Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

[Phileas Fogg]

33 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

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

Such as who?

33 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

Save all this flaffing about and keeping Wilbs

Too old to play regularly and wanted the move

33 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

or Engvall would have meant no need for Woodrow.

He's hardly proven

33 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

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.

Because he wouldn't play every week. It's far better for him to play every week. No substitute for first team games against men, much better than development squad football or 10 mins every 5 games from our bench.

[generation1]

suggest everyone listens to Tinnion interview and learns what the club is trying to do

 

[JamesBCFC]

As above the Tinnion interview is very good.

A lot of it comes down to experience in 'real' football.

Tinnion mentions a game where City U23s went down to 10 men because a player needed treatment after being elbowed.

The referee then said that if it was "a proper match" the opposition striker would have been sent off for the elbow, but it wasn't, so he wasn't.

[JoeAman08]

5 hours ago, shelts said:

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

I don't have problems with buying the youngsters in. It's a gamble to generate income. It's the opportunity for them to get into the first team. There are minutes here and there but no one playing a big part. 15 players out on loan, I suspect one or two could probably help this team out with a run of games. It seem however, that we only want to develop for the sale not the first team. 

I guess what I mean is, why not keep 2-3 around? Throw them into it every now and then and see how they adapt. Training with the first team would initself probably do some good for them. I know Vyner and Kelly are around but they seem to be immediate backups. Keep a Downing and Hinds around. Give them some bench time and a spot league start. I don't know the players like the club do but surely you can see when a young man isn't phased with the prospect of it. There are a few teenagers in the championship at their club helping out. Forest have that Brerton, Burton have a young midfielder named palmer I believe getting minutes. Kelly could be that one but surely with so many on loan another 1-2 who went could've contributed. 

[steviestevieneville]

48 minutes ago, generation1 said:

suggest everyone listens to Tinnion interview and learns what the club is trying to do

 

Not suggesting the op is doing this, but in general there are plenty of fans who doesn't watch or listen to any interviews even though they're free. They then come on here moaning about things that have been clearly explained .

[JamesBCFC]

19 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don't have problems with buying the youngsters in. It's a gamble to generate income. It's the opportunity for them to get into the first team. There are minutes here and there but no one playing a big part. 15 players out on loan, I suspect one or two could probably help this team out with a run of games. It seem however, that we only want to develop for the sale not the first team. 

I guess what I mean is, why not keep 2-3 around? Throw them into it every now and then and see how they adapt. Training with the first team would initself probably do some good for them. I know Vyner and Kelly are around but they seem to be immediate backups. Keep a Downing and Hinds around. Give them some bench time and a spot league start. I don't know the players like the club do but surely you can see when a young man isn't phased with the prospect of it. There are a few teenagers in the championship at their club helping out. Forest have that Brerton, Burton have a young midfielder named palmer I believe getting minutes. Kelly could be that one but surely with so many on loan another 1-2 who went could've contributed. 

I dont think any of the ones we have sent on loan would be troubling the first team players if they were given a run of games.

Kelly was one they talked about sending on loan, but has been kept with the first team because he actually could.

[JamesBCFC]

36 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Not suggesting the op is doing this, but in general there are plenty of fans who doesn't watch or listen to any interviews even though they're free. They then come on here moaning about things that have been clearly explained .

It is often the same people who do it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Such as who? I don't know exactly who, although I could probably find one who would imo be a better "risk" than the 5m man...who I`ve never heard of before he came here.

Too old to play regularly and wanted the move Flint "wanted to move" he`s still here

He's hardly proven, proven in his country and he was already paid for

Because he wouldn't play every week. It's far better for him to play every week. No substitute for first team games against men, much better than development squad football or 10 mins every 5 games from our bench. There is no guarantee of that he was a sub in his first match at Chelt, given Woodrow`s non first performance and Hinds at Watford I would have used the later from the bench....but hey its just an opinion.

Each to his own

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, cynic said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/exclusive-interview-brian-tinnion/

Not sure if it will make any difference but thought I'd try.

No difference, say what I think not what I`m told to think; do like tinman though.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

It is often the same people who do it.

and why shouldn't they ? or should we just shut up and just have the same opinions as the club/management; its just opinions.

Should we not question anything.

[JamesBCFC]

5 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

No difference, say what I think not what I`m told to think; do like tinman though.

No one is telling you what to say.

Perhaps instead of searching for reasons to be grumpy, have a listen to what Tinnion says and then have a think (unlikely for you, I know).

[JamesBCFC]

1 minute ago, glos old boy said:

and why shouldn't they ? or should we just shut up and just have the same opinions as the club/management; its just opinions.

Should we not question anything.

Read what was said ffs.

Asking questions is perfectly valid.

Asking an already answered question is idiotic.

 

Club- 2+2=4

Grumpy old gits who slag the club off for everything- *Posts thread on OTIB* What is 2+2?

Poster on OTIB- *posts link to where the club says 2+2=4*

Grumpy old gits who slag the club off for everything- so what is 2+2? Can't be 4 if the club says that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

No one is telling you what to say.

