|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 10:22:49 GMT
I think he'll pick the weakest team possible. Not that he would admit it .... who would say such a thing as a manager? The possibility of promotion is still the target. Then we'll fail twice this season in addition to earlier failure in the Caraboa.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2022 10:26:18 GMT
Doncaster away. God knows when we last beat a Championship or Premier side
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2022 10:32:15 GMT
We haven’t won in the FA Cup for 6 years?
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 7, 2022 10:38:07 GMT
That’s not what you originally said though ….you said he only ever considers it I pointed out that he played them players and brought them through the system giving them regular football ….NOT who purchased them Too bad you don't know the difference between bought and brought... I didn't say a word about purchase (well I mentioned Norton, he was a free). I quoted you on "brought through" and it so happens that all the players you mentioned were b Rought through by other managers, some of them, Bursik, Souttar came through at other clubs, not here. He leaves the "bringing through" to other managers, then when they've proved themselves elsewhere, then he's willing to consider playing them. How many homegrown players did you count in the Preston game? Zero. No, Campbell was homegrown at Citeh, we bought him for a large fee. DWP, if he plays vs Orient, was a Citeh player, but joined us by the time he'd turned 19, in other words not homegrown. Bursik was groomed at Wimbledon, and Souttar at Dundee. There are no homegrown players in MON's league teams, simple as that. In my OP i was really referring implicitly to the Mondqy morning interview (it might been published the day before) in the Sentinel where he stated that he was considering playing...and he listed a number of players (Sparrow, DWP, Macari among others (good, mature choices in my opinion). He must have known then that considering was all it was, because by evening he had selected a team with an average age of 29, and with only one non-playing player under 21 on the bench.. You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 7, 2022 11:06:55 GMT
Too bad you don't know the difference between bought and brought... I didn't say a word about purchase (well I mentioned Norton, he was a free). I quoted you on "brought through" and it so happens that all the players you mentioned were b Rought through by other managers, some of them, Bursik, Souttar came through at other clubs, not here. He leaves the "bringing through" to other managers, then when they've proved themselves elsewhere, then he's willing to consider playing them. How many homegrown players did you count in the Preston game? Zero. No, Campbell was homegrown at Citeh, we bought him for a large fee. DWP, if he plays vs Orient, was a Citeh player, but joined us by the time he'd turned 19, in other words not homegrown. Bursik was groomed at Wimbledon, and Souttar at Dundee. There are no homegrown players in MON's league teams, simple as that. In my OP i was really referring implicitly to the Mondqy morning interview (it might been published the day before) in the Sentinel where he stated that he was considering playing...and he listed a number of players (Sparrow, DWP, Macari among others (good, mature choices in my opinion). He must have known then that considering was all it was, because by evening he had selected a team with an average age of 29, and with only one non-playing player under 21 on the bench.. You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for players move from club to club a lot at youth level whichever club a player makes their first team debut for (not counting loans out) that should count as home grown i.e. Campbell counts as home grown
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 11:22:53 GMT
Too bad you don't know the difference between bought and brought... I didn't say a word about purchase (well I mentioned Norton, he was a free). I quoted you on "brought through" and it so happens that all the players you mentioned were b Rought through by other managers, some of them, Bursik, Souttar came through at other clubs, not here. He leaves the "bringing through" to other managers, then when they've proved themselves elsewhere, then he's willing to consider playing them. How many homegrown players did you count in the Preston game? Zero. No, Campbell was homegrown at Citeh, we bought him for a large fee. DWP, if he plays vs Orient, was a Citeh player, but joined us by the time he'd turned 19, in other words not homegrown. Bursik was groomed at Wimbledon, and Souttar at Dundee. There are no homegrown players in MON's league teams, simple as that. In my OP i was really referring implicitly to the Mondqy morning interview (it might been published the day before) in the Sentinel where he stated that he was considering playing...and he listed a number of players (Sparrow, DWP, Macari among others (good, mature choices in my opinion). He must have known then that considering was all it was, because by evening he had selected a team with an average age of 29, and with only one non-playing player under 21 on the bench.. You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for You're buying into his propoganda. He's very good at it. He trusts young players that he's bought like Brown, Wilmot, TOB, Thompson, maybe he will trust Surridge in time. They get many