|
|
Post by pushon on May 11, 2022 11:02:25 GMT
Reserve team does mean more players and for most clubs would be too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on May 11, 2022 11:03:57 GMT
As does bringing in loanees, which the manager, who said upon coming here that he was against the loan system because of bad experiences he had in his own career, has been exceptionally keen on doing. So which loanee blocked Porter's route to the first team? I wasn't aware we'd made any midfield loans. As I said before if you're good enough you get in the team. Porter was given his chance early season in cup games and didn't take it then went on loan and didn't particularly shine at non league level. He's twenty. As I said somewhere else by now he should be pushing for a place at least in the match day squad which he isn't. Not long ago we had Baker, Vrancic, Sawyers, Thompson and Powell all injured and unavailable yet chose to go without a midfielder on the bench rather than include him. Accept he's not getting anywhere at Stoke and let him get another club where he can play regularly at a higher level than U23. It's nonsense to say the club are being lazy, they will be helping to find the next club for him. The harsh reality is that only a few academy graduates ever make it at the club where they trained. Keeping him at Stoke for another year just makes him another year older and competing with younger players of the same experience for a contract at another club and makes it more difficult for him. From the academy point of view keeping him blocks a place at U23 level for younger players. There is no room for sentimentality where young players are concerned. If anyone can name a young player we've released (not Sanko who chose to go) who has gone on to play regularly at or above our level I will be surprised. Just realised the answer is Sawyers but he wasn't a young loanee and definitely improved our squad. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 11, 2022 11:05:27 GMT
Reserve team does mean more players and for most clubs would be too expensive. In League 1 & 2 that's probably right However Premier League & Championship squads are generally massive, clubs have lots of players who sim ply do not play football on a regular basis it's madness |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 11, 2022 14:25:13 GMT
As does bringing in loanees, which the manager, who said upon coming here that he was against the loan system because of bad experiences he had in his own career, has been exceptionally keen on doing. So which loanee blocked Porter's route to the first team? I wasn't aware we'd made any midfield loans. As I said before if you're good enough you get in the team. Porter was given his chance early season in cup games and didn't take it then went on loan and didn't particularly shine at non league level. He's twenty. As I said somewhere else by now he should be pushing for a place at least in the match day squad which he isn't. Not long ago we had Baker, Vrancic, Sawyers, Thompson and Powell all injured and unavailable yet chose to go without a midfielder on the bench rather than include him. Accept he's not getting anywhere at Stoke and let him get another club where he can play regularly at a higher level than U23. It's nonsense to say the club are being lazy, they will be helping to find the next club for him. The harsh reality is that only a few academy graduates ever make it at the club where they trained. Keeping him at Stoke for another year just makes him another year older and competing with younger players of the same experience for a contract at another club and makes it more difficult for him. From the academy point of view keeping him blocks a place at U23 level for younger players. There is no room for sentimentality where young players are concerned. If anyone can name a young player we've released (not Sanko who chose to go) who has gone on to play regularly at or above our level I will be surprised. In the qouted message I'm talking in general, although if you must, I suppose having loanees on the bench did indirectly block Porter's path to the bench and that stopped him from coming on whenever one of our chosen midfielders were failing, which was often. No one knows now if he could have made a difference. The only thing we do know is that the manager did not pluck up the courage to follow up on his own promises. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on May 11, 2022 14:32:46 GMT
So which loanee blocked Porter's route to the first team? I wasn't aware we'd made any midfield loans. As I said before if you're good enough you get in the team. Porter was given his chance early season in cup games and didn't take it then went on loan and didn't particularly shine at non league level. He's twenty. As I said somewhere else by now he should be pushing for a place at least in the match day squad which he isn't. Not long ago we had Baker, Vrancic, Sawyers, Thompson and Powell all injured and unavailable yet chose to go without a midfielder on the bench rather than include him. Accept he's not getting anywhere at Stoke and let him get another club where he can play regularly at a higher level than U23. It's nonsense to say the club are being lazy, they will be helping to find the next club for him. The harsh reality is that only a few academy graduates ever make it at the club where they trained. Keeping him at Stoke for another year just makes him another