S'od - Youngsters Won't Be Rushed

[djb6162]

My thoughts are:

1) What youngsters? Are you suggesting we throw some of the Development Squad into the mix? That would unquestionably result in a humiliating battering live on Sky. There's only really Ajala and Burns and I'm sure they will both be on the bench. Therefore, he is blooding some young uns.

2) There is an argument to get some of our high earners in the shop window and this is a good opportunity to do it.

3) What other teams that have meaningless games suddenly ditch their first team and play the reserve team/development squad? It just doesn't happen. Blood one or two yes, but not the whole team.

4) He will play players that will be here next season just as he did on Tuesday.

5) Why unsettle Reid and Bryan when they are getting good experience at their loan clubs?

6) "If we cant play the young lads now, when can we?" - Next season in League One, not away to the second best team in the league who are likely to demolish us.

I think you are essentially right in most of what you say above, as frustrating as it may be for the disappointed fans to watch the same old !!

However i would hate it if Wes was to start and the team were losing 3-0 at HT,and he was then taken off early second half... what would be achieved ?

The right decision here is put Wes on the bench and then give him 30 minutes (he had 15 on Tuesday)

a lot of the players on show tonight will have played 3 games in 8 days or so... what better opportunity for Wes, than to come on show his pace and attacking flare against a tiring defender.

we saw it v Leicester and i suspect we will be 2 down at least by the time Wes comes on.

that has to be the right thing for him, and maybe give toby 15 mins as well

Would love him to start, but really that's selfish of me.... the best thing for his development is the above scenario

bet i am not far off !!!

[GrahamC]

I thought they could both be recalled on 24 hours notice, apologies if incorrect.

More than that though, from what I've seen of these two, as I said before, I thought they were as good as what was still here, so I dont know why for example Reid is at Oldham and Howard has sat on the bench for the past 15 games. Where is the future in that? Will Howard be here next season? No. Is he considered good enough to help this season? Evidently not.

Its a forum, my opinion and others is we should start playing the players that will be here next season. They may be young, but they are also professional footballers. Sink or swim. No-one is suggesting 6 or 7 youngsters, just the 2 or 3 decent ones we've seen. If our policy is supposedly youth, let see it.

As for S'OD bashing, nobody is doing that. Its called opinions.

I partially agree.

No-one in their right mind wants to see a team completely comprised of the Academy kids gettting hammered, only for some to come on here and say they should all be playing up the Downs, Bryan was getting flak earlier in the season on here, now he's apparently the new Gareth Bale because he's proved too good for league two. I have seen ridiculous posts on here that included the 17 year old Academy keeper plus other youngsters who I'm pretty sure will be on their way this summer.

However I've been completely baffled by for instance O'Driscoll's recent use of Mark Wilson in the squad, memorably at Burnley when the bench already included Foster, (another RB) plus both Carey and James Wilson, meaning his chances of getting on the pitch must have been only marginally more likely than any of us.

Wouldn't Ajala or Luke Dobie (who we have given a contract for next season) have been more logical choices?

Reid and Bryan can be recalled now and I for one would have liked to have seen the latter start tonight with the former (who is only making Oldham's bench anyway), on our subs bench instead of theirs.

That doesn't mean I don't think O'Driscoll is approaching the task in a good way, it simply means I don't agree with all he does.

[Monkeh]

I partially agree.

No-one in their right mind wants to see a team completely comprised of the Academy kids gettting hammered, only for some to come on hear and say they should all be playing up the Downs, Bryan was getting flak earlier in the season on here, now he's apparently the new Gareth Bale because he's proved too good for league two. I have seen ridiculous posts on here that included the 17 year old Academy keeper plus other youngsters who I'm pretty sure will be on their way this summer.

However I've been completely baffled by for instance O'Driscoll's recent use of Mark Wilson in the squad, memorably at Burnley when the bench already included Foster, (another RB) plus both Carey and Bates, meaning his chances of getting on the pitch must have been only marginally more likely than any of us.

Wouldn't Ajala or Luke Dobie (who we have given a contract for next season) have been more logical choices?

Reid and Bryan can be recalled now and I for one would have liked to have seen the latter start tonight with the former (who is only making Oldham's bench anyway), on our subs bench too.

That doesn't mean I don't think O'Driscoll is approaching the task in a good way, it simply means I don't agree with all he does.

