Young Guns - offered extensions

[Nogbad the Bad]

15 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Define physically tougher, all players now are a lot fitter and cover more distance per game, all players are on specific gym routines lifting weights etc so arguably the players are all physically stronger now so if anything could be harder for young players to cope with the physicality of the modern game. While they're still physically developing what they can do gym wise will still be limited to people in their early/mid 20's.

OK, let's start with today's season long pristine pitches. No 4 month Winter of strength sapping cloying sludge to wade through these days.

Then tackling, and accompanying impact injuries (which you were expected to get up and play through after a quick rub down with a cold sponge btw.)

Or start the game with an injection for a previous injury to get you through the match.

Tackling and the physical contact and injuries that resulted hardly exists today.

Then the amount of stoppages ('rest periods') in the game today. The absurd PC nonsense where players are expected to kick the ball out for an injured opposition player instead of waiting for the ref's whistle. Nice in- match rest for everyone while the physio spends minutes over attending to the player, while the fans look on comatosed.

Now the players are so pampered we even have stoppages for a drinks break and drinks all round when a player is down injured!

Then let's move on to the number of substitutions allowed today, the result being that many players today only play 65 minutes per match.

In Gow and Merrick's day it was 1 sub. and very often not even used unless there was an injury, hence in our promotion team of the 70's 8 or 9 players played almost every match and 3 or 4 did not miss a single game.

THAT is physically knackering, but football was expected to be knackering! Squads of maybe 16 plus a few youngsters - like Gow and Merrick - who would step in, and have to sink or swim, when required by circumstances. Today squads number in the mid to high 20's with rotation - a week or 2 out of the team - now considered acceptable if any of them feel a bit tired. 

Gow & Merrick and others like them were not introduced gradually with 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there sub appearances - they were given their debuts when thought ready, or just because injuries made it imperative, and if they played well - as these 2 did - they kept their place.

There is absolutely no comparison on the physical demands on individual players in the late 60's and now - if you'd watched football in those days you'd know that.

 

 

12 hours ago, TBW said:

You really think football then was more difficult? Yes players may have been "harder" but with modern training methods, dieticians, a wider talent pool etc. the comparison shouldn't even be made. The difference between player ability from top-bottom divisions is much more vast now than back then.

 

No, I said it was physically tougher. See above.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Redtucks said:

As you say 'might', 'maybe', 'perhaps'...... but who is best placed to judge and make such decisions?

Coaching staff who deal with players on a daily basis, or fans who, in the vast majority of cases, know very little?

 

Fair enough boss. You win. 
Of course the coaching staff know more than me. I’m very sorry for having my own opinion that I share on a fans forum for a discussion. 
 

Jeez mate - if none of us had an opinion then this would be a rather quiet place. 

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

There are others that need decisions too. I know Hinds was in the post Covid squads but is he a serious contender to stay, or be released. Connor Lemonheigh-Evans must surely be released and what about Rory Holden? 

[Lrrr]

4 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I know Hinds was in the post Covid squads but is he a serious contender to stay, or be released

Hinds had to be included in squads when we had no other 1st team players available, it was him then the guys returning from loans being included in squads because he had a few 1st team minutes.

[Portland Bill]

15 hours ago, Top Robin said:

Tbh I think your post is a tad silly also because the coaching staff is cr*p and need changing as soon as a proper manager steps in. 

So you know all the Academy and youth coaches do you?

Thats a very wide ranging statement you have made, does Brian Tinnion who would be over seeing these players not know what he’s doing? 

[cidered abroad]

1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

OK, let's start with today's season long pristine pitches. No 4 month Winter of strength sapping cloying sludge to wade through these days.

Then tackling, and accompanying impact injuries (which you were expected to get up and play through after a quick rub down with a cold sponge btw.)

Or start the game with an injection for a previous injury to get you through the match.

Tackling and the physical contact and injuries that resulted hardly exists today.

Then the amount of stoppages ('rest periods') in the game today. The absurd PC nonsense where players are expected to kick the ball out for an injured opposition player instead of waiting for the ref's whistle. Nice in- match rest for everyone while the physio spends minutes over attending to the player, while the fans look on comatosed.

Now the players are so pampered we even have stoppages for a drinks break and drinks all round when a player is down injured!

Then let's move on to the number of substitutions allowed today, the result being that many players today only play 65 minutes per match.

In Gow and Merrick's day it was 1 sub. and very often not even used unless there was an injury, hence in our promotion team of the 70's 8 or 9 players played almost every match and 3 or 4 did not miss a single game.