chances even if they, or some of them, frequently play badly. He doesn't trust Coates, Taylor, Forrester, Varian, Jones, others to be tested in the team before sending them out on the kind of loans, which frequently make young players return worse than before they went out. Loaned out didn't help Tymon, Sorensen or others. Regular first team action (and a gentle hand around his shoulder from MON) helped Josh. Not to mention the fact that Hughes gave him a five year contract, otherwise he'd been out the door already. Actually I'm really grateful to MON for saving Tymon's career and making him fulfill the potential, which was always there at Clayton Wood. It's not meaningless whether players are from the academy or not. Far from it. The board has invested £100M in the academy since it was relaunched. Now that's a figure over time, but imagine what O'Neill could have done with some sort of such money for the first team. Now I don't expect him to pick players that are not good enough. But how does he know that, if they don't get tested. From a purely business pov we have wasted a huge part of the investment and got very little in return, because all our managers from Pulis to MON haven't had the courage to back them. I can't think of an academy player - which means signed by the club around the age of 15 or earlier - that has featured regularly or even in just one season. EDIT: I can think of one, Wilko. Dicko is from before that period and was on the way out then. Butland, Souttar, Collins, Campbell, all entered the academy at their previous clubs. We bought them young and have so far benefitted from selling Collins. Butland not so much. We have received small sums from our lending program and academy players sold for nominal fees. And that's it for the investment. I don't think it's a new approach. Not at all. All managers in the period, aware that the board wants to hear good news about the academy, have promoted players and have had them training with the first team, a few even made non-playing subs appearences. But they've been reluctant, to say the least, to take the next vital step. Porter hasn't started a full game in the league by the way. Nor has Sparrow, DWP or Macari, though they've been plugged for the last year.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 11:26:55 GMT
You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for players move from club to club a lot at youth level whichever club a player makes their first team debut for (not counting loans out) that should count as home grown i.e. Campbell counts as home grown Maybe in your book. But it's not the conventional way of looking at since the days of yore. However in the FA's book (which is really dictated by UEFA/FIFA), players at a club three years or more before the end of their 21st year are homegrown.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 7, 2022 11:27:38 GMT
You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for You're buying into his propoganda. He's very good at it. He trusts young players that he's bought like Brown, Wilmot, TOB, Thompson, maybe he will trust Surridge in time. They get many chances even if they, or some of them, frequently play badly. He doesn't trust Coates, Taylor, Forrester, Varian, Jones, others to be tested in the team before sending them out on the kind of loans, which frequently make young players return worse than before they went out. Loaned out didn't help Tymon, Sorensen or others. Regular first team action (and a gentle hand around his shoulder from MON) helped Josh. Not to mention the fact that Hughes gave him a five year contract, otherwise he'd been out the door already. Actually I'm really grateful to MON for saving Tymon's career and making him fulfill the potential, which was always there at Clayton Wood. It's not meaningless whether players are from the academy or not. Far from it. The board has invested £100M in the academy since it was relaunched. Now that's a figure over time, but imagine what O'Neill could have done with some sort of such money for the first team. Now I don't expect him to pick players that are not good enough. But how does he know that, if they don't get tested. From a purely business pov we have wasted a huge part of the investment and got very little in return, because all our managers from Pulis to MON haven't had the courage to back them. I can't think of an academy player - which means signed by the club around the age of 15 or earlier - that has featured regularly or even in just one season. Butland, Souttar, Collins, Campbell, all entered the academy at their previous clubs. We bought them young and have so far benefitted from selling Collins. Butland not so much. We have received small sums from our lending program and academy players sold for nominal fees. And that's it for the investment. I don't think it's a new approach. Not at all. All managers in the period, aware that the board wants to hear good news about the academy, have promoted players and have had them training with the first team, a few even made non-playing subs appearences. But they've been reluctant, to say the least, to take the next vital step. Porter hasn't started a full game in the league by the way. Nor has Sparrow, DWP or Macari, though they've been plugged for the last year. Out of interest, is there an equivalent English club who does meet these rather stringent criteria of regularly throwing academy players straight into the team never having loaned them out first or signed them from anywhere else?