year older and competing with younger players of the same experience for a contract at another club and makes it more difficult for him. From the academy point of view keeping him blocks a place at U23 level for younger players. There is no room for sentimentality where young players are concerned. If anyone can name a young player we've released (not Sanko who chose to go) who has gone on to play regularly at or above our level I will be surprised. In the qouted message I'm talking in general, although if you must, I suppose having loanees on the bench did indirectly block Porter's path to the bench and that stopped him from coming on whenever one of our chosen midfielders were failing, which was often. No one knows now if he could have made a difference. The only thing we do know is that the manager did not pluck up the courage to follow up on his own promises. How come he wasn't on the bench the week we had no midfielders available if he was so close. We want local lads to succeed but that doesn't mean they are good enough, eg Ollie Shenton who everybody was rooting for but in the end the club have to make the difficult decision to accept that they haven't lived up to their promise. You haven't, I notice given me any examples of players we've released who have then gone on to have careers at Stoke's level or anywhere near our level. In the end it is better for the club and the player to make the decision to release them early when they are still young enough to go somewhere else rather than keeping them until they are 22/23. |
|
|
|
Post by maine on May 11, 2022 14:49:32 GMT
Might Bachman be an exception? I'm not sure of his circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 11, 2022 16:46:06 GMT
In the qouted message I'm talking in general, although if you must, I suppose having loanees on the bench did indirectly block Porter's path to the bench and that stopped him from coming on whenever one of our chosen midfielders were failing, which was often. No one knows now if he could have made a difference. The only thing we do know is that the manager did not pluck up the courage to follow up on his own promises. How come he wasn't on the bench the week we had no midfielders available if he was so close. We want local lads to succeed but that doesn't mean they are good enough, eg Ollie Shenton who everybody was rooting for but in the end the club have to make the difficult decision to accept that they haven't lived up to their promise. You haven't, I notice given me any examples of players we've released who have then gone on to have careers at Stoke's level or anywhere near our level. In the end it is better for the club and the player to make the decision to release them early when they are still young enough to go somewhere else rather than keeping them until they are 22/23. The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on May 11, 2022 18:26:36 GMT
How come he wasn't on the bench the week we had no midfielders available if he was so close. We want local lads to succeed but that doesn't mean they are good enough, eg Ollie Shenton who everybody was rooting for but in the end the club have to make the difficult decision to accept that they haven't lived up to their promise. You haven't, I notice given me any examples of players we've released who have then gone on to have careers at Stoke's level or anywhere near our level. In the end it is better for the club and the player to make the decision to release them early when they are still young enough to go somewhere else rather than keeping them until they are 22/23. The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 18:54:00 GMT
How come he wasn't on the bench the week we had no midfielders available if he was so close. We want local lads to succeed but that doesn't mean they are good enough, eg Ollie Shenton who everybody was rooting for but in the end the club have to make the difficult decision to accept that they haven't lived up to their promise. You haven't, I notice given me any examples of players we've released who have then gone on to have careers at Stoke's level or anywhere near our level. In the end it is better for the club and the player to make the decision to release them early when they are still young enough to go somewhere else rather than keeping them until they are 22/23. The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's entirely PROBABLE that Porter is not good enough. What's your issue over the young players? You seem very bitter. Over the years how many of the youngsters who have been released have gone on to play at or above our level? Answer, hardly any. There is a team of coaches assessing them. If they are genuinely good enough they will get their chance. Forrester, Sparrow, DWP, Taylor, Tezgel will all get their chance IF they are good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 12, 2022 6:19:23 GMT
The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. Then why does he talk the player up in the press? Not once, not twice, but several times, before and after his debut? And I don't take this 'not good enough in his first game' as conclusive evidence that he'll never be "good enough". Abyone who's ever watched a young kid make his debut could tell you that. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 12, 2022 6:24:30 GMT