THAT is physically knackering, but football was expected to be knackering! Squads of maybe 16 plus a few youngsters - like Gow and Merrick - who would step in, and have to sink or swim, when required by circumstances. Today squads number in the mid to high 20's with rotation - a week or 2 out of the team - now considered acceptable if any of them feel a bit tired. 

Gow & Merrick and others like them were not introduced gradually with 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there sub appearances - they were given their debuts when thought ready, or just because injuries made it imperative, and if they played well - as these 2 did - they kept their place.

There is absolutely no comparison on the physical demands on individual players in the late 60's and now - if you'd watched football in those days you'd know that.

 

 

No, I said it was physically tougher. See above.

Brilliant.

Trevor Tainton progressed from youth to first team by playing five/six games a season and then more and more until a fixture in the side.

Playing for his own club and with his own team mates. Not 200 miles away for another club.

I wonder if we have really progressed.

[Top Robin]

2 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

So you know all the Academy and youth coaches do you?

Thats a very wide ranging statement you have made, does Brian Tinnion who would be over seeing these players not know what he’s doing? 

We need a total refresh and get some quality coaches in at all levels not ex players for sentimental reasons

Hopefully, the new manager will oversee this.

[Portland Bill]

Just now, Top Robin said:

We need a total refresh and get some quality coaches in at all levels not ex players for sentimental reasons

Hopefully, the new manager will oversee this.

So you would sack all the Academy coaches ?

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

20 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Hinds had to be included in squads when we had no other 1st team players available, it was him then the guys returning from loans being included in squads because he had a few 1st team minutes.

You're right of course, I'd forgotten, but I just don't see how Hinds has a future at City. 

[frenchred]

of all the youngsters mentioned in this thread who are yet to play for our first teami would be surprised if 2 or more actually made it with us

[Davefevs]

18 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Gow and Merrick made their City debuts in this division at 17.

Much physically tougher game back then as well.

If Pearson is good enough then at almost 19 there should be no problem integrating him into the match day squad.

Comparisons of modern game to game in 70s / 80s is pretty futile really, there are so many differences.  However, I still believe that a good player then would be a good player now, and vice versa.  So you’re right, old adage, if you’re good enough, you’re old enough.  The only thing to add is that the youngster’s body probably develops later to be ready for the demands of pro football, so you need to manage their “growth” with their development.

17 hours ago, Harry said:

I think you misunderstand. 
 

Note my use of the words “be brave” in my first post to which you replied. 
I was merely suggesting that, if we wanted to be brave, then perhaps Pearson is one that could be included in the first team squad next season. 
He generally plays wide I believe. Eliasson could be off. O’Dowda’s no great shakes. Watkins too. A “brave” move might be to give him ‘some’ first team exposure. 
 

Your replies seem to be suggesting that I said he should start every game. Not the case your honour. Just given some squad opportunities. 
 

This is partly exacerbated by the shocking loan system in place at the mo’, it’s counter productive to developing players and giving them experience.

Ignoring what decisions were made under LJ last season, it would’ve made sense to recall Walsh or Morrell when Nagy got injured, but we couldn’t.

We are left with that position where you don’t want to loan a player you need for cover, but don’t want him playing just u23 football.

It needs a huge rethink.

A few ideas.

- no loan within same division (integrity)

- keep same half / full season loans for 23 and over 

- allow shorter loans for u23, with mutually agreed recall clauses

- fixed wage percentage for all u23 loans, e.g. everyone pay 50%, it’s about their development

15 hours ago, TBW said:

You really think football then was more difficult? Yes players may have been "harder" but with modern training methods, dieticians, a wider talent pool etc. the comparison shouldn't even be made. The difference between player ability from top-bottom divisions is much more vast now than back then.

I never said anything about starting.

Being brave isn't necessarily always a good thing. You can be brave and fall flat on your face. I'd rather us not do that to ourselves or to a young talent who needs more time to develop at a lower level.

I do think we delay giving them chance to sink or swim.

And then we buy-in players blocking that opportunity.  In a simplistic example - Walsh blocks Morrell who is then blocked by Massengo.

[GrahamC]

2 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

There are others that need decisions too. I know Hinds was in the post Covid squads but is he a serious contender to stay, or be released. Connor Lemonheigh-Evans must surely be released and what about Rory Holden? 

Just checked today Lemonheigh- Evans still has a year left on his contract...