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 7, 2022 11:38:56 GMT
We haven’t won in the FA Cup for 6 years? Nope. 3rd round exit every season since we won at Donny in Jan 2016.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 11:39:41 GMT
You're buying into his propoganda. He's very good at it. He trusts young players that he's bought like Brown, Wilmot, TOB, Thompson, maybe he will trust Surridge in time. They get many chances even if they, or some of them, frequently play badly. He doesn't trust Coates, Taylor, Forrester, Varian, Jones, others to be tested in the team before sending them out on the kind of loans, which frequently make young players return worse than before they went out. Loaned out didn't help Tymon, Sorensen or others. Regular first team action (and a gentle hand around his shoulder from MON) helped Josh. Not to mention the fact that Hughes gave him a five year contract, otherwise he'd been out the door already. Actually I'm really grateful to MON for saving Tymon's career and making him fulfill the potential, which was always there at Clayton Wood. It's not meaningless whether players are from the academy or not. Far from it. The board has invested £100M in the academy since it was relaunched. Now that's a figure over time, but imagine what O'Neill could have done with some sort of such money for the first team. Now I don't expect him to pick players that are not good enough. But how does he know that, if they don't get tested. From a purely business pov we have wasted a huge part of the investment and got very little in return, because all our managers from Pulis to MON haven't had the courage to back them. I can't think of an academy player - which means signed by the club around the age of 15 or earlier - that has featured regularly or even in just one season. Butland, Souttar, Collins, Campbell, all entered the academy at their previous clubs. We bought them young and have so far benefitted from selling Collins. Butland not so much. We have received small sums from our lending program and academy players sold for nominal fees. And that's it for the investment. I don't think it's a new approach. Not at all. All managers in the period, aware that the board wants to hear good news about the academy, have promoted players and have had them training with the first team, a few even made non-playing subs appearences. But they've been reluctant, to say the least, to take the next vital step. Porter hasn't started a full game in the league by the way. Nor has Sparrow, DWP or Macari, though they've been plugged for the last year. Out of interest, is there an equivalent English club who does meet these rather stringent criteria of regularly throwing academy players straight into the team never having loaned them out first or signed them from anywhere else? Man United, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool - though I doubt they would call it "rather stringent criteria". For them it would be an essential part of the production line. As for what lower league clubs do - apart from Crewe I don't follow what any of them do. I haven't even followed Alex that closely in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 7, 2022 11:45:57 GMT
Out of interest, is there an equivalent English club who does meet these rather stringent criteria of regularly throwing academy players straight into the team never having loaned them out first or signed them from anywhere else? Man United, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool - though I doubt they would call it "rather stringent criteria". For them it would be an essential part of the production line. As for what lower league clubs do - apart from Crewe I don't follow what any of them do. I haven't even followed Alex that closely in recent years. Is this the Spurs who loaned out Oliver Skipp to Norwich and Harry Kane to Leicester? And the Arsenal who loaned out Smith Rowe to Huddersfield and signed Saka from Watford's academy and Martinelli from Ituano? Liverpool and Man Utd have taken chances with Rashford, Greenwood etc and Liverpool have thrown TAA and Curtis Jones in, which is admirable, but both those clubs also loan players out and sign players from other clubs' academies. They also have resources which dwarf our own.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jan 7, 2022 12:23:27 GMT
Man United, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool - though I doubt they would call it "rather stringent criteria". For them it would be an essential part of the production line. As for what lower league clubs do - apart from Crewe I don't follow what any of them do. I haven't even followed Alex that closely in recent years. Is this the Spurs who loaned out Oliver Skipp to Norwich and Harry Kane to Leicester? And the Arsenal who loaned out Smith Rowe to Huddersfield and signed Saka from Watford's academy and Martinelli from Ituano? Liverpool and Man Utd have taken chances with Rashford, Greenwood etc and Liverpool have thrown TAA and Curtis Jones in, which is admirable, but both those clubs also loan players out and sign players from other clubs' academies. They also have resources which dwarf our own. I agree. They are also in a much better position to carry youngsters as well. It’s much easier to blood a youngster in your first team when you are 3-0 up at half time. Or to do so in the league cup when you are playing someone three divisions lower than you. Or to play the youngsters that did well in the Paint Trophy (which I detest now including U23s). Porter was given an opportunity in the league cup and by all accounts, looked out of place in his games there. Should he be rewarded by getting league minutes? Similarly, it’s not like Taylor et al were sent out on loan to struggling Championship teams, they are two (three for Porter) divisions lower at present because that’s the standard the footballing world has judged them at.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 7, 2022 12:32:53 GMT
