Isa Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Which of our youngsters should have gotten more of a chance? Well for a start he could've give Donacien a chance when we had three centre-backs injured and were facing League Two opposition. He could've perhaps have given Callum Robinson a run-out when we were 4-1 up against Norwich rather than Grant Holt. He could've also have not given Carruthers absolutely no first-team action whatsoever last season when he was happy to even give the likes of Jordan Bowery some. But then again, he won't even give his own signings like Helenius and Tonev a proper chance so I won't hold my breath for the likes of Grealish next season. That probably has something to do with Southampton being in League One four seasons ago. Yeah it's not like they've blooded any more youngsters since they have been in the Premier League. Oh wait... Edited March 25, 2014 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 That probably has something to do with them actually giving their youngsters a chance. Yep in lower league football where they were as a club for a long time - they didn't get promoted to the prem and then think hmm lets chuck these guys in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Which of our youngsters should have gotten more of a chance? Well for a start he could've give Donacien a chance when we had three centre-backs injured and were facing League Two opposition. He could've perhaps have given Callum Robinson a run-out when we were 4-1 up against Norwich rather than Grant Holt. He could've also have not given Carruthers absolutely no first-team action whatsoever last season when he was happy to even give the likes of Jordan Bowery some. But then again, he won't even give his own signings like Helenius and Tonev a proper chance so I won't hold my breath for the likes of Grealish next season. That probably has something to do with Southampton being in League One four seasons ago. Yeah it's not like they've blooded any more youngsters since they have been in the Premier League. Oh wait... Do Southampton not have better youngsters than us? Which has been proven over the years, Bale, Walcott, Ox, Dyer, Lallana and Shaw. We have produced Gardner, Davis, Ridgewell, Gabby, Cahill who we let go. Now we've had our recent bunch from a reserve side who won the league and if we are honest are they really that good, that you'd trust the next lot to come through? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Which of our youngsters should have gotten more of a chance?Well for a start he could've give Donacien a chance when we had three centre-backs injured and were facing League Two opposition. He could've perhaps have given Callum Robinson a run-out when we were 4-1 up against Norwich rather than Grant Holt. He could've also have not given Carruthers absolutely no first-team action whatsoever last season when he was happy to even give the likes of Jordan Bowery some. But then again, he won't even give his own signings like Helenius and Tonev a proper chance so I won't hold my breath for the likes of Grealish next season. It might have been nice to see a few token appearances like you've mentioned but that wouldn't do much more than pacify us lot. Southampton have put their youngsters like Shaw (and recently Chambers) in for extended spells in the league. I don't think I've seen any evidence that any of ours are good enough for that at the minute. That is the kind of level of ability that is required to get a run in a PL side with top half ambitions. Edited March 25, 2014 by ArteSuave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordSepulchrave Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Yeah it's not like they've blooded any more youngsters since they have been in the Premier League. Oh wait... Well they have a good enough squad overall squad that have played together long enough to allow them to let 2 or 3 youngsters appear as regular first team players without really hurting the team overall. If we uproot two first team players and replace them with youngsters we'd be in trouble. This is something that Lambert is trying to build atm, they are 6 seasons into that process whereas we are two. Cameo appearances by youngsters don't really do them that much good - we wanna be looking at at least 20+ appearance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 We have produced Gardner, Davis, Ridgewell, Gabby, Cahill who we let go. Now we've had our recent bunch from a reserve side who won the league and if we are honest are they really that good, that you'd trust the next lot to come through? Those listed, despite being unspectacular, have all made it at this level and are no worse than a large amount of the current squad. The last batch were a bit of a let-down no doubt but at least they were given a chance, as were the batch under DOL. I have always championed the meritocratic principle that a player should get a chance at least to prove their worth to the squad. Especially when the players in the first team are underperforming more often then not as has been the case this season. . I don't think I've seen any evidence that any of ours are good enough for that at the minute. That is the kind of level of ability that is required to get a run in a PL side with top half ambitions. None of them have been given a semblance of an opportunity to provide you with evidence one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 They have been watched in training and playing for the reserves and haven't proved themselves. I agree with your argument made above about Holt and Bowery though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 these are average ages before the Jan transfer window... 1. Aston Villa | 24y 64d 2. Southampton | 24y 342d 3. Tottenham | 25y 33d 4. Arsenal | 25y 110d 5. Liverpool | 25y 160d 6. Sunderland | 25y 298d 7. Cardiff | 26y 20d 8. Swansea | 26y 86d 9. Norwich | 26y 202d 10. Newcastle | 26y 220d 11. Everton | 26y 354d 12. Man City | 26y 356d 13. Chelsea | 26y 362d 14. Hull | 27y 40d 15. Man United | 27y 112d 16. West Brom | 27y 295d 17. Stoke | 28y 23d 18. Crystal Palace | 28y 84d 19. West Ham | 28y 228d 20. Fulham | 29y 30d ...so can we stop saying that the youngsters aren't young anymore and shoudl be playing consistently every week? It's not just one or 2 youngsters, our SQUAD is young, if we keep the best elements together for a few years and add quality we're looking good long term IMO. We have the youngest squad by nearly 300 days, so nearly a year. Everyone's upset after the Stoke game, probably more so after we'd won 2 on the bounce thinking we should batter them after beating Chelsea etc. Let's not lose sight of where we are though, and that's near the start of something long term. So 4of those teams directly below us are in the top half of the table and are c 1year older....what example is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Cameo appearances by youngsters don't really do them that much good - we wanna be looking at at least 20+ appearance. Cameo appearences are a door to playing regularly though. In fact, it