He is now 23, FFS, (24 in January) but the highest standard of football he has ever played in is at Torquay, so not even L2. For instance he is 5 years older than Massengo who has just played 25 Championship games..

Why on earth do we keep these players on? That he’ll possibly develop by the time he’s 30?

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Like Gilmartin (Gregor said today he is on £200k a year!) we are some ******* Christmas club for those who will never make it or fancy money for nothing.

[P'head Red]

8 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Just checked today Lemonheigh- Evans still has a year left on his contract...

He is now 23, FFS, (24 in January) but the highest standard of football he has ever played in is at Torquay, so not even L2. For instance he is 5 years older than Massengo who has just played 25 Championship games.

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Agree with this, a lot of the academy lads are too old now to be considered ones for the future. 

[Shuffle]

15 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Just checked today Lemonheigh- Evans still has a year left on his contract...

He is now 23, FFS, (24 in January) but the highest standard of football he has ever played in is at Torquay, so not even L2. For instance he is 5 years older than Massengo who has just played 25 Championship games..

Why on earth do we keep these players on? That he’ll possibly develop by the time he’s 30?

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Like Gilmartin (Gregor said today he is on £200k a year!) we are some ******* Christmas club for those who will never make it or fancy money for nothing.

45 pros on contract or offered new terms. Add in the loans of 4 players plus those released in Smith,Wright, Taylor, Maenpaa we had a staggering 53 pros paid for from January. Read this morning about the £200k for Gilmartin and how on earth have we ended up with so much excess in the squad. 
 

More  prudent management of contracts in a loss making business has to be a priority & shocked that basic principles of cost control go out the window.

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Just checked today Lemonheigh- Evans still has a year left on his contract...

He is now 23, FFS, (24 in January) but the highest standard of football he has ever played in is at Torquay, so not even L2. For instance he is 5 years older than Massengo who has just played 25 Championship games..

Why on earth do we keep these players on? That he’ll possibly develop by the time he’s 30?

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Like Gilmartin (Gregor said today he is on £200k a year!) we are some ******* Christmas club for those who will never make it or fancy money for nothing.

Always wondered that too.

[Redtucks]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Fair enough boss. You win. 
Of course the coaching staff know more than me. I’m very sorry for having my own opinion that I share on a fans forum for a discussion. 
 

Jeez mate - if none of us had an opinion then this would be a rather quiet place. 

Nothing wrong at all with any of us having opinions.

But for any of our opinions to have any credence, they need to be based on knowledge, experience or fact. Hence my belief that the coaching staff have a better opinion that you or I.

 

[GrahamC]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Always wondered that too.

Not his fault at all, but I think Bobby Reid is a part of the reason here.

The fact that he developed late and we then cashed in big style when we might have let him go a year or so before, seems to have led to us keeping so many of these on well beyond a time when realistically they will ever make it at Championship level.

I think that the new man needs to initiate conversations with a lot of these lads & make it very clear their futures lie elsewhere.

We could lose 8 of them & it wouldn’t make any difference at all.

[Lrrr]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Like Gilmartin (Gregor said today he is on £200k a year!) we are some ******* Christmas club for those who will never make it or fancy money for nothing.

We need to be able to field an U23's side will account for academy lads/players we brought in young still around. Factor in how many players we loan out and obviously it does bloat how many we pay (the comment somewhere about us paying 50 odd players) your 2 options are either don't loan any out and they play 23's and pay less players but they don't experience league football or you do what we do and have to pay more. Does it matter if we have this many people but clubs paid say 70%/80% of their wages? several players out on loan would then be similar to 2 or so that we paid 100%.

On Gillmartin with Max and Jojo both out on loan it was said at the time we wanted a third senior keeper should both Dan and Niki get injured, its the equivalent of Man City paying Scott Carson or Rob Green at Chelsea who said he got paid £30,000 a week odd to make cups of tea you know you're probably not going to play unless a break glass in case of emergency situation. You've sent your best academy keepers out on loan so its not a case of play one of the kids when you have to.

[GrahamC]

3 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

We need to be able to field an U23's side will account for academy lads/players we brought in young still around. Factor in how many players we loan out and obviously it does bloat how many we pay (the comment somewhere about us paying 50 odd players) your 2 options are either don't loan any out and they play 23's and pay less players but they don't experience league football or you do what we do and have to pay more. Does it matter if we have this many people but clubs paid say 70%/80% of their wages? several players out on loan would then be similar to 2 or so that we paid 100%.