Is this the Spurs who loaned out Oliver Skipp to Norwich and Harry Kane to Leicester? And the Arsenal who loaned out Smith Rowe to Huddersfield and signed Saka from Watford's academy and Martinelli from Ituano? Liverpool and Man Utd have taken chances with Rashford, Greenwood etc and Liverpool have thrown TAA and Curtis Jones in, which is admirable, but both those clubs also loan players out and sign players from other clubs' academies. They also have resources which dwarf our own. I agree. They are also in a much better position to carry youngsters as well. It’s much easier to blood a youngster in your first team when you are 3-0 up at half time. Or to do so in the league cup when you are playing someone three divisions lower than you. Or to play the youngsters that did well in the Paint Trophy (which I detest now including U23s). Porter was given an opportunity in the league cup and by all accounts, looked out of place in his games there. Should he be rewarded by getting league minutes? Similarly, it’s not like Taylor et al were sent out on loan to struggling Championship teams, they are two (three for Porter) divisions lower at present because that’s the standard the footballing world has judged them at. Yeah I don't quite understand how it doesn't count as development or blooding young players if you signed the players from another academy or loaned them out somewhere. They both seem like fairly standard, legitimate parts of a youth strategy to me? I don't quite get how it's somehow purer to just flood the first team with players who've only ever turned out for your own youth teams and ask them to sink or swim or why it's in any way better to do that than the other methods?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2022 12:37:25 GMT
We haven’t won in the FA Cup for 6 years? Nope. 3rd round exit every season since we won at Donny in Jan 2016. Fook me that’s shocking.
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Jan 7, 2022 12:47:50 GMT
I think we’ll sneak our way to the quarter-finals this year.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 7, 2022 12:58:09 GMT
That’s not what you originally said though ….you said he only ever considers it I pointed out that he played them players and brought them through the system giving them regular football ….NOT who purchased them Too bad you don't know the difference between bought and brought... I didn't say a word about purchase (well I mentioned Norton, he was a free). I quoted you on "brought through" and it so happens that all the players you mentioned were b Rought through by other managers, some of them, Bursik, Souttar came through at other clubs, not here. He leaves the "bringing through" to other managers, then when they've proved themselves elsewhere, then he's willing to consider playing them. How many homegrown players did you count in the Preston game? Zero. No, Campbell was homegrown at Citeh, we bought him for a large fee. DWP, if he plays vs Orient, was a Citeh player, but joined us by the time he'd turned 19, in other words not homegrown. Bursik was groomed at Wimbledon, and Souttar at Dundee. There are no homegrown players in MON's league teams, simple as that. In my OP i was really referring implicitly to the Mondqy morning interview (it might been published the day before) in the Sentinel where he stated that he was considering playing...and he listed a number of players (Sparrow, DWP, Macari among others (good, mature choices in my opinion). He must have known then that considering was all it was, because by evening he had selected a team with an average age of 29, and with only one non-playing player under 21 on the bench.. That is incredibly harsh. Bursik and Souttar were both 16 when brought to the club, nowhere near first team standard at our level and when MON arrived neither were near the team. Souttar was out on loan along with Campbell and Tymon because Jones had decided they weren't good enough and to be fair with Souttar I agreed with him. He looked way off. The development of players from 16 to 21 is crucial and so far you can't criticise MON for his handling of these players(though some would say Collins was misused at full back but I remember a certain R Shawcross being played at fullback in the first season of Premier football). Below those players playing for the u23's I think you would find MON has very little involvement so it's hardly his fault that the youth players he has brought through have not according to you been home grown although I think the definition of home grown is anyone who played for the club for 2 seasons before they were 18 so that incudes all of them. I think now we are seeing an increase of the numbers coming through our younger age groups(I'm pretty sure the academy is only 16 - 18) because the academy has been running for more than 5 years so is better established and more effective. As for the interview you refer to I read it differently from you. I thought he was referring to the medium term and the fact that he might have to use some of those players before he gets his injured players back. Even on Sunday I'm not expecting to see more than Wright Phillips start. It is a bad time to introduce young players when the team in general is playing badly, low on confidence and the crowd quite hostile.