Perhaps instead of searching for reasons to be grumpy, have a listen to what Tinnion says and then have a think (unlikely for you, I know).

The best laid plans go tits up many times, but you are right nothing I can do, so hey ho ....bring on Europe

[Phileas Fogg]

13 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

Each to his own

I understand why people see the Diedhiou signing is a risk, of course it is. But then again, so is Boro spending 3x that on Assombalonga who's had a terrible injury. Every transfer is a risk of sorts. The fact you haven't heard of Diedhiou is neither here nor there though.

The difference is we were willing to let Wilbraham go for basically nothing because he holds no market value, Flint does hence the high asking price.

Engvall being 'proven' in Sweden doesn't mean much, he's not shown evidence that he can do it in the championship yet. Woodrow has.

Hinds will get more minutes at Cheltenham than he would here. Him being sub in one game doesn't mean much at all. They're a poor side and will need to change things about.

[JamesBCFC]

3 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I understand why people see the Diedhiou signing is a risk, of course it is. But then again, so is Boro spending 3x that on Assombalonga who's had a terrible injury. Every transfer is a risk of sorts. The fact you haven't heard of Diedhiou is neither here nor there though.

The difference is we were willing to let Wilbraham go for basically nothing because he holds no market value, Flint does hence the high asking price.

Engvall being 'proven' in Sweden doesn't mean much, he's not shown evidence that he can do it in the championship yet. Woodrow has.

Hinds will get more minutes at Cheltenham than he would here. Him being sub in one game doesn't mean much at all. They're a poor side and will need to change things about.

Its a waste of time responding to GOB.

Just go along with it.

"We're all doomed, LJ is the anti-christ" etc etc.

[RedKatieScarlett]

Surely we are doing what the bigger clubs do - speculating and taking chances and looking for the next best thing got our own team/status but also financially. To me, it looks like big thinking , future thinking and everything we want BCFC to be aiming for. 

[kanemochi]

38 minutes ago, cynic said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/exclusive-interview-brian-tinnion/

Not sure if it will make any difference but thought I'd try.

Watched the interview with Tinman earlier. Found it quite interesting and see it as a positive that so many players are being given a chance to play regularly.

Our academy has produced next to nothing in the past and keeping young players in the background, without any real conpetitive action, clearly hasn't worked. It'll be interesting to see how much this group can progress over the next 12-24 months and if any of them are any nearer to the 1st team squad.

[Bristol Rob]

11 minutes ago, kanemochi said:

Watched the interview with Tinman earlier. Found it quite interesting and see it as a positive that so many players are being given a chance to play regularly.

Our academy has produced next to nothing in the past and keeping young players in the background, without any real conpetitive action, clearly hasn't worked. It'll be interesting to see how much this group can progress over the next 12-24 months and if any of them are any nearer to the 1st team squad.

Agree. It was encouraging to hear him.

Hopefully as well, that with a managed and sensible approach to developing young players that if we progress as a first team in the way we (as fans) hope we will, those who aren't ready for us can go on for a career elsewhere.

People seem to forget the if we are are to be an established Championship side we won't want 'league one or two youth', we will need championship with view to Prem youth. With limits the pool further.

The higher we play, the fewer kids we can expect (at this point) to make the grade.

Sounds to me like opportunities are being afforded to these young players.

[Lrrr]

3 hours 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.

Name a proven championship goalscorer who we could sign for £5.3m or whatever it was.

Keep Engvall? So play him for maybe 15-20 mins vs starting week in week out and he returns in November fully fit, ready to go and hopefully in good form. As for Hinds, same principal, hopefully he'll begin to start games so 15 mins vs starting games, if he does well we could bring him back when his loan expires, or send him to league 1 or 2 based on how he does. As for Wilbs he wanted more game time which we wouldn't have been offering, so we get another teams player on loan to sit on our bench and get limited game time. 

[Pezo]

Could you imagine if we got to the prem and didn't have much experience of loaning players, every championship team would walk all over us in getting players that we want playing at that level and the chance to loan from AC Milan, Madrid or Barcelona would be off the table before it was on.

This is a learing experience for the club as well.

[Toffee dog]

Interesting interview, Engvall appears to be very much part of the future & most loans were planned before season had started. Didn't realise Tinnion has been back here for 5 years! 

[pillred]

11 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”?

 

horses for courses, some of the restaurants I have eaten in lately wouldn't surprise me.

[City Ben]

6 hours ago, kanemochi said:

Our academy has produced next to nothing in the past and keeping young players in the background, without any real conpetitive action, clearly hasn't worked. 

This is an important point. For those who don't "get it" - think of this simply as a break from our traditional approach. A traditional approach which didn't achieve much! Would you rather we went back to the old way?

[JoeAman08]

9 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

I dont think any of the ones we have sent on loan would be troubling the first team players if they were given a run of games.

Kelly was one they talked about sending on loan, but has been kept with the first team because he actually could.

It's more fast tracking than troubling first team. Though the point remains, we don't know because they've all gone on loan. I look at those 15 and don't see where they get minutes. You have to just gamble a bit and throw them in there. Like I said, not all of them but surely there are 1-2 we could've kept with us and given a few league appearances to see how they get on. 

