Maybe That's Why Cotterill Didn't Put The U21s On The Bench Then?

[Jack Dawe]

Perhaps Cotts simply decided they are not good enough yet?

[MC RISK77]

Yep and on the showing last night he would be right 

[sglosbcfc]

It was the first time I had seen Vyner last night and I thought he looked decent on the ball but obviously naive for this level. I'm sure a couple of months on loan in League two and he'd be back stronger and ready to compete for the first team 18. Brighton ruthlessly exploited him that won't happen at a lower level. People should remember that both first choice right backs Little and Ayling were unable to play the full 90.

[Cider Queen]

What a stupid thing to say!

Yes the kid had a bad night but ask yourself was Pearce much better?  It's about playing as a team and covering each other.  Pearce should have covered for the first goal rather than just stand there.  Infact Pearce was woeful all night.

You need to give kids a chance.. Brighton were very savvy and used his inexperience to target and they did that well. 

Certainly a wake up call to the team and management.  

As for Vyner he knows he needs to work at alot of things and I've no doubt he will but let's not get on his back.

[Robson]

Didn't go to MK then when he had a storming game? He was outstanding I thought.

Definitely one for the future and I agree a loan when Ayling and Little are fit would be beneficial for him.

 

[HLR]

1 minute ago, Claude said:

Didn't go to MK then when he had a storming game? He was outstanding I thought.

Definitely one for the future and I agree a loan when Ayling and Little are fit would be beneficial for him.

 

Football's a funny old game isn't it - as personally I didn't think he was all that vs MK Dons, not really sure why all the rave reviews to be honest - if MK had been ruthless Saturday, he would have cost us 2 goals at least then too. Looked nervous on the ball, consistently lost sight of his man over his shoulder letting them get in behind & was skinned on the outside multiple occasions - much the same as last night, difference being Brighton punished us and MK didn't, hence why those mistakes stand out more

[ashton_fan]

I think we should be looking for an experienced right back on loan, not sure about Little or Ayling in that position. Until we can we might have to play someone out of position there, eg maybe Golbourne with Williams filling in at left back, or we could try one of the defensive midfielders there (Pack/Smith) and bring Reid into the middle.

[Tipps69]

What people also need to remember is that by ZV's own admission, he isn't a right back by trade but a centre back but no one else is / was deemed fit enough to give it a go!!

Cut the lad a bit of slack, he was willing to step up to the plate & give it his best for the benefit of the club!!

Even if that meant playing out of his normal position!!

[Robson]

1 minute ago, HLR said:

Football's a funny old game isn't it - as personally I didn't think he was all that vs MK Dons, not really sure why all the rave reviews to be honest - if MK had been ruthless Saturday, he would have cost us 2 goals at least then too. Looked nervous on the ball, consistently lost sight of his man over his shoulder letting them get in behind & was skinned on the outside multiple occasions - much the same as last night, difference being Brighton punished us and MK didn't, hence why those mistakes stand out more

Yeah funny how everyone sees the game differently. Considering he's what 18/19 and first professional match at a championship level I thought he did outstanding. A few dodgy moments but what do you expect on your debut? Agreed LJ should have known Brighton will take advantage of this but who could he replace him with.. an unfit Little.

He'll be one for the future but as I've already stated a loan would do him some good, get playing time at league 1/2 level!

[Agard Days Night]

32 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

I think we should be looking for an experienced right back on loan, not sure about Little or Ayling in that position. Until we can we might have to play someone out of position there, eg maybe Golbourne with Williams filling in at left back, or we could try one of the defensive midfielders there (Pack/Smith) and bring Reid into the middle.

This is a joke, right? 

[Major Isewater]

The only criticism i have is that perhaps Two Championship games in four days was a bit too much for young Zac .

[NickJ]

I've been waiting for somebody to make this point.

Cotterill was slaughtered by some for various things, lack of opportunity for academy players being one of them.

LJ comes in, first thing he does is send Burns out on loan, doesn't play Reid, and very unfortunately Vyner had a game to forget.

I don't think we will be seeing any of the younger players for the rest of the season, which would show the current manager agrees with him.

