Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

[Leveller]

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

Please note, this is not a criticism of the club, more a need for me to understand the thinking behind the processes and stages involved.

We have fifteen players out on loan, several of whom are youngsters being brought on in “mens’ football” rather than playing in our own youth teams. Only Golbourne doesn’t really fit into this category (unless you count Engvall).

At the same time, we have brought in players on loan – Woodrow and Leko (any others?)

There are obviously many different circumstances in different cases. However, in some ways it seems odd to, for example, buy the teenage striker Hinds, give him a couple of first team games (where he does really well) then loan him out, while bringing in the teenage striker (?) Leko. Leko, presumably will only have been lent to us on the understanding that he gets first team minutes. Is this justified by Leko’s higher quality/greater experience? On the other hand if he’s seen as a winger presumably he has to leapfrog Eliasson, O’Dowda, Paterson etc to get games.

At the same time, we seem to have paid a considerable fee for Bakinson. This is a youngster who believed he should be in the first team of the club he left. He came to us, but seems to be destined for the U23s initially. Yet our better U23 players (eg Morrell) are sent out on loan to lower league teams, suggesting that is a step up from the U23s on the way to our first team? So who out of eg Morrell/Bakinson is seen as more likely to progress to our first team in the medium term?

It seems the “natural progression” is U23 – lower league first team on loan – our first team squad. Yet we have players joining us who are destined for the U23s but believe they have a chance of a first team place.

Is it a conundrum, or am I being thick? Or am I just being too logical and prescriptive? Is it just “horses for courses”?

[simon uk]

Agreed, perhaps leko is such a talent that its a no brainer getting him in, like tammy, but woodrow wouldnt necessarily be described as that at this point. 

It really seems to me that we are signing more and more players, and trying to work which ones are worthy of a first team place

 

[Unan]

Sign 10 with potential for 100k each & chances are 1-3 will be sold for 1m+

I'd imagine Leko is better than half our team so his age isn't really a factor 

Confused on Woodrow

[Monkeh]

12 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

Please note, this is not a criticism of the club, more a need for me to understand the thinking behind the processes and stages involved.

 

We have fifteen players out on loan, several of whom are youngsters being brought on in “mens’ football” rather than playing in our own youth teams. Only Golbourne doesn’t really fit into this category (unless you count Engvall).

 

At the same time, we have brought in players on loan – Woodrow and Leko (any others?)

 

There are obviously many different circumstances in different cases. However, in some ways it seems odd to, for example, buy the teenage striker Hinds, give him a couple of first team games (where he does really well) then loan him out, while bringing in the teenage striker (?) Leko. Leko, presumably will only have been lent to us on the understanding that he gets first team minutes. Is this justified by Leko’s higher quality/greater experience? On the other hand if he’s seen as a winger presumably he has to leapfrog Eliasson, O’Dowda, Paterson etc to get games.

 

At the same time, we seem to have paid a considerable fee for Bakinson. This is a youngster who believed he should be in the first team of the club he left. He came to us, but seems to be destined for the U23s initially. Yet our better U23 players (eg Morrell) are sent out on loan to lower league teams, suggesting that is a step up from the U23s on the way to our first team? So who out of eg Morrell/Bakinson is seen as more likely to progress to our first team in the medium term?

 

It seems the “natural progression” is U23 – lower league first team on loan – our first team squad. Yet we have players joining us who are destined for the U23s but believe they have a chance of a first team place.

 

Is it a conundrum, or am I being thick? Or am I just being too logical and prescriptive? Is it just “horses for courses”?

 

Leko is another Tammy signing by all accounts, something we couldn't really turn down, and we don't rally have a right winger coming through

[Phileas Fogg]

Woodrow as a signing makes sense seeing as 2/5 of our strikers are out injured.

Đurić's injury is bad and Taylor will take a while to get fit.

Reid is new to the position and Diedhiou is new to the league. You can't guarantee both of those will adapt.

I can understand the need for additional bodies there, especially ones proven at Championship level which Woodrow is.

[Lrrr]

Hinds was sent on loan because while he performed well in the games he featured in, he wasn't going to be getting regular first team football with us so better he gets it somewhere else. Woodrow is unlikely to play too much for us but unless we sign him he'll be going back to Fulham at the end of his spell, so he's doing a job filing in whie Taylor, Đurić etc are injured. 

Lee has said before and again recently that its important for our youngsters to be playing league football rather than U23's as its a step up. I imagine the 2 lads brought in will play U23's till January so that our staff can get a better assessment of them and whether we can send them on loan and if so, to what level. 