On Gillmartin with Max and Jojo both out on loan it was said at the time we wanted a third senior keeper should both Dan and Niki get injured, its the equivalent of Man City paying Scott Carson or Rob Green at Chelsea who said he got paid £30,000 a week odd to make cups of tea you know you're probably not going to play unless a break glass in case of emergency situation. You've sent your best academy keepers out on loan so its not a case of play one of the kids when you have to.

Thanks for the reply.

2 points, I would be absolutely amazed if the sort of sides we loan players out to pay “70-80%” of their wages, but accept there is a balance between them getting experience in first team football & the U23s. I simply think we have far too many kept on for far too long who will never make it.

Gilmartin was just a ridiculous signing, he struggled to ever be first choice at Colchester in L2, so this set of circumstances where we ever need him are incredibly unlikely. 

Max needed a season on loan & that worked out very well, but Jojo barely featured at Forest Green (9 starts) so was back by January anyway. In the interim if either Bentley or Maenpaa had got injured with both Max & Jojo out on loan, we could have made an emergency loan signing. 

Paying Gilmartin £200k a year to sit on the bench as an unused sub just 4 times is a really scandalous waste of money.

[Nogbad the Bad]

11 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Just checked today Lemonheigh- Evans still has a year left on his contract...

He is now 23, FFS, (24 in January) but the highest standard of football he has ever played in is at Torquay, so not even L2. For instance he is 5 years older than Massengo who has just played 25 Championship games..

Why on earth do we keep these players on? That he’ll possibly develop by the time he’s 30?

We have loads of them, Baldwin, Cundy, Holden plus Hinds, who is younger but has had pointless loan spells at likes of Wrexham & Colchester where he never played once.

Like Gilmartin (Gregor said today he is on £200k a year!) we are some ******* Christmas club for those who will never make it or fancy money for nothing.

200k? Incredible, and a goalkeeping coach/'player' who Colchester fans have said is probably the worst 'keeper they've ever had.

Really a bewildering 'signing' by City.

Nice bloke though, so my barber told me, and I suppose you can't have too many nice blokes in the background at AG. even at 200k a year. 

[Lrrr]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

Thanks for the reply.

2 points, I would be absolutely amazed if the sort of sides we loan players out to pay “70-80%” of their wages, but accept there is a balance between them getting experience in first team football & the U23s. I simply think we have far too many kept on for far too long who will never make it.

Gilmartin was just a ridiculous signing, he struggled to ever be first choice at Colchester in L2, so this set of circumstances where we ever need him are incredibly unlikely. 

Max needed a season on loan & that worked out very well, but Jojo barely featured at Forest Green (9 starts) so was back by January anyway. In the interim if either Bentley or Maenpaa had got injured with both Max & Jojo out on loan, we could have made an emergency loan signing. 

Paying Gilmartin £200k a year to sit on the bench as an unused sub just 4 times is a really scandalous waste of money.

I said 70%/80% as on balance some may pay us 100% because they want the player badly ie Cov/Lincoln/Shrewsbury quite conceivably have stumped up for Walsh, Morrell, O'Leary etc but flip side some probably pay us 40%/50% ish as well, don't think we'd loan many players out for practically no contribution unless it was first experience of league football etc.

Emergency loans are risky relying on a club having someone available that they don't need and may not need as well, Gillmartin being around allowed him to be involved with training every day as well, logistics wise could help if Mountain was working with one of the others.

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Not his fault at all, but I think Bobby Reid is a part of the reason here.

The fact that he developed late and we then cashed in big style when we might have let him go a year or so before, seems to have led to us keeping so many of these on well beyond a time when realistically they will ever make it at Championship level.

I think that the new man needs to initiate conversations with a lot of these lads & make it very clear their futures lie elsewhere.

We could lose 8 of them & it wouldn’t make any difference at all.

You’re probably right Using the Reid example, but look how many games Bobby played before getting to Connor’s age....72 EFL appearances by that point....that was two seasons before he had his wonder season.  If they’re comparing Conor to Bobby, theyre using the wrong comparison.  They aren’t decisive enough.

42 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

We need to be able to field an U23's side will account for academy lads/players we brought in young still around. Factor in how many players we loan out and obviously it does bloat how many we pay (the comment somewhere about us paying 50 odd players) your 2 options are either don't loan any out and they play 23's and pay less players but they don't experience league football or you do what we do and have to pay more. Does it matter if we have this many people but clubs paid say 70%/80% of their wages? several players out on loan would then be similar to 2 or so that we paid 100%.