I didn't think ether were defenders the reason foster Carey and Wilson were on the bench (all can play rb yes but Foster can play RM LB as well and WIlson can play RB/LB) soley for defensive cover

[glynriley]

I didn't think ether were defenders the reason foster Carey and Wilson were on the bench (all can play rb yes but Foster can play RM LB as well and WIlson can play RB/LB) soley for defensive cover

No team in the world needs 4 defenders on the bench !!

[Monkeh]

No team in the world needs 4 defenders on the bench !!

we should of played with 8 dfenders we might of got a point then, But the two players suggested one was still at AFC Wimbledon I believe the other hasn't a minute for senior football to his name and doesn't play every week in the devlopment squad

[Kibs]

First of all, before everyone jumps to conclusions, we have yet to see the teamsheet so have no idea who is starting and who isn't.

I can understand the position some are taking with regards to wanting to see the younger players in and the players that will/may be here next season but if you break it down, he is pretty limited to his choices and has no option but to play a few players that are OOC in the summer.

Out of the youngsters that realistically could be involved:

Ajala: It would be difficult to start with Ajala unless you plan to leave out Anderson or Adomah - both of who'm are under contract next season. He is just finding his feet, came on last game and if he can get another 20 minutes or so tonight, that IMO would be ideal.

Burns: Again, you would have to leave out Davies or Baldock to player Burns in his preferred position, both of who'm are under contract next season and might possibly still be at the club.

Krans: Same as above. Can't comment on his ability as I've not seen him.

Reid and Bryan are both getting experience out on loan, no point recalling them now.

Under contract players next season are:

Kilkenny - Might play
Taylor - Returning from injury, might be available? Not ready to start.
Adomah - Will probably play
Pearson - Fans will moan if he plays
Anderson - Might play
Fontaine - Will probably have to play
Foster - Fans will moan if he plays
Moloney - Will probably play
Baldock - Will probably play
Davies - Will probably play
Cunningham - Will probably play
Kelly - will probably play

I'm really not sure what people are complaining about? When you break it down like that, most of the players that "Could" be involved next season, will be playing some part tonight.

[Jordan Tansley]

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/20130419-odriscollhullpreview-780321.aspx

Disagree 100% with this. If we cant play the young lads now, when can we?

Still talking about "it's the performances that matter", even though we are relegated.

Err, we are down, half the players won't be here next season - play the ones that will be.

I really don't get this "it's all about the performances" line.

With 20 games to go to avoid relegation, results were what mattered, there was no time to be thinking long term - unless relegation was accepted. What manager comes into a situation with relegation staring at us in the face and comes out with all this long term planning stuff - most clubs change a manager towards the end of a season to avert a short term crisis and lead to safety, not start putting long term strategies in place.

As for the "we've given Bolton and Birmingham massive problems" quote - we played well against Bolton, less so against Birmingham, but massive problems? Dont think so!

Haven't been convinced from day one and nothing yet to change my mind.

Hello Nick,

I still don't understand why the topic of performances over results is an issue, but as it is I will provide the explaination once more as obviously SOD's own words are not good enough for some.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

We play badly, get ripped apart but the opposition forward have a mare and we end up snatching a win with a goal against the run of play.

Great, 3 points in the bag. But here is his point: do you continue with those players and tactics simply because they yielded a result or do you change them to improve the performance?

Likewise, we tear a team a new one all game, one defensive howler (not predictable through tactics ) and a poor effort finishing from our strikers means we lose. Do you change the tactics despite the fact they worked and bit for individual errors we would have won? Or do you work on the positives of the performance and continue with it because next time it's unlikely the individual mistakes are repeated?

If we are playing well consistently the results will take care of themselves. That the result doesn't always follow a performance shouldn't be cried about, it's an undeniable aspect of football that you will lose games, the point is by getting consistent performances you are increasing your chances of consistent results.

It's so simple it's unreal. People are clearly confused by the line about not focussing on results and whilst that's understandable the fact the manager has explained the logic so many times in such articulate and easily understandable terms means those confusions are simply unjustified.

On the subject of playing the kids, who would you play? Players not ready? The only lads I see any potential in are Bryan and Burns. You only drop Cunningham/Anderson of neither will be here next season. You don't drop Albert as we need his value to go up.

I just don't understand this particular criticism.

[AshtonGreat]

Hello Nick,

I still don't understand why the topic of performances over results is an issue, but as it is I will provide the explaination once more as obviously SOD's own words are not good enough for some.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

We play badly, get ripped apart but the opposition forward have a mare and we end up snatching a win with a goal against the run of play.

Great, 3 points in the bag. But here is his point: do you continue with those players and tactics simply because they yielded a result or do you change them to improve the performance?