[Major Isewater]

24 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

Please note, this is not a criticism of the club, more a need for me to understand the thinking behind the processes and stages involved.

 

We have fifteen players out on loan, several of whom are youngsters being brought on in “mens’ football” rather than playing in our own youth teams. Only Golbourne doesn’t really fit into this category (unless you count Engvall).

 

At the same time, we have brought in players on loan – Woodrow and Leko (any others?)

 

There are obviously many different circumstances in different cases. However, in some ways it seems odd to, for example, buy the teenage striker Hinds, give him a couple of first team games (where he does really well) then loan him out, while bringing in the teenage striker (?) Leko. Leko, presumably will only have been lent to us on the understanding that he gets first team minutes. Is this justified by Leko’s higher quality/greater experience? On the other hand if he’s seen as a winger presumably he has to leapfrog Eliasson, O’Dowda, Paterson etc to get games.

 

At the same time, we seem to have paid a considerable fee for Bakinson. This is a youngster who believed he should be in the first team of the club he left. He came to us, but seems to be destined for the U23s initially. Yet our better U23 players (eg Morrell) are sent out on loan to lower league teams, suggesting that is a step up from the U23s on the way to our first team? So who out of eg Morrell/Bakinson is seen as more likely to progress to our first team in the medium term?

 

It seems the “natural progression” is U23 – lower league first team on loan – our first team squad. Yet we have players joining us who are destined for the U23s but believe they have a chance of a first team place.

 

Is it a conundrum, or am I being thick? Or am I just being too logical and prescriptive? Is it just “horses for courses”?

 

It's all done to hold back our academy lads, obviously.

LJ didn't have experience of coaching in the Championship perhaps we should have loaned him out to a lower league side to get experience.

[Squeak]

25 minutes ago, Leveller said:

We have fifteen players out on loan

Fifteen is probably the highest amount of players we've had out on loan at one time. Does anyone know how this compares to other Championship clubs?

[Red Army 75]

I would say a though the academy is starting bring on some good players. And sending young players on loan will only benefit them . The only signing that confused me was Woodrow. I think we should of kept Freddie. Some players need to go on loan for experience and for different surroundings. Also some players just don't kick on . I think we have some really young exciting talent at the club. And the person on here who praised tinnion had it spot on

[Major Isewater]

2 minutes ago, Squeak said:

Fifteen is probably the highest amount of players we've had out on loan at one time. Does anyone know how this compares to other Championship clubs?

Only Wolves have more out on loan , 16 . 

Source : The Post 

I know .

[TBW]

5 minutes ago, Squeak said:

Fifteen is probably the highest amount of players we've had out on loan at one time. Does anyone know how this compares to other Championship clubs?

Only Wolves have more out on loan with 16.

[iamalagerdrinker]

Isn't Woodrow on a loan to buy option? If we want him next summer?

[Leveller]

7 minutes ago, cynic said:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/club-most-players-out-loan-422630

It was this article that prompted my thoughts. I'm still not clear whether the players loaned out are always "ahead of the game" compared with those in our U23.

[CheddarReds]

20 minutes ago, Leveller said:

It was this article that prompted my thoughts. I'm still not clear whether the players loaned out are always "ahead of the game" compared with those in our U23.

Some are and some aren't. There are some in the 23s (Bakinson perhaps as a guess from what's been said) who will need some coaching and a 'development pathway' if you like here at the club that can shoot him into the first team. Others will need a loan in their 'development pathway' as they need something you can't get on the training pitch, which might be to get kicks and knocks more often and to get their bodies used to that. There's not really an answer to say Morrell out on loan is 100% ahead of Bakinson because he's out on loan and Bakinson isn't, and the same vice versa. They're two different players who have different needs and are at different stages in reaching their potential. To reach that some players might need a loan some won't IMO.

[shelts]

We're obsessed with buying . What ever happened to if your good enough your old enough and pushing our own through ?

[Major Isewater]

4 minutes ago, shelts said:

We're obsessed with buying . What ever happened to if your good enough your old enough and pushing our own through ?

Perhaps you've answered your own question . 

[shelts]

4 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Perhaps you've answered your own question . 

My mum said never answer a question with a question . What do you think Major?

[reddoh]

4 minutes ago, shelts said:

My mum said never answer a question with a question . What do you think Major?

My Mother used too say wait until your father gets home. On a Monday not too bothered but on Thursday when he would get home slightly apprehensive .