The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's entirely PROBABLE that Porter is not good enough. What's your issue over the young players? You seem very bitter. Over the years how many of the youngsters who have been released have gone on to play at or above our level? Answer, hardly any. There is a team of coaches assessing them. If they are genuinely good enough they will get their chance. Forrester, Sparrow, DWP, Taylor, Tezgel will all get their chance IF they are good enough. Those five have already been given chances of a sort. Tezgel's spare minutes in cupties already won hardly is that. But O'Neill is not going to say he's not worth more than that, for fear that another club will come in and take him on contract. I seem very bitter? No, I'm just fed up with people deciding young players are not good enough on limited evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 10:20:52 GMT
It's entirely PROBABLE that Porter is not good enough. What's your issue over the young players? You seem very bitter. Over the years how many of the youngsters who have been released have gone on to play at or above our level? Answer, hardly any. There is a team of coaches assessing them. If they are genuinely good enough they will get their chance. Forrester, Sparrow, DWP, Taylor, Tezgel will all get their chance IF they are good enough. Those five have already been given chances of a sort. Tezgel's spare minutes in cupties already won hardly is that. But O'Neill is not going to say he's not worth more than that, for fear that another club will come in and take him on contract. I seem very bitter? No, I'm just fed up with people deciding young players are not good enough on limited evidence. I don't think anyone is writing them off, just being realistic about the amount of minutes they get. If they are outstanding like Collins they will break into the team under whoever the manager is. It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things. The vast majority, even some of them I have named will not make it at this level. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 12, 2022 10:36:13 GMT
Those five have already been given chances of a sort. Tezgel's spare minutes in cupties already won hardly is that. But O'Neill is not going to say he's not worth more than that, for fear that another club will come in and take him on contract. I seem very bitter? No, I'm just fed up with people deciding young players are not good enough on limited evidence. I don't think anyone is writing them off, just being realistic about the amount of minutes they get. If they are outstanding like Collins they will break into the team under whoever the manager is. It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things. The vast majority, even some of them I have named will not make it at this level. The argument 'they don't make it at other clubs and their time on loan proved they are no good, and "It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things' is just washing your hands off of the problem. It's not the job of other clubs to prove whether our younger players are good enough. It is the sole responsibility of SCFC. It's a job we're very good at failing to do. The club pours £6+M into youth development evry year for the last 14 or more years and has very little to show for it. Perhaps we take too many hopeless cases on in the spirit of community service and devote too little energy into making players that are "good enough". Perhaps we simply need a new youth strategy or maybe two. One for producing players with ability to become championship level and one for the community aspect. Or maybe we should just reach the conclusion that the £85M spent on the academy is better spent elsewhere in the organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by independent on May 12, 2022 10:58:02 GMT
Cream rises to the top, and competition makes champions. I would love to see what percentage of Youth players in the Premier League actually go on to have a career in any of the 4 divisions. Premier clubs probably have 20 youth players each year. That means there are 400 Youths each year, or 4000 over the last 10 years, the oldest of which is 28 at the moment. Even if you divide 4000 by 92 clubs it means that each club would have an average of 41 youth products each. The competition is fierce and the attrition rate is enormous and we are not the only club who aren't getting a decent bang for our buck. I think that the fact that our released young players have not gone on to greater things shows that the club's assessment of their capabilities has been proven correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 11:57:28 GMT
I don't think anyone is writing them off, just being realistic about the amount of minutes they get. If they are outstanding like Collins they will break into the team under whoever the manager is. It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things. The vast majority, even some of them I have named will not make it at this level. The argument 'they don't make it at other clubs and their time on loan proved they are no good, and "It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things' is just washing your hands off of the problem. It's not the job of other clubs to prove whether our younger players are good enough. It is the sole responsibility of SCFC. It's a job we're very good at failing to do. The club pours £6+M into youth development evry year for the last 14 or more years and has very little to show for it. Perhaps we take too many hopeless cases on in the spirit of community service and devote too little energy into making players that are "good enough". Perhaps we simply need a new youth strategy or maybe two. One for producing players with ability to become championship level and one for the community aspect. Or maybe we should just reach the conclusion that the £85M spent on the academy is better spent elsewhere in the organisation. Does the money spent on the academy go towards FFP? If not, then it’s really just a pet project of Coates. If it succeeds, the first team makes money, if not, the first team doesn’t lose out. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on May 12, 2022 14:39:29 GMT