On Gillmartin with Max and Jojo both out on loan it was said at the time we wanted a third senior keeper should both Dan and Niki get injured, its the equivalent of Man City paying Scott Carson or Rob Green at Chelsea who said he got paid £30,000 a week odd to make cups of tea you know you're probably not going to play unless a break glass in case of emergency situation. You've sent your best academy keepers out on loan so its not a case of play one of the kids when you have to.

I know u23 isn’t ideal prep (under the current u23 league), but what if City bucked the trend and said our u23s are genuinely gonna be the next step to first team....and not use loans.  Palace used Whickham last season, we’ve used over 23s.  Drilled them in sane style as first team, etc, etc.

29 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Thanks for the reply.

2 points, I would be absolutely amazed if the sort of sides we loan players out to pay “70-80%” of their wages, but accept there is a balance between them getting experience in first team football & the U23s. I simply think we have far too many kept on for far too long who will never make it.

Gilmartin was just a ridiculous signing, he struggled to ever be first choice at Colchester in L2, so this set of circumstances where we ever need him are incredibly unlikely. 

Max needed a season on loan & that worked out very well, but Jojo barely featured at Forest Green (9 starts) so was back by January anyway. In the interim if either Bentley or Maenpaa had got injured with both Max & Jojo out on loan, we could have made an emergency loan signing. 

Paying Gilmartin £200k a year to sit on the bench as an unused sub just 4 times is a really scandalous waste of money.

JoJo definitely needed EFL experience, Max’s loan imho was proof that LJ didn’t trust him.  In a lot of supporters eyes, he did enough last season to be a fully fledged no2 to either Maenpaa (who was extended) before Bentley signed.

I get the logic of Gilmartin (don’t necessarily agree with it), but not with Maenpaa and Bentley.

[Lrrr]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

I know u23 isn’t ideal prep (under the current u23 league), but what if City bucked the trend and said our u23s are genuinely gonna be the next step to first team....and not use loans.  Palace used Whickham last season, we’ve used over 23s.  Drilled them in sane style as first team, etc, etc.

Wouldn't be the only ones, Aston Villa maintain a strong u23's side, Swansea generally do and no doubt some of the smaller PL academies etc. The irony is if all clubs kept their strongest u23's side possible and allowed 3 older heads like they do atm then the standard of u23's football would be a lot higher and possibly that of league 2 and maybe 1 anyway. An example of an u23's team we could field in such an environment

                               O'Leary

      Vyner      Cundy         Baldwin         Pring       

                              Morton

                 Morrell                Walsh

                             Szmodics

                Semenyo             Holden

 

Leaves the likes of Bakinson, J.Smith, Edwards x2, Janneh, Hinds, Adelakun etc as well. That frankly could well be a bottom of league 1/top of league 2 team, factor in 3 older players being allowed to play you could easily have had Taylor Moore when he wasn't getting minutes, Marley Watkins to have wingers with Smith, Kasey getting a run of 90 minutes ready to come back in confident etc

[Davefevs]

Ta @Lrrr  so that approach could work?

[Lrrr]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Ta @Lrrr  so that approach could work?

If every club decided to go that way then yeah in principle but it won't because you get the teams who do loan out lots of players only in the last few years have we really committed with this style.

[Davefevs]

58 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

If every club decided to go that way then yeah in principle but it won't because you get the teams who do loan out lots of players only in the last few years have we really committed with this style.

Yeah, but if a few more did, that might make enough of a difference to get more out of those games.  When you look critically at it, the u23 concept was not designed to be pretty, pretty, pass it about, nobody tackles, etc....was it?

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, but if a few more did, that might make enough of a difference to get more out of those games.  When you look critically at it, the u23 concept was not designed to be pretty, pretty, pass it about, nobody tackles, etc....was it?

It never used to be back in the day. I`ve seen some real blood & thunder games - particularly against them up the road.

[Davefevs]

58 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

It never used to be back in the day. I`ve seen some real blood & thunder games - particularly against them up the road.

Was that the old Football Combination days, or more recently.  I think any City / Rovers game at any age will have some edge.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Was that the old Football Combination days, or more recently.  I think any City / Rovers game at any age will have some edge.

Yes, the old Combination. They should never have done away with it IMO.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Yes, the old Combination. They should never have done away with it IMO.

And the Pontins League.