[Im_over_ere]

The thing I find kind of strange with some of the loans is that we say Freddie needs men's football and then loan him to the bottom L2 club. Why not have a deal with Luton so that we but him and loan him straight back to Luton (currently 6th place)? That way we can negotiate a better deal that suits both clubs, and really Luton must be doing something right if we keep looking at their players for potential. The same deal could have been done with Barkinson.

Also, BTW, that BEP web page, what a load of bloatware crap. Absolute shit evereytime I just want to have a quick read of an article.

[WhistleHappy]

Oh dammit, I should have read the opening post and not just the thread title....

I forwarded this to will.I.am c/o 'The Voice' ... thought it was a fan letter. 

 

(ps.. btw great name Mr Puzzled.i.am - but The Black Eyed Peas have no current vacancies at the moment. in case you're wondering, )

[Phileas Fogg]

16 minutes ago, Im_over_ere said:

The thing I find kind of strange with some of the loans is that we say Freddie needs men's football and then loan him to the bottom L2 club. Why not have a deal with Luton so that we but him and loan him straight back to Luton (currently 6th place)? That way we can negotiate a better deal that suits both clubs, and really Luton must be doing something right if we keep looking at their players for potential. The same deal could have been done with Barkinson.

Also, BTW, that BEP web page, what a load of bloatware crap. Absolute shit evereytime I just want to have a quick read of an article.

Maybe Luton didn't want him or couldn't guarantee him game time. I understand people's concerns with loaning to Cheltenham, but if it'll guarantee him games, it's local enough for him to train with us where needed and under an experienced manager that Lee obviously trusts - I don't think it's a big deal.

[Bristol_South_End]

LJ implied in his interview about the transfer window as a whole that Leko was actually offered to us based on how well Tammy did here, and that he's of a level of quality that we'd have been stupid to turn it down. So maybe we didn't actively look to sign a winger on loan but this situation was too good to turn down.

[BCFC Rich]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

There are obviously many different circumstances in different cases. However, in some ways it seems odd to, for example, buy the teenage striker Hinds, give him a couple of first team games (where he does really well) then loan him out, while bringing in the teenage striker (?) Leko. Leko, presumably will only have been lent to us on the understanding that he gets first team minutes. Is this justified by Leko’s higher quality/greater experience? On the other hand if he’s seen as a winger presumably he has to leapfrog Eliasson, O’Dowda, Paterson etc to get games.

4

I think it's a case of Leko is essentially seen as a high quality player we couldn't buy. With the kind of loan fee we probably agreed for him, it's better to think of it as signing him on a one year contract - we have loaned him but would happily have bought him if that was an option.

With Woodrow its a different type of loan as we have also agreed on a fee if we want to keep him. There are therefore two good reasons for this deal. 1. In the short term, we have cover for injured players and 2. he is effectively on an extended trial. His youth career suggests there may be a very good player hiding in there and this way we get to see if that is the case and sign if it is. If he doesn't produce for us he goes back to Fulham and we are no worse off. If he excels then we sign him and don't get held to ransom over the fee as this is already agreed. Essentially a season long try before you buy.

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

At the same time, we seem to have paid a considerable fee for Bakinson. This is a youngster who believed he should be in the first team of the club he left. He came to us, but seems to be destined for the U23s initially. Yet our better U23 players (eg Morrell) are sent out on loan to lower league teams, suggesting that is a step up from the U23s on the way to our first team? So who out of eg Morrell/Bakinson is seen as more likely to progress to our first team in the medium term?

It seems the “natural progression” is U23 – lower league first team on loan – our first team squad. Yet we have players joining us who are destined for the U23s but believe they have a chance of a first team place.

2

I think with Bakinsno it was a case of getting him too late to loan him out and possibly (though not as likely) LJ thinks he might break through sooner than expected - I base that mostly on the way he talked about him in the interview. If that is the case he has until Jan to prove himself to LJ otherwise he can go out on Loan. Ideally, he could have been signed and loaned back to Luton but it sounds like things didn't end perfectly there so probably for the best we didn't do that.

[cidered abroad]

Good post Leveller and, no, you are not being a bit thick. Several have already answered your concerns better than I can.

My take on it is that if we have Academy boys who are showing enough real promise that they might make it as a first team player here, they get experience of "adult" league football at the highest level possible below us. I know it sounds cruel, but they can there make their mistakes while learning, that do not directly impact on our status in the Championship.

By playing regularly, their bodies become attuned to the grind of English league football with a game every four days for a considerable part of the season. We've seen how incoming players from Europe have struggled to get any consistency because this scenario is almost unheard of with 18 team leagues and second tiers in some countries with a good percentage of "B" teams than stand alone clubs.