Reserve team does mean more players and for most clubs would be too expensive. In League 1 & 2 that's probably right However Premier League & Championship squads are generally massive, clubs have lots of players who sim ply do not play football on a regular basis it's madness Is a reserve league going to happen though? Because I don't see any evidence of it. In which case U23s will continue to be the only match practice opportunity for first team players who are returning from injury whether we like it or not and that will always have a knock on effect. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 12, 2022 15:54:18 GMT
The argument 'they don't make it at other clubs and their time on loan proved they are no good, and "It's not like we keep letting players go and they go on to great things' is just washing your hands off of the problem. It's not the job of other clubs to prove whether our younger players are good enough. It is the sole responsibility of SCFC. It's a job we're very good at failing to do. The club pours £6+M into youth development evry year for the last 14 or more years and has very little to show for it. Perhaps we take too many hopeless cases on in the spirit of community service and devote too little energy into making players that are "good enough". Perhaps we simply need a new youth strategy or maybe two. One for producing players with ability to become championship level and one for the community aspect. Or maybe we should just reach the conclusion that the £85M spent on the academy is better spent elsewhere in the organisation. Does the money spent on the academy go towards FFP? If not, then it’s really just a pet project of Coates. If it succeeds, the first team makes money, if not, the first team doesn’t lose out. Pissing against the wind could be another way of describing it...it's not just a pet project, although there probably is an element of that in it. But if we have, as the other poster alleged, on average 41 youths on our books, then that might be 20 players who are happy to go along with the old man's toy, and equally happy to play for Vale, Leek et al for the rest of their football lives. But there might also be 20 players heartbroken, because the club never really intended to train them for better things, they were just part of the Coates pet project. And then there's just one player left, maybe every five or ten years, who get to make something of his career. |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on May 12, 2022 19:36:11 GMT
It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. Then why does he talk the player up in the press? Not once, not twice, but several times, before and after his debut? And I don't take this 'not good enough in his first game' as conclusive evidence that he'll never be "good enough". Abyone who's ever watched a young kid make his debut could tell you that. Because that's what you do with young players- you give them encouragement, praise them, give them some confidence. That's basic man-management. One or two games aren't conclusive evidence that he'll never be good enough, but they're good evidence that he's nowhere near ready now, and how long do you wait for players? Do we keep every player on the books until they're 23 or 24 just in case they bloom late? |
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on May 13, 2022 8:02:49 GMT
The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. When a finished Clucas was given an extra 2 years just 7 months ago, I think it's fair to question the managers judgement and courage. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 13, 2022 8:57:06 GMT
It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. When a finished Clucas was given an extra 2 years just 7 months ago, I think it's fair to question the managers judgement and courage. It was an extra year wasn't it? And it was entirely a financial decision by the club He got a longer deal on vastly reduced terms as no club would take him on his big money last summer when we said he could go for free Allen offered the same but he chose to keep his money but not have the extra year Club would have made the same decision regardless of who the manager is |
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on May 13, 2022 10:36:04 GMT
When a finished Clucas was given an extra 2 years just 7 months ago, I think it's fair to question the managers judgement and courage. It was an extra year wasn't it? And it was entirely a financial decision by the club He got a longer deal on vastly reduced terms as no club would take him on his big money last summer when we said he could go for free Allen offered the same but he chose to keep his money but not have the extra year Club would have made the same decision regardless of who the manager is A player eager to sign on massively reduced terms shoul ring alam bells in itself. A terrible bit of business. |