|
|
|
Post by potterinleeds on Jan 7, 2022 14:23:59 GMT
We haven’t won in the FA Cup for 6 years? Nope. 3rd round exit every season since we won at Donny in Jan 2016. Wow - I went to that and remember it being a really enjoyable away day, town-centre pubs all packed with Stoke and Donny supporters by 11.30am - frightening how quickly 6 years has passed
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 7, 2022 14:38:45 GMT
You are arguing against yourself. Before MON arrived, , Collins, Souttar, Campbell and Tymon were at best peripheral and often out on loan. He brought all of them back into the first team (having personally bought none of them). Whether they are from Stoke on not is meaningless, he has trusted young players more than any recent manager. He has given Porter a debut and is now bringing Wright-Phillips through and working with Macari and Sparrow. It is a total shift in approach he is to be applauded for You're buying into his propoganda. He's very good at it. He trusts young players that he's bought like Brown, Wilmot, TOB, Thompson, maybe he will trust Surridge in time. They get many chances even if they, or some of them, frequently play badly. He doesn't trust Coates, Taylor, Forrester, Varian, Jones, others to be tested in the team before sending them out on the kind of loans, which frequently make young players return worse than before they went out. Loaned out didn't help Tymon, Sorensen or others. Regular first team action (and a gentle hand around his shoulder from MON) helped Josh. Not to mention the fact that Hughes gave him a five year contract, otherwise he'd been out the door already. Actually I'm really grateful to MON for saving Tymon's career and making him fulfill the potential, which was always there at Clayton Wood. It's not meaningless whether players are from the academy or not. Far from it. The board has invested £100M in the academy since it was relaunched. Now that's a figure over time, but imagine what O'Neill could have done with some sort of such money for the first team. Now I don't expect him to pick players that are not good enough. But how does he know that, if they don't get tested. From a purely business pov we have wasted a huge part of the investment and got very little in return, because all our managers from Pulis to MON haven't had the courage to back them. I can't think of an academy player - which means signed by the club around the age of 15 or earlier - that has featured regularly or even in just one season. EDIT: I can think of one, Wilko. Dicko is from before that period and was on the way out then. Butland, Souttar, Collins, Campbell, all entered the academy at their previous clubs. We bought them young and have so far benefitted from selling Collins. Butland not so much. We have received small sums from our lending program and academy players sold for nominal fees. And that's it for the investment. I don't think it's a new approach. Not at all. All managers in the period, aware that the board wants to hear good news about the academy, have promoted players and have had them training with the first team, a few even made non-playing subs appearences. But they've been reluctant, to say the least, to take the next vital step. Porter hasn't started a full game in the league by the way. Nor has Sparrow, DWP or Macari, though they've been plugged for the last year. Yes but you were challenging the view MON promotes young players and there is no evidence of that. Whether a player spend all or part of his career in our academy, if they make the first team regularly that is job done. Selling Collins counts towards the return on investment on the academy in the same way selling Porter would do. As yet, there hasn’t been a good enough local academy graduate to be a regular. Not a surprise as it takes 10 years to build the capability and an 8 year when we were promoted should new be coming through. Our academy has a wider purpose. I was told by the departing CEO, our academy is larger than we need because the chairman wants to help any kid in the area with a chance of a career in football even if they never play for us. I would say Stoke City is set up to maximise all opportunities for local kids in a way hardly any other club is. We should be very proud of the philosophy
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:43:19 GMT
I think we’ll sneak our way to the quarter-finals this year. Is that with your FIFA team?
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 7, 2022 14:44:39 GMT
Can anyone name the defeats without looking them up?
I certainly can’t!
Leicester last year.
Coventry 2018?
Rest is blank.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 7, 2022 14:47:50 GMT
Can anyone name the defeats without looking them up? I certainly can’t! Leicester last year. Coventry 2018? Rest is blank. Brentford
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 7, 2022 14:49:01 GMT
Can anyone name the defeats without looking them up? I certainly can’t! Leicester last year. Coventry 2018? Rest is blank. Brentford Shrewsbury
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 7, 2022 14:59:06 GMT
Can anyone name the defeats without looking them up? I certainly can’t! Leicester last year. Coventry 2018? Rest is blank. Brentford Agh yes remember that one.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 7, 2022 15:04:39 GMT
Wolves at home 0-2…..
