help match fitness or confidence issues?

Did I say it won't improve fitness?

How would it dramatically improve confidence? They won't want to be playing in the U23s in the first place so forcing them to play U23 games week in week out while still not getting a look in, in the first team is hardly going to build confidence is it.

The points you make really are bizarre.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

We saw Hamer play in the 21s when he was suspended so he obviously uses the option when he sees fit.

I don't see the point in playing Moore over one of the youth players, that seems pointless. I could imagine Godden and Walker getting a few mins for the 21s when they're back though.

I'd imagine that was more of a punishment than anything...

 

[shmmeee]

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

Agree with this a lot. Seems to be a holding pen for players who are never going to make it. Can’t remember did the likes of Maddison play there much or did he just come straight in? Same with Eccles, Burroughs, etc. Seemed to be more about keeping them fit until we found a loan club. And most of those that have gone on loan like Cashman and Bapaga seem to have just proven they’re not up to it.

If you’re 19 and nowhere near the first team squad and can’t get a loan a couple of divisions down, it’s probably time to go.

Would be interested to hear @SBchimp thoughts on this with lads coming through the academy. What would the impact be?

 

[Nick]

Did I say it won't improve fitness?

How would it dramatically improve confidence? They won't want to be playing in the U23s in the first place so forcing them to play U23 games week in week out while still not getting a look in, in the first team is hardly going to build confidence is it.

The points you make really are bizarre.

How is it bizarre to suggest if there's a keeper who's lost any sharpness and confidence plays some matches in the reserves?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Agree with this a lot. Seems to be a holding pen for players who are never going to make it. Can’t remember did the likes of Maddison play there much or did he just come straight in? Same with Eccles, Burroughs, etc. Seemed to be more about keeping them fit until we found a loan club. And most of those that have gone on loan like Cashman and Bapaga seem to have just proven they’re not up to it.

Yeah I think the issue is, is when we retain academy players that quite clearly aren't going to break through, then spend budget on the likes of Tavares, Reid and Cashman it mounts up.

It might've been more useful in L2/L1 when U23s were more likely to break through but in the Championship it's pretty redundant.

I'd suggest if players who aren't playing don't want to keep sharp there's an issue with them.

 

[edgy]

U21 football seems good enough for McBurnie and Coulibaly.

For us, U21 football and the Academy exists purely to give the 1 or 2 players that genuinely have what it takes, somewhere within the club structure to play.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

How is it bizarre to suggest if there's a keeper who's lost any sharpness and confidence plays some matches in the reserves?

Because playing in the U23s fundamentally isn't going to dramatically improve match sharpness.

The gulf in quality is mammoth compared to first team games, so the only way to build match sharpness really is by playing in those fixtures. Not against fresh-faced 18 year olds straight out of an academy. Half of which probably won't ever make it professionally/will drop out of the game in a few years altogether.

Being dumped in the U23s week in week out while being frozen out of the first team isn't exactly going to cultivate confidence either.

 

[shepardo01]

The first team need to be able to put on worthwhile training sessions looking at shape/patterns of play/set pieces....
With the threadbare squad we have, the players being talked about need to be in those sessions rather than the development squad games...

 

[Nick]

Because playing in the U23s fundamentally isn't going to dramatically improve match sharpness.

The gulf in quality is mammoth compared to first team games, so the only way to build match sharpness really is by playing in those fixtures. Not against fresh-faced 18 year olds straight out of an academy. Half of which probably won't ever make it professionally/will drop out of the game in a few years altogether.

Being dumped in the U23s week in week out while being frozen out of the first team isn't exactly going to cultivate confidence either.

It's going to improve it more than being sat on the bench.

We already do bomb players out, we may as well have them playing in the reserves so they are fresher when we use them again.

 

[PVA]

For us, U21 football and the Academy exists purely to give the 1 or 2 players that genuinely have what it takes, somewhere within the club structure to play.

Yes exactly this.

A lot of the players signed for the 21s/23s are just filler to basically make the numbers up.

They need to be of a decent enough standard to make the games worthwhile, they can't just be pub players, but I doubt the likes of Tom Costello or Jordan Young were signed with much hope of breaking into the first team

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think utilising the U21's to keep bench players sort of match fit is better than then just coming in cold from the bench.

At the same time I wouldn't want most of the team being made up of first teamers needing minutes as it stops any progression for the younger players.

As I've said I'd prefer a reserves where any of the youngsters getting there are doing so on merit and will be learning more about men's football than U21 which is basically just a progression of academy football. So we'd need fewer U21 just making up the numbers to fill the U21 squad and could concentrate on the select few that could break into the first team.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

It's going to improve it more than being sat on the bench.

We already do bomb players out, we may as well have them playing in the reserves so they are fresher when we use them again.

But to revert back to my original point is improving match sharpness slightly in the U23s really worth the risk against the fringe players in question suffering an injury keeping them out of the frame altogether.

The merits don't really outweigh the negatives at all.

 

[SBchimp]

Agree with this a lot. Seems to be a holding pen for players who are never going to make it. Can’t remember did the likes of Maddison play there much or did he just come straight in? Same with Eccles, Burroughs, etc. Seemed to be more about keeping them fit until we found a loan club. And most of those that have gone on loan like Cashman and Bapaga seem to have just proven they’re not up to it.