Likewise, we tear a team a new one all game, one defensive howler (not predictable through tactics ) and a poor effort finishing from our strikers means we lose. Do you change the tactics despite the fact they worked and bit for individual errors we would have won? Or do you work on the positives of the performance and continue with it because next time it's unlikely the individual mistakes are repeated?

If we are playing well consistently the results will take care of themselves. That the result doesn't always follow a performance shouldn't be cried about, it's an undeniable aspect of football that you will lose games, the point is by getting consistent performances you are increasing your chances of consistent results.

It's so simple it's unreal. People are clearly confused by the line about not focussing on results and whilst that's understandable the fact the manager has explained the logic so many times in such articulate and easily understandable terms means those confusions are simply unjustified.

On the subject of playing the kids, who would you play? Players not ready? The only lads I see any potential in are Bryan and Burns. You only drop Cunningham/Anderson of neither will be here next season. You don't drop Albert as we need his value to go up.

I just don't understand this particular criticism.

I think people understand the concept. The confusion lies in the fact that it simply hasn't worked.

[Jordan Tansley]

I think people understand the concept. The confusion lies in the fact that it simply hasn't worked.

It had worked, we have been playing well and out home form has been excellent.

Away from home I'll give you, but this is not his team. We have so little fluidity in our squad, no players fit into a selection or formation. It's shocking how badly DM bought.

But you have made up your mind, that's fine. Just kinda pointless discussing it with you....

[glynriley]

It had worked, we have been playing well and out home form has been excellent.

Away from home I'll give you, but this is not his team. We have so little fluidity in our squad, no players fit into a selection or formation. It's shocking how badly DM bought.

But you have made up your mind, that's fine. Just kinda pointless discussing it with you....

Heaton , Cunningham , Kelly , Davies , Anderson , Baldock. Most of our fans want to keep his signings.(Not Foster & Pearson granted!!)

The players he bought were fine , he just couldn't mould them into a team.

[Jordan Tansley]

Heaton , Cunningham , Kelly , Davies , Anderson , Baldock. Most of our fans want to keep his signings.(Not Foster & Pearson granted!!)

The players he bought were fine , he just couldn't mould them into a team.

The moulding into a team thing is what I meant, they're all good individuals but the don't fit into any sort tactical plan.

Do we have forwards to compliment Baldock? Or even a midfielder to play it through to him?

Do we have the defence to play two out and out wingers?

There was no plan, just good player, good price, grab him in.

[AshtonGreat]

The moulding into a team thing is what I meant, they're all good individuals but the don't fit into any sort tactical plan.

Do we have forwards to compliment Baldock? Or even a midfielder to play it through to him?

Do we have the defence to play two out and out wingers?

There was no plan, just good player, good price, grab him in.

I'd argue that all of our forwards compliment Baldock. Stead, Taylor and Davies can all play as targetmen. Granted our midfielders are pretty poor.

As for this not being SOD's team - he would've known that when he went for the job interview, where his remit was unmistakeably 'keep us up'.

[NickJ]

Hello Nick,

I still don't understand why the topic of performances over results is an issue, but as it is I will provide the explaination once more as obviously SOD's own words are not good enough for some.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

We play badly, get ripped apart but the opposition forward have a mare and we end up snatching a win with a goal against the run of play.

Great, 3 points in the bag. But here is his point: do you continue with those players and tactics simply because they yielded a result or do you change them to improve the performance?

Likewise, we tear a team a new one all game, one defensive howler (not predictable through tactics ) and a poor effort finishing from our strikers means we lose. Do you change the tactics despite the fact they worked and bit for individual errors we would have won? Or do you work on the positives of the performance and continue with it because next time it's unlikely the individual mistakes are repeated?

If we are playing well consistently the results will take care of themselves. That the result doesn't always follow a performance shouldn't be cried about, it's an undeniable aspect of football that you will lose games, the point is by getting consistent performances you are increasing your chances of consistent results.

It's so simple it's unreal. People are clearly confused by the line about not focussing on results and whilst that's understandable the fact the manager has explained the logic so many times in such articulate and easily understandable terms means those confusions are simply unjustified.

On the subject of playing the kids, who would you play? Players not ready? The only lads I see any potential in are Bryan and Burns. You only drop Cunningham/Anderson of neither will be here next season. You don't drop Albert as we need his value to go up.

I just don't understand this particular criticism.

Hello Jordan,

I still dont understand why the topic of results over performance is an issue, but as it is I will provide the explanation once more as obviously the words in my first post were not good enough.

We are in League One next season. (EDIT: That is not a hypothetical situation).