|
|
|
Post by independent on May 13, 2022 11:42:35 GMT
I think Mikel's decision to leave got Clucas a new reduced terms contract. Remember, at that time MON had failed to get Baker as well. So Clucas was just a sticking plaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on May 13, 2022 12:41:43 GMT
Screams of not being good enough. Anything to attack the club sometimes. The club does a lot wrong so needs attacking. Even when you don't know all the reasons behind a decision? Smacks of paranoia! |
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on May 13, 2022 13:00:58 GMT
The question you're asking is both irrelevant and has been run into the ground many times. Find someone who will discuss it with you, if you must. I've already answered why Porter wasn't on the bench. O'Neill was too chicken to live up to his own promises. Too scared perhaps that he would be criticised for fielding a player with limited experience at a time when he was fired at from a lot of people. It's entirely possible that Porter is not good enough. But as a fan I'd like to see that with my own eyes, just to satisfy my own curiosity. It's open discussion forum, where I am allowed to speak my mind. I did see him in the youth team the season before last, before he broke his leg. I thought he was promising in a pairing with Sparrow. But perhaps he recovred poorly, who knows. It's not about being cowardly- the manager sees him in training and knows how good he is or isn't compared to others in the squad. O'Neill's job, like any other football manager, is to try and win games, not pick line-ups so you can have a look at the youth team players. Porter wasn't good enough. Anyone who watched him in the League Cup games could tell you that. I’m surprised that 2 or 3 games is enough for a judgement to be made. On that basis Gareth Bale should never have seen the light of day at Spurs ( his first 13 games being defeats). O’Neill’s job is to pick a side to win games, absolutely correct It’s a shame that watching players in training meant the selection of Chester, Clucas, Ince , Fletcher, a lot more often than some potential youngsters- and they were crap for a lot more than 2 or 3 games. Too me, their selections say everything about O’Neill. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 13, 2022 13:15:39 GMT
Then why does he talk the player up in the press? Not once, not twice, but several times, before and after his debut? And I don't take this 'not good enough in his first game' as conclusive evidence that he'll never be "good enough". Abyone who's ever watched a young kid make his debut could tell you that. Because that's what you do with young players- you give them encouragement, praise them, give them some confidence. That's basic man-management. One or two games aren't conclusive evidence that he'll never be good enough, but they're good evidence that he's nowhere near ready now, and how long do you wait for players? Do we keep every player on the books until they're 23 or 24 just in case they bloom late? Of course the youth team manager and youth coaches offer encouragement and praise in their daily interaction with those players. It's part of their job description. It doesn't explain why Michael O'Neill talks those same players up in the Sentinel and in conversations with Ange. Do it in conversation with the players, by all means, but don't go public. If you talk players up in public with messages that not only they but their families and friends will read, then turn around soon after and say 'not good enough', then that's irresponsible behaviour. Then it would have been better that the senior manager, who doesn't really have anything to do with those players, had held his tongue when the local rag calls. As for waiting. I think we wait far too long in the first place. Look at Forrester. He is 21 next month and yet he is still packed in wool by the manager as if he was still wet behind his football ears. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 13:21:20 GMT
Does the money spent on the academy go towards FFP? If not, then it’s really just a pet project of Coates. If it succeeds, the first team makes money, if not, the first team doesn’t lose out. Pissing against the wind could be another way of describing it...it's not just a pet project, although there probably is an element of that in it. But if we have, as the other poster alleged, on average 41 youths on our books, then that might be 20 players who are happy to go along with the old man's toy, and equally happy to play for Vale, Leek et al for the rest of their football lives. But there might also be 20 players heartbroken, because the club never really intended to train them for better things, they were just part of the Coates pet project. And then there's just one player left, maybe every five or ten years, who get to make something of his career. So? What percentage of kids who get law degrees go on to become lawyers? What percentage of those represent a case that will ever be that impactful? I toiled for years to get my PhD, but very, very few PhD’s get close to even a lecturer level position. That’s the way of the world. Universities know that not all their law graduates will go to law school, or once there, will do anything meaningful like they were told that they could one day do. The universities still need them to pay though and they’ll milk the prestige that may come from one of that class (or the next) finally doing something they could brag about. Kids will push for longer, true. But their potential rewards are also far higher. No one forces these kids, or their parents to make this decision. It’s a gamble they’ve decided on. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 13, 2022 13:25:40 GMT