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 15:27:04 GMT
Is this the Spurs who loaned out Oliver Skipp to Norwich and Harry Kane to Leicester? And the Arsenal who loaned out Smith Rowe to Huddersfield and signed Saka from Watford's academy and Martinelli from Ituano? Liverpool and Man Utd have taken chances with Rashford, Greenwood etc and Liverpool have thrown TAA and Curtis Jones in, which is admirable, but both those clubs also loan players out and sign players from other clubs' academies. They also have resources which dwarf our own. I agree. They are also in a much better position to carry youngsters as well. It’s much easier to blood a youngster in your first team when you are 3-0 up at half time. Or to do so in the league cup when you are playing someone three divisions lower than you. Or to play the youngsters that did well in the Paint Trophy (which I detest now including U23s). Porter was given an opportunity in the league cup and by all accounts, looked out of place in his games there. Should he be rewarded by getting league minutes? Similarly, it’s not like Taylor et al were sent out on loan to struggling Championship teams, they are two (three for Porter) divisions lower at present because that’s the standard the footballing world has judged them at. They do. But we don't even utilise the resources we do have. It's not my fault Toxic asked a silly question. It's my fault that I bothered to answer, I don't think I will again . Of course it's easy to kick down examples with top teams, but what I am supposed to do? List teams I don't know? It's true though that it's easier to blood youngsters at 3-0. We haven't been in that situation very often, but when we do we still manage to throw away such leads with only full senior players in the team. Whereas you can't rule out that the energy of a young player would have kept the game alive for us. I agree - and with MON too - that you don't want to bring youngsters into a struggling team. You want to do it when we're on a roll, and we have been at times this season, so it would have been possible. I don't think it's "all accounts" that Porter played badly in the Caraboa. You won't care for my opinion, so maybe you should ask O'Neill ! He praised Porter on both occasions, and since he's talked up Porter in every Sentinel article about academy prospects, about once monthly because there's great interest in the matter, at least at Bethesda St. He just hasn't followed through on to the logical next step, which is league minutes. Instead he's agreed to a loan, apparently with conditions stipulating that we can't recall him, even though we are woefully short on midfielders. A shame because it would have constituted an opportunity for Porter to at least get some minutes when the 95-year old midfield legs tire
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 15:30:13 GMT
I agree. They are also in a much better position to carry youngsters as well. It’s much easier to blood a youngster in your first team when you are 3-0 up at half time. Or to do so in the league cup when you are playing someone three divisions lower than you. Or to play the youngsters that did well in the Paint Trophy (which I detest now including U23s). Porter was given an opportunity in the league cup and by all accounts, looked out of place in his games there. Should he be rewarded by getting league minutes? Similarly, it’s not like Taylor et al were sent out on loan to struggling Championship teams, they are two (three for Porter) divisions lower at present because that’s the standard the footballing world has judged them at. Yeah I don't quite understand how it doesn't count as development or blooding young players if you signed the players from another academy or loaned them out somewhere. They both seem like fairly standard, legitimate parts of a youth strategy to me? I don't quite get how it's somehow purer to just flood the first team with players who've only ever turned out for your own youth teams and ask them to sink or swim or why it's in any way better to do that than the other methods? Who said it was "purer"? I didn't. I'm saying it's bad business not to look to the investment the club has made first (if academy and non-academy players are roughly the same level). Who said "it doesn't count as development or blooding young players if you signed the players from another academy"? I didn't. All I'm trying to say is that we don't reap any financial or footballing benefits if we don't "blood" our own academy players first, provided they are good enough. It's very bad business to keep investing and then throw the products away. Every time there's a "vacancy" in the team we look at what's available in the transfer market and can we afford him, but we don't ook to see if we can fill that vacancy ourselves. That's a common mistake at other clubs too. Who said we should "flood" the team with academy players at the same time. Give me one example where I have said that or hold your filthy tongue, son!