I just don't understand why this is not a particular criticism, for you.

[Jordan Tansley]

Hello Jordan,

I still dont understand why the topic of results over performance is an issue, but as it is I will provide the explanation once more as obviously the words in my first post were not good enough.

We are in League One next season.

I just don't understand why this is not a particular criticism, for you.

Which in the grand scheme of things isn't the end of the world. It's been our level for all of my life...

Thanks for ignoring my post and not answering any of the questions though, it says much about your true motivations IMO...

Standard practice.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

He'll be judged on next season with his team.

What I cannot understand is if as speculation would have it most of the players who have started recently will be gone, why exactly is SOD trying to instill the system he wants for HIS team into players who almost certainly not be here?.

[Mendip City]

because he was given the job with the board focusing heavily on a future in league one and not so much on beating the drop.the reason he reffered at early doors to "the long term plan"was because that was/is the brief he was given on appointment.it has to be wondered just how hungry the board really were to stay up with the spectre of ffp looming.??..maybe allowing us to waste away and perish was the best way they could see to deal with it.

Agree with that - the shame is that the board couldn't have been more honest (assuming you're correct).

[NickJ]

Which in the grand scheme of things isn't the end of the world. It's been our level for all of my life...

Thanks for ignoring my post and not answering any of the questions though, it says much about your true motivations IMO...

Standard practice.

Of course it isnt the end of the world - that would be my local boozer closing, which it just has.

But - I thought the manager was employed to keep us up, thats what Jon Lansdown said anyway. He failed.

I didnt "ignore" your post, I just replied to the part I wanted to - is there an obligation to go through your posts and respond line by line?

My motivations are to express an opinion, dont pretend you can second guess what they are. Dont get personal, and we'll be fine.

[Mendip City]

Much as I'd like to see an experimental line up it can't be done. Hull still have something (big) to play for. We need to respect that and play a team that (on paper at least) would be seen as competitive.

How would we have felt if one of our rivals beat a perceived weakened team? (If we were still in with a chance and hadn't fallen away so very badly when it really mattered).

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Much as I'd like to see an experimental line up it can't be done. Hull still have something (big) to play for. We need to respect that and play a team that (on paper at least) would be seen as competitive.

How would we have felt if one of our rivals beat a perceived weakened team? (If we were still in with a chance and hadn't fallen away so very badly when it really mattered).

We have been playing a weakened team virtually all season, no perception in it.

[Mendip City]

Which in the grand scheme of things isn't the end of the world. It's been our level for all of my life...

Thanks for ignoring my post and not answering any of the questions though, it says much about your true motivations IMO...

Standard practice.

Why do you persist in having a personal dig at people? You did it to me recently. Everyone has an opinion, they won't all match yours - that's what keeps it interesting..... There are very few people on here don't care passionately about bcfc and want things to improve.

[Mendip City]

We have been playing a weakened team virtually all season, no perception in it.

Hence the word "perceived" but you know the point I'm making.

[The Bard]

I'm not that happy but tbh, there are different sides to this;

Everyone is in the shop window since we got religated, so

1) Do you want to put younger players in the window that might have their confidence knocked or worse shine and get sold for a nominal fee.

2) If you play Albert or A Another player and he has a blinder then it keeps his value up.

3) To hell with it and lets give the guys who didnt get us religated a chance to shine.

A chance to shine is also a chance to be humiliated and have your confidence knocked. Tonight is not the game for the inexperienced.

[downendcity]

The moulding into a team thing is what I meant, they're all good individuals but the don't fit into any sort tactical plan.

Do we have forwards to compliment Baldock? Or even a midfielder to play it through to him?

Do we have the defence to play two out and out wingers?

There was no plan, just good player, good price, grab him in.

This.

In fact this has been a recurring theme for years. How many players have we signed who have been good for their clubs but flop when they get here? Successive managers have played players out of position or adopt a formation or style of play that doesn't get the best out of these players, especially strikers. e.g. playing someone like Baldock as a lone striker and lumping high balls up top him when he is marked by 6' 6" central defenders.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Hence the word "perceived" but you know the point I'm making.

indeed I do but to be honest I am not looking forward to tonight, Hull are not in the best of form and that means one thing, we will take a kicking and worst of all I believe SOD will for some unknown reason play for a point.

[Kibs]

Of course it isnt the end of the world - that would be my local boozer closing, which it just has.

But - I thought the manager was employed to keep us up, thats what Jon Lansdown said anyway. He failed.

I didnt "ignore" your post, I just replied to the part I wanted to - is there an obligation to go through your posts and respond line by line?