Pissing against the wind could be another way of describing it...it's not just a pet project, although there probably is an element of that in it. But if we have, as the other poster alleged, on average 41 youths on our books, then that might be 20 players who are happy to go along with the old man's toy, and equally happy to play for Vale, Leek et al for the rest of their football lives. But there might also be 20 players heartbroken, because the club never really intended to train them for better things, they were just part of the Coates pet project. And then there's just one player left, maybe every five or ten years, who get to make something of his career. So? What percentage of kids who get law degrees go on to become lawyers? What percentage of those represent a case that will ever be that impactful? I toiled for years to get my PhD, but very, very few PhD’s get close to even a lecturer level position. That’s the way of the world. Universities know that not all their law graduates will go to law school, or once there, will do anything meaningful like they were told that they could one day do. The universities still need them to pay though and they’ll milk the prestige that may come from one of that class (or the next) finally doing something they could brag about. Too bad your dreams weren't fulfilled. But you must be the first person on planet earth to compare law studies to apprentice football. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 13:27:04 GMT
Because that's what you do with young players- you give them encouragement, praise them, give them some confidence. That's basic man-management. One or two games aren't conclusive evidence that he'll never be good enough, but they're good evidence that he's nowhere near ready now, and how long do you wait for players? Do we keep every player on the books until they're 23 or 24 just in case they bloom late? Of course the youth team manager and youth coaches offer encouragement and praise in their daily interaction with those players. It's part of their job description. It doesn't explain why Michael O'Neill talks those same players up in the Sentinel and in conversations with Ange. Do it in conversation with the players, by all means, but don't go public. If you talk players up in public with messages that not only they but their families and friends will read, then turn around soon after and say 'not good enough', then that's irresponsible behaviour. Then it would have been better that the senior manager, who doesn't really have anything to do with those players, had held his tongue when the local rag calls. As for waiting. I think we wait far too long in the first place. Look at Forrester. He is 21 next month and yet he is still packed in wool by the manager as if he was still wet behind his football ears. Lol, he can’t win then. If he turned around and said that “it’s not my place to talk about him”, there would be uproar that he wasn’t supportive as well. Forrester’s big chance comes this pre-season. It most likely would have been last pre-season, but he had a pretty horrific injury. Centre backs develop later. There’s more of a game to read. They are often playing in lower divisions than they’ll end up in at 20-21. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 13:30:55 GMT
So? What percentage of kids who get law degrees go on to become lawyers? What percentage of those represent a case that will ever be that impactful? I toiled for years to get my PhD, but very, very few PhD’s get close to even a lecturer level position. That’s the way of the world. Universities know that not all their law graduates will go to law school, or once there, will do anything meaningful like they were told that they could one day do. The universities still need them to pay though and they’ll milk the prestige that may come from one of that class (or the next) finally doing something they could brag about. Too bad your dreams weren't fulfilled. But you must be the first person on planet earth to compare law studies to apprentice football. My dreams are actually being fulfilled. I’ve been very fortunate. I’m comparing football to all walks of life. It’s not so abstract as people like to pretend it is. If you don’t like the law school analogy, how about gymnastics; track; music; acting? The world is full of risks. I don’t see why people think that the way the academy system is used in morally wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by jokker on May 13, 2022 14:03:25 GMT
It's not just a case of whether to feel sorry or not sorry for discarded footballers. I don't know any of them, so I don't have to care. It's also a question of whether scfc can afford to keep buying poor players that are either kept on for years to fans' disapproval or sold after six months with expenses not really paid for , when they have the opportunity to teach young lads to play the game well enough. We don't seem to train our academy players well enough, since those believed to be among the best are freed by the club, year in, year out. Maybe we should scrap the current academy set up, sack all the coaches, and start from afresh.
|
|