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Jan 7, 2022 15:33:00 GMT
Too bad you don't know the difference between bought and brought... I didn't say a word about purchase (well I mentioned Norton, he was a free). I quoted you on "brought through" and it so happens that all the players you mentioned were b Rought through by other managers, some of them, Bursik, Souttar came through at other clubs, not here. He leaves the "bringing through" to other managers, then when they've proved themselves elsewhere, then he's willing to consider playing them. How many homegrown players did you count in the Preston game? Zero. No, Campbell was homegrown at Citeh, we bought him for a large fee. DWP, if he plays vs Orient, was a Citeh player, but joined us by the time he'd turned 19, in other words not homegrown. Bursik was groomed at Wimbledon, and Souttar at Dundee. There are no homegrown players in MON's league teams, simple as that. In my OP i was really referring implicitly to the Mondqy morning interview (it might been published the day before) in the Sentinel where he stated that he was considering playing...and he listed a number of players (Sparrow, DWP, Macari among others (good, mature choices in my opinion). He must have known then that considering was all it was, because by evening he had selected a team with an average age of 29, and with only one non-playing player under 21 on the bench.. That is incredibly harsh. Bursik and Souttar were both 16 when brought to the club, nowhere near first team standard at our level and when MON arrived neither were near the team. Souttar was out on loan along with Campbell and Tymon because Jones had decided they weren't good enough and to be fair with Souttar I agreed with him. He looked way off. The development of players from 16 to 21 is crucial and so far you can't criticise MON for his handling of these players(though some would say Collins was misused at full back but I remember a certain R Shawcross being played at fullback in the first season of Premier football). Below those players playing for the u23's I think you would find MON has very little involvement so it's hardly his fault that the youth players he has brought through have not according to you been home grown although I think the definition of home grown is anyone who played for the club for 2 seasons before they were 18 so that incudes all of them. I think now we are seeing an increase of the numbers coming through our younger age groups(I'm pretty sure the academy is only 16 - 18) because the academy has been running for more than 5 years so is better established and more effective. As for the interview you refer to I read it differently from you. I thought he was referring to the medium term and the fact that he might have to use some of those players before he gets his injured players back. Even on Sunday I'm not expecting to see more than Wright Phillips start. It is a bad time to introduce young players when the team in general is playing badly, low on confidence and the crowd quite hostile. You can't find any example where I've suggested we should pick 16-year olds. I'm not harsh on Bursik and Souttar. They're among my favourite players! There's nothing to be harsh about. You won't see me out with a stick at Clayton Wood beating South Londoners and Scotsmen... But you can't change the fact that we bought them as youth players, not as academy prospects. It's a little lost discussion about nothing really. They played in the same youth teams (u-18, then u-23) as Forrester et al. But technically their status is different. I've already agreed with your last sentence above. What some managers sometimes do is play absurd amounts of kids and then when the team has lost against grown men, he can say 'everybody has seen with their own eyes that the kids are no good.' I can't remember if Pulis did that. He might not have. I actually disagree that MON doesn't get involved with the youth sections. Involved is probably not the right word. Takes an interest would be more appropriate. I don't know about this season, but I saw him at many games at Clayton Wood last season, standing next to Rooster, but not actually saying a word. So he knows about the potential of players. He has had many of them with him in training, not all of them at the same time, but a couple at a time when the time was right. He just hasn't taken steps to get them involved in match day action.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 7, 2022 15:39:30 GMT
I think he'll pick the weakest team possible. Not that he would admit it .... who would say such a thing as a manager? The possibility of promotion is still the target. Then we'll fail twice this season in addition to earlier failure in the Caraboa. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2022 15:54:26 GMT
We haven’t won in the FA Cup for 6 years? Nope. 3rd round exit every season since we won at Donny in Jan 2016. Clucking bells, that's shite
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 7, 2022 15:56:55 GMT
Yeah I don't quite understand how it doesn't count as development or blooding young players if you signed the players from another academy or loaned them out somewhere. They both seem like fairly standard, legitimate parts of a youth strategy to me? I don't quite get how it's somehow purer to just flood the first team with players who've only ever turned out for your own youth teams and ask them to sink or swim or why it's in any way better to do that than the other methods? Who said it was "purer"? I didn't. I'm saying it's bad business not to look to the investment the club has made first (if academy and non-academy players are roughly the same level). Who said "it doesn't count as development or blooding young players if you signed the players from another academy"? I didn't. All I'm trying to say is that we don't reap any financial or footballing benefits if we don't "blood" our own academy players first, provided they are good enough. It's very bad business to keep investing and then throw the products away. Every time there's a "vacancy" in the team we look at what's available in the transfer market and can we afford him, but we don't ook to see if we can fill that vacancy ourselves. That's a common mistake at other clubs too. Who said we should "flood" the team with academy players at the same time. Give me one example where I have said that or hold your filthy tongue, son! I'm paraphrasing, of course, but the points you make here in no way tally with your 'this doesn't count, that doesn't count' odd caveating of MON's youth policy. We can't count Norton, apparently, because something something Southampton. We can't count Campbell because something something Man City. We can't count Souttar or Tymon because something something loan spell elsewhere. Why does any of that stuff matter, how is it relevant?
|
|