 

[CotswoldRed]

Anyone who saw a match video of the MK game would have known that Vyner would be exploited last night.  I'm sure Hughton had a copy of the MK Dons game.

[Selred]

23 minutes ago, NickJ said:

I've been waiting for somebody to make this point.

Cotterill was slaughtered by some for various things, lack of opportunity for academy players being one of them.

LJ comes in, first thing he does is send Burns out on loan, doesn't play Reid, and very unfortunately Vyner had a game to forget.

I don't think we will be seeing any of the younger players for the rest of the season, which would show the current manager agrees with him.

 

Hang on a second. Totally different.

Burns needs games for his development.

Should LJ drop Tomlin for Reid? No.

Johnson has a policy of having our best 15-16 year olds training with the squad on Mondays.

Cotts gave the academy no hope, Johnson is the opposite. I feel when we are safe we will see a lot more kids making appearances. 

If LJ agreed with Cotts he'd of played a half fit Little last night instead of Vyner. 

[NickJ]

23 minutes ago, Selred said:

If LJ agreed with Cotts he'd of played a half fit Little last night instead of Vyner. 

Which considering Little looked ok when he came on, would of course have been a better decision.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Which considering Little looked ok when he came on, would of course have been a better decision.

He'd have also had us playing 3 at the back and flogging another 90 minutes out of Wilbs after a full game against MK.

[View from the Dolman]

24 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Which considering Little looked ok when he came on, would of course have been a better decision.

Different game when he comes on though. Brighton knew the game was done, they didn't need to throw 100% and just professionally saw the game out.

[NickJ]

16 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

He'd have also had us ............ flogging another 90 minutes out of Wilbs after a full game against MK.

He didn't have the luxury of Tomlin as an option, so, while neither you or I know that to be the case for sure, I think it is very unlikely, particularly as I do not think Wilbs played 2 full games inside 4 days any other time this season.

14 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Different game when he comes on though. Brighton knew the game was done, they didn't need to throw 100% and just professionally saw the game out.

That's the point though isn't it. If Little had started, it would have probably been a totally different game.

Hindsight of course but maybe just maybe SC recognized the under 21's aren't ready, which is the point of the opening post.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, NickJ said:

He didn't have the luxury of Tomlin as an option, so, while neither you or I know that to be the case for sure, I think it is very unlikely, particularly as I do not think Wilbs played 2 full games inside 4 days any other time this season.

 

True, but I do think we can probably agree he wouldn't have changed the formation.

[NickJ]

4 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

True, but I do think we can probably agree he wouldn't have changed the formation.

Is it possible same formation with better players would have been more successful?

We will never know for sure as SC wasn't given that opportunity, but logic says it would have been.

[Jack Dawe]

5 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

True, but I do think we can probably agree he wouldn't have changed the formation.

Cotts himself said he wouldn't. He was adamant about this. 

[Red-Robbo]

I wonder why Williams wasn't considered.  Can't Golborne play on both sides?

[ChippenhamRed]

4 hours ago, Jack Dawe said:

Perhaps Cotts simply decided they are not good enough yet?

You think an empty seat was the better option?

Any young player who is good enough to have progressed to our u21 side is preferable to leaving a space on the bench - if only for the experience of being part of a matchday squad, and the encouragement that it gives all the young players that there is a route to the first team squad.  As I said the last time this was discussed, leaving an empty spot on the bench was the most appalling man-management and would have had a negative impact on every single player not in the first team.  There was no excuse for it.

[Jack Dawe]

7 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

You think an empty seat was the better option?

 

You think I think that. I'm asking what people think Cotts was thinking. I think.

[LondonBristolian]

2 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Is it possible same formation with better players would have been more successful?

We will never know for sure as SC wasn't given that opportunity, but logic says it would have been.

We'll also never know whether SC was or wasn't given the opportunity.  We signed four players very quickly after SC left.  Two of those have been instrumental in our turnaround.  We know, for whatever reasons, SC wasn't able to get more ambitious signings over the line but we don't know whether he had the opportunity to sign Tomlin and Golborne earlier than we did, or indeed similar players.  Alright, SC wasn't able to get Gray, Gayle or Clough over the line but we don't know if there were cheaper, more readily available players he could have signed that would have improved the squad.

Ultimately the facts we