It's always been tough to break into the league side. While there will always be one who gets in young and stays there, Merrick and Gow for example, there will be plenty who take longer.

I remember over the years, so many City youngsters who played a couple or three in their first season, then 7 or 8 the next and it takes maybe three to five years to fully mature. Good example is Bobby Reid. I believe we are now doing it right for the first time since Alan Dicks in the late 1960's. So long as we keep our Championship status, it will bear fruit in the foreseeable future.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

What I don't quite understand is that we don't seem to let anyone go.  I mean, Joe Morrell has been on the fringe of the first team for what, five years?  But he is nowhere near a regular.  This is true of a number of 20- and 21- year-olds.  When do we say that they've missed the boat?

[Port Said Red]

In all walks of life people develop at different rates.

Sometimes it does someone good to move from a comfortable environment, it can help their development. It is not deliberate but it's human nature that people can get too comfortable with eachother, players can get into a routine as can the people coaching them. Bill Shankly used to change his team over a season (in the days that you could) because he said that either they move on or I do. 

 

[Lrrr]

4 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

What I don't quite understand is that we don't seem to let anyone go.  I mean, Joe Morrell has been on the fringe of the first team for what, five years?  But he is nowhere near a regular.  This is true of a number of 20- and 21- year-olds.  When do we say that they've missed the boat?

Wasn't he given a chance as opposed to being 'ready' for first team football at the time? So hardly on the fringe of the first team. As for age where 'they've missed the boat', you could argue this is the first season where Bobby Reid has really showed his first team potential being realised and he'll turn 25 this season. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Woodrow as a signing makes sense seeing as 2/5 of our strikers are out injured.

Đurić's injury is bad and Taylor will take a while to get fit.

Reid is new to the position and Diedhiou is new to the league. You can't guarantee both of those will adapt.

I can understand the need for additional bodies there, especially ones proven at Championship level which Woodrow is.

Maybe a better plan would of been to buy proven players in the first place.

Save all this flaffing about and keeping Wilbs or Engvall would have meant no need for Woodrow.

Don't quite understand how a short term loan to a rubbish 2nd div team will mean they are better and ready for championship football ? Hinds did ok v Watford why not sit him on the bench and give him 10/15/20/30mins of champ football....still in LJ you trust.

[Son of Fred]

5 hours ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

Please note, this is not a criticism of the club, more a need for me to understand the thinking behind the processes and stages involved.

 

We have fifteen players out on loan, several of whom are youngsters being brought on in “mens’ football” rather than playing in our own youth teams. Only Golbourne doesn’t really fit into this category (unless you count Engvall).

 

At the same time, we have brought in players on loan – Woodrow and Leko (any others?)

 

There are obviously many different circumstances in different cases. However, in some ways it seems odd to, for example, buy the teenage striker Hinds, give him a couple of first team games (where he does really well) then loan him out, while bringing in the teenage striker (?) Leko. Leko, presumably will only have been lent to us on the understanding that he gets first team minutes. Is this justified by Leko’s higher quality/greater experience? On the other hand if he’s seen as a winger presumably he has to leapfrog Eliasson, O’Dowda, Paterson etc to get games.

 

At the same time, we seem to have paid a considerable fee for Bakinson. This is a youngster who believed he should be in the first team of the club he left. He came to us, but seems to be destined for the U23s initially. Yet our better U23 players (eg Morrell) are sent out on loan to lower league teams, suggesting that is a step up from the U23s on the way to our first team? So who out of eg Morrell/Bakinson is seen as more likely to progress to our first team in the medium term?

 

It seems the “natural progression” is U23 – lower league first team on loan – our first team squad. Yet we have players joining us who are destined for the U23s but believe they have a chance of a first team place.

 

Is it a conundrum, or am I being thick? Or am I just being too logical and prescriptive? Is it just “horses for courses”?

 

You put your left foot in,left foot out,in,out,in,out.............  ... . .. ... ...  .....

[cidered abroad]

22 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

Maybe a better plan would of been to buy proven players in the first place.

Save all this flaffing about and keeping Wilbs or Engvall would have meant no need for Woodrow.

Don't quite understand how a short term loan to a rubbish 2nd div team will mean they are better and ready for championship football ? Hinds did ok v Watford why not sit him on the bench and give him 10/15/20/30mins of champ football....still in LJ you trust.

I guess that you and I are now well past 70 years and without intending to be rude or discourteous to you, I think you have not moved with the times and are using the same thinking that existed in 1950's English football. The game has changed so much and if City linger in the past, there is only one way to go.

I only hope that I live long enough to see the fruition of our new way of bringing up our youngsters.