[JamesBCFC]

22 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

It's more fast tracking than troubling first team. Though the point remains, we don't know because they've all gone on loan. I look at those 15 and don't see where they get minutes. You have to just gamble a bit and throw them in there. Like I said, not all of them but surely there are 1-2 we could've kept with us and given a few league appearances to see how they get on. 

But isnt that partly why a number of the loans are only 6 months?

They have until January to impress, if anyone does really well they will earn such an opportunity.

If they do well, but dont quite impress enough then a loan at a higher level is likely.

 

At the same time if they were kept around, then during the points where they arent in the first team they would be back in the U23s. While them playing mens football even at the Conference would be more beneficial and would actually help them progress and fast track them more that the occasional game here and there.

At the same time, having these players out on loan means we are moving players up from our U18s to the U23s (Tinnion mentions this) which also benefts those players for the same reasons, but to a lesser extent.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

10 hours ago, glos old boy said:

and why shouldn't they ? or should we just shut up and just have the same opinions as the club/management; its just opinions.

Should we not question anything.

Last time I questioned your boycotting of all things BCFC ( just cos you intensely dislike LJ) - you seemed to get rather irritated.

It's not so much a matter of not questioning anything but the fact that you have to question everything and accompany it with spleen venting criticism.

As for Cheltenham being "rubbish"- I have to admit to rather admiring a team from a little town in a footballing wasteland that plays in the Football League. The fact that we can use that club as a proving ground for our younger players whilst keeping a close eye on them is useful.

I doubt there are too many players in the U23's who wouldn't swap a match at Failand on a Sat morning for any League match in front of a few thousand.

 

[JoeAman08]

2 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

But isnt that partly why a number of the loans are only 6 months?

They have until January to impress, if anyone does really well they will earn such an opportunity.

If they do well, but dont quite impress enough then a loan at a higher level is likely.

 

At the same time if they were kept around, then during the points where they arent in the first team they would be back in the U23s. While them playing mens football even at the Conference would be more beneficial and would actually help them progress and fast track them more that the occasional game here and there.

At the same time, having these players out on loan means we are moving players up from our U18s to the U23s (Tinnion mentions this) which also benefts those players for the same reasons, but to a lesser extent.

I hope so. I'm all for the loans just optimist in me think there is probably at least one in there who could impress and possibly take a first XI spot. They just need the chance. 

[Phileas Fogg]

6 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

I hope so. I'm all for the loans just optimist in me think there is probably at least one in there who could impress and possibly take a first XI spot. They just need the chance. 

Who springs to mind?

I think our best prospect right now is Lloyd Kelly, isn't he doing exactly what you're describing should happen?

[JoeAman08]

45 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Who springs to mind?

I think our best prospect right now is Lloyd Kelly, isn't he doing exactly what you're describing should happen?

Yes it's true I have mentioned him in this. Probably not many close to the first team that are out on loan. Just feel it would have been better to keep one or two around and close to the first team. For me, Dowling would've stuck around and I would give him a few minutes off the bench and a couple spot starts to see how he got on. For me, he looks a footballer. He's got the size, athleticism and football brain to succeed imo. He'll get good experience at Torquay(and only a month loan at the moment). Just feel like we could do a bit more to help some of them along to the first team without seriously disrupting the season. 

I get the feel we are more hoping someone has a good season in a lower league and is bought for a good profit similar to Wes Burns. Doesn't feel too much like they're prepping them for our first team. Not trying to sound negative because I think we are doing superbly with youth just think one or two more could be a bit more fast tracked. 

[Ian M]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

Yes it's true I have mentioned him in this. Probably not many close to the first team that are out on loan. Just feel it would have been better to keep one or two around and close to the first team. For me, Dowling would've stuck around and I would give him a few minutes off the bench and a couple spot starts to see how he got on. For me, he looks a footballer. He's got the size, athleticism and football brain to succeed imo. He'll get good experience at Torquay(and only a month loan at the moment). Just feel like we could do a bit more to help some of them along to the first team without seriously disrupting the season. 

I get the feel we are more hoping someone has a good season in a lower league and is bought for a good profit similar to Wes Burns. Doesn't feel too much like they're prepping them for our first team. Not trying to sound negative because I think we are doing superbly with youth just think one or two more could be a bit more fast tracked. 

I usually agree with a lot you say but we still have 25 players left here and with 11 starting plus 3 subs, 11 won't get any minutes at all each week and you want to keep 1 or 2 back to increase this to 13 getting minimal exposure to men's football. I would preferred two more to go out, Vyner (where Korey could do an ample job covering RB if required now we have lots of CMs of similar standard) and one of the two young goalies, preferably Lucic.

Im not particularly fussed about the level, it's more about dealing with the challenge of men pushing you, fouling you etc and knowing what it means to really need those 3 points. U23 football may be technically proficient but you're playing against other kids who haven't fully developed their strength yet and for coaches who admit wins are nice but not the be all or end all. Look at the difference between Tammy's hold up play in August to May once he had a season of playing against men behind him.