is the same for most youngsters as rarely will they just walk straight into the team. Rather, they start out with limited game-time and if they impress then that leads to more game-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 1. Aston Villa | 24y 64d2. Southampton | 24y 342d W3. Tottenham | 25y 33d L4. Arsenal | 25y 110d W L5. Liverpool | 25y 160d L D6. Sunderland | 25y 298d D W 7. Cardiff | 26y 20d W D8. Swansea | 26y 86d D9. Norwich | 26y 202d W W10. Newcastle | 26y 220d L L11. Everton | 26y 354d L L12. Man City | 26y 356d W13. Chelsea | 26y 362d L W14. Hull | 27y 40d D15. Man United | 27y 112d L16. West Brom | 27y 295d D W17. Stoke | 28y 23d L L18. Crystal Palace | 28y 84d L19. West Ham | 28y 228d D L20. Fulham | 29y 30d L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Thats good. Its nice to be top of one league. Who can we get rid of to help us stay top next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Notice 14. Hull | 27y 40d D15. Man United | 27y 112d L16. West Brom | 27y 295d D W17. Stoke | 28y 23d L L18. Crystal Palace | 28y 84d L19. West Ham | 28y 228d D L20. Fulham | 29y 30d L Apart from West Brom we haved perform very poorly against the teams in the league that have the most experienced players. Our performance against the top clubs suggest that the age of our opponents is a greater factor in their likelihood of beating us than their talent. What can we do to beat teams like Crystal Palace and Fulham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordSepulchrave Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Cameo appearances by youngsters don't really do them that much good - we wanna be looking at at least 20+ appearance. Cameo appearences are a door to playing regularly though. In fact, it is the same for most youngsters as rarely will they just walk straight into the team. Rather, they start out with limited game-time and if they impress then that leads to more game-time. Sure, but for the other reasons I stated in that post I just don't see us as being able to accommodate youngster for anything more than brief cameos, and as such the cameos would largely be for no reason. Maybe it'd be nice to give them the odd sub appearance, but until we've got a stable team to integrate them into it wouldn't mean much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Sure, but for the other reasons I stated in that post I just don't see us as being able to accommodate youngster for anything more than brief cameos, and as such the cameos would largely be for no reason. Maybe it'd be nice to give them the odd sub appearance, but until we've got a stable team to integrate them into it wouldn't mean much. They would only be for no reason if there is no meritocracy at the club. Also, I fail to see why we can accommodate players from the lower-leagues and unknowns from other lesser leagues but blooding any player from the academy is just a risk too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think it's down to our kids not playing competitive men's football, where the guys from lower leagues have 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think it's down to our kids not playing competitive men's football, where the guys from lower leagues have That probably is the reason but if every manager had the same mentality, no player would ever make in in professional football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Sure, but for the other reasons I stated in that post I just don't see us as being able to accommodate youngster for anything more than brief cameos, and as such the cameos would largely be for no reason. Maybe it'd be nice to give them the odd sub appearance, but until we've got a stable team to integrate them into it wouldn't mean much. They would only be for no reason if there is no meritocracy at the club. Also, I fail to see why we can accommodate players from the lower-leagues and unknowns from other lesser leagues but blooding any player from the academy is just a risk too far. Because we're doing the first, we're already taking risks - why take even more risks if you can avoid it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Firstly, if both are risks then they can be done in tandem without the overall risk level being affected. For example, is signing and giving Bowery or Tonev game-time somehow less risky then if we had just promoted one of our academy players? My answer would be no. Secondly, giving some of the academy players cup-games or minutes off the bench is hardly a big risk is it? I don't understand why everybody is so reactionary regarding this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Notice 14. Hull | 27y 40d D15. Man United | 27y 112d L16. West Brom | 27y 295d D W17. Stoke | 28y 23d L L18. Crystal Palace | 28y 84d L19. West Ham | 28y 228d D L20. Fulham | 29y 30d L Apart from West Brom we haved perform very poorly against the teams in the league that have the most experienced players. Our performance against the top clubs suggest that the age of our opponents is a greater factor in their likelihood of beating us than their talent. What can we do to beat teams like Crystal Palace and Fulham? Interesting observation. Then again, once our young boys get the experiance needed to stay cool against the fulhams of this world does that mean they will compete for the top 6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 We have produced Gardner, Davis, Ridgewell, Gabby, Cahill who we let go. Now we've had our recent bunch from a reserve side who won the league and if we are honest are they really that good, that you'd trust the next lot to come through? Those listed, despite being unspectacular, have all made it at this level and are no worse than a large amount of the current squad. The last batch were a bit of a let-down no doubt but at least they were given a chance, as were the batch under DOL. I have always championed the meritocratic principle that a player should get a chance at least to prove their worth to the squad. Especially when the players in the first team are underperforming more often then not as has been the case this season. . I don't think I've seen any evidence that any of ours are good enough for that at the minute. That is the kind of level of ability that is required to get a run in a PL side with top half ambitions. None of them have been given a semblance of an opportunity to provide you with evidence one way or the other. No but there is evidence that the graduates before them are struggling to make an impact at this level. We've been down this road before where we overhype our youngsters, then don't back them when there on the pitch anyway. Remember Bannan was the next Scholes apparently, Delfouneso was the next big thing. Now I'm not saying the next crop may be different, however throwing in youngsters in a struggling side which we have done previously hampers their progress IMO. Southampton have the luxery that they've never really been in any trouble this year that they can bring in youth to come into a side playing with no fear of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts