Our u21s (1 Viewer)

[Saddlebrains]

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

 

---

[NorthernWisdom]

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.

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?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

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?

Because clubs like to coach them in house to their own style/system and monitor their development before sending them out on loan.

Sending them out on loan has its own pitfalls which the club will have take into consideration. It's a pretty big step for young players and more often than not it probably doesn't always work out the way both parties wanted it to.

 

[slowpoke]

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.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I still think that players will develop more playing with and against a handful of seasoned pros in a reserve match than against the same players they've been playing against since academy ages. We already know what they can do against their own age groups. We need to know what they can and can't do against men.

 

[SBchimp]

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?

17.
We were in league 1 when Madders made his debut.

Wilson would have been released if Cov had stayed in the Championship

 

[CovBrummie94]

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.

Progression is not linear and all aspects from U18, U23, first team training and loans play their roll.

 

[ccfctommy]

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?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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?

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.

And as I said the U21 is going to be the same players they've been playing at academy level at some point, so what exactly are you learning from that? If you want to know if they're able to progress then they have to start facing more developed and experienced players. It's the only way they can learn in a relatively stress-free way where the results are largely irrelevant - it's about fitness for non-first teamers and those coming back from injury and teaching the youngsters. Otherwise it's playing in the U21 then getting thrown into first team games with the massive jump that entails.

 

[slowpoke]

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

How much do see as minimum terms ?

 

[shmmeee]

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?

 

[ccfctommy]

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.

 

[shmmeee]

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.

I mean that’s what any player out of the first XI does. I’d expect training games and friendlies to be arranged.

I’m not saying I want it scrapped, just wondering if it’s the best model and what benefit we get when most kids who make it to the first team bypass it anyway.

 

[Nick]

None in today either...

Would have been ideal to give players some minutes who are just coming back.

 

[Julie SBA]

Maybe they're all on the bench or playing tomorrow night?

 

[Hutch11]

Bring back proper reserve fixtures
Those not starting regularly for the 1sts, those returning from injury and those that stand out in the youths all combining to play tough games against tough men , not U18 and U21 boys

 

[SBchimp]

Isn’t that sort of what they are though. How does calling it a reserve game make it any more intense than a 21s game. You can play 5 over age players in each game. We choose not to most of the time.

if there was a reserve league as well us under 21s we’d need a lot more players.