If you’re 19 and nowhere near the first team squad and can’t get a loan a couple of divisions down, it’s probably time to go.

Would be interested to hear @SBchimp thoughts on this with lads coming through the academy. What would the impact be?

It’s got it’s place for sure. Not sure how fit the recovering players are but they’re highly unlikely to go to York on a Tuesday night, a 1pm at the Higgs may well have seen a few involved. The under 21s also offers a step up for the u18 to be stretched.

Young men develop at different rates, there may well be some gems that need a couple of years to catch up physically in the 21s, the alternative is we dump around 10 17 year olds each year if they’re not with the first team.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I think utilising the U21's to keep bench players sort of match fit is better than then just coming in cold from the bench.

At the same time I wouldn't want most of the team being made up of first teamers needing minutes as it stops any progression for the younger players.

As I've said I'd prefer a reserves where any of the youngsters getting there are doing so on merit and will be learning more about men's football than U21 which is basically just a progression of academy football. So we'd need fewer U21 just making up the numbers to fill the U21 squad and could concentrate on the select few that could break into the first team.

Surely it's far more logical to just scrap the U23s altogether and have the most promising young players that break through from the academy/get recruited train with the first team or be loaned out.

 

[SBchimp]

It’s got it’s place for sure. Not sure how fit the recovering players are but they’re highly unlikely to go to York on a Tuesday night, a 1pm at the Higgs may well have seen a few involved. The under 21s also offers a step up for the u18 to be stretched.

Young men develop at different rates, there may well be some gems that need a couple of years to catch up physically in the 21s, the alternative is we dump around 10 17 year olds each year if they’re not with the first team.

Kelly played a few times last season and was great for the younger players to have a senior pro guiding them. Jodie used to ask to play as did Max.

 

[SBT]

Do other teams stuff their U23 side with out of favour/injured first teamers? Fair enough if we’re an outlier across the whole league but I don’t know if any other teams are using their U23 games for this.

 

[SBchimp]

Surely it's far more logical to just scrap the U23s altogether and have the most promising young players that break through from the academy/get recruited train with the first team or be loaned out.

Why would you want to scrap the machine that gave you Maddison, Wilson, Shippers, Burroughs etc etc it’s paid for itself

 

[stupot07]

But to revert back to my original point is improving match sharpness slightly in the U23s really worth the risk against the fringe players in question suffering an injury keeping them out of the frame altogether.

The merits don't really outweigh the negatives at all.

If they are going to break down playing 45 minutes for the U23s then it's not worth even playing them in the first team.

Kelly played a few games earlier in the season, so too Palmer, and Hamer when he was suspended. Pretty sure Godden did too when he was coming back beginning of the season.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

Do other teams stuff their U23 side with out of favour/injured first teamers? Fair enough if we’re an outlier across the whole league but I don’t know if any other teams are using their U23 games for this.

Don't think anyone is suggesting dumping players into the U23s, but every now and then if someone's not getting first team minutes, it's probably worth them having a run out in the u23's or if they are coming back from injury, instead of throwing them in to the high physical demands of championship football, given them a run out in the u23s as part of the reconditioning as they make their return.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Esoterica]

Why would you want to scrap the machine that gave you Maddison, Wilson, Shippers, Burroughs etc etc it’s paid for itself

I wouldn’t want it scrapped but it must be behind these days in terms of investment, for a Championship club, if the first team and rest of the club are anything to go by?

 

[PVA]

Only a quick glance but as far as I can see Sheff Utd only have one first team player in their 21s tonight - McBurnie who is returning from injury - plus a guy who's made one sub appearance in the league.

 

[Saddlebrains]

Yes exactly this.

A lot of the players signed for the 21s/23s are just filler to basically make the numbers up.

They need to be of a decent enough standard to make the games worthwhile, they can't just be pub players, but I doubt the likes of Tom Costello or Jordan Young were signed with much hope of breaking into the first team

Why do it then? Its an absolute waste of resources at our level

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

If they are going to break down playing 45 minutes for the U23s then it's not worth even playing them in the first team.

Kelly played a few games earlier in the season, so too Palmer, and Hamer when he was suspended. Pretty sure Godden did too when he was coming back beginning of the season.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

As stated it has its place for players coming back from long term injuries/periods out who might need a few games under their belt to get a feel for a 'competitive' fixture. Getting fringe players to play in them consistently throughout the season is an idiotic strategy for the reasons I've already outlined.

Hamer was played in the U23s purely out of punishment.

 

[PVA]

Why do it then? Its an absolute waste of resources at our level

As the chap I was replying to said, it's to give the (few) genuine talents a route into the first team

 

[NorthernWisdom]

If the level of the team is that shit, surely injured players benefit more by taking part in training sessions with other first team squad members, than against fourth rate opposition with fifth rate teammates?

 

[shmmeee]

Why would you want to scrap the machine that gave you Maddison, Wilson, Shippers, Burroughs etc etc it’s paid for itself

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?