My motivations are to express an opinion, dont pretend you can second guess what they are. Dont get personal, and we'll be fine.

I think he said something along the lines of "to give us the best possible chance of staying up".

I said it at the time, I thought it would take something pretty special to achieve this, and it would have. Play-Off form in his 20 games might not have even been enough.

Anyway, back to the youngsters not being rushed debate and considering next season, who would you like to see starting tonight and who would you like to see left out?

[Red-Robbo]

What a depressing read this thread is!

Full of the same old 'throw the kids in and lets see what they can do' rubbish from a bunch of armchair experts. When will you people get it? There is a right time (and way) to introduce a youngster to first team football, and a wrong time (and way) - and guess what? we've now got a a manager who (notwithstanding that he has, very publicly, committed himself to bringing the youth through quicker than previous managers) doesn't think that now is the right time or environment. Can you people not just respect that?

Ok then. So when is the right time?

When we're motoring? - you'd want to stick with a winning formula.

When we're losing repeatedly and in a relegation dogfight? - you'd not want to risk it and you'd not want to, as you note, demoralise them.

When we are playing meaningless end-of-season games?

I think the answer to my question is evident, when you think about it.

[NickJ]

Here is a hypothetical situation.

We play badly, get ripped apart but the opposition forward have a mare and we end up snatching a win with a goal against the run of play.

Great, 3 points in the bag. But here is his point: do you continue with those players and tactics simply because they yielded a result or do you change them to improve the performance?

Likewise, we tear a team a new one all game, one defensive howler (not predictable through tactics ) and a poor effort finishing from our strikers means we lose. Do you change the tactics despite the fact they worked and bit for individual errors we would have won? Or do you work on the positives of the performance and continue with it because next time it's unlikely the individual mistakes are repeated?

If we are playing well consistently the results will take care of themselves. That the result doesn't always follow a performance shouldn't be cried about, it's an undeniable aspect of football that you will lose games, the point is by getting consistent performances you are increasing your chances of consistent results.

It's so simple it's unreal. People are clearly confused by the line about not focussing on results and whilst that's understandable the fact the manager has explained the logic so many times in such articulate and easily understandable terms means those confusions are simply unjustified.

OK Jordan, you wanted a reply to this bit. The bit that the less intelligent than you don't understand.

Here goes. It's bollocks.

Think about it. All S'OD is saying is, "we have to perform well, and understand why we have performed well, then we can repeat it".

Its empty rhetoric.

Its so mind-numbingly obvious its almost embarrassing.

Players know when they have played well, and when they havent. Every team in the country analyses its performances. S'OD isnt doing anything different. But its being dressed up to sound as if its some sort of revolution. It isn't. Wittingly or not, it deflects attention from the fact that we are losing games, and being relegated. For all the words, S'OD's record was no better than McInnes. So where has "focusing on the performance" got us? How long do we give it, before concluding its just management speak, football style?

Dont get me wrong, I dont want to see manager after manager sacked. Just, from what I've seen so far, I'm not impressed.

[glynriley]

What I cannot understand is if as speculation would have it most of the players who have started recently will be gone, why exactly is SOD trying to instill the system he wants for HIS team into players who almost certainly not be here?.

This is what a few of us are worried about Es. Is he looking to keep some of the players most of us want to see the back of ?

I fully understand playing all the players under contract , some will be staying , the rest are in the shop window , but I cant get why he is playing OOC's unless he has them under consideration for a new one.

[GrahamC]

But the two players suggested one was still at AFC Wimbledon I believe the other hasn't a minute for senior football to his name and doesn't play every week in the devlopment squad

Neither of those points are actually correct.

Toby Ajala returned from his maximum three month loan at AFC Wimbledon in March, he has since featured in three of our U21 games and could therefore have been a sub at Burnley, which would have made far more sense to me than having a 4th defender on the bench..

Luke Dobie made 4 league appearances at Accrington Stanley whilst on loan from Middlesborough last season, as someone under contract for next season it again makes more sense to me from him to be a sub than Mark Wilson.

[Kibs]

This is what a few of us are worried about Es. Is he looking to keep some of the players most of us want to see the back of ?

I fully understand playing all the players under contract , some will be staying , the rest are in the shop window , but I cant get why he is playing OOC's unless he has them under consideration for a new one.

Like who? And who would you play instead?

Take a look at the starting line up from the last game. Nyatanga and Bates were I believe the only OOC players that played, who would you have played instead?

Carey - OOC

Wilson - OOC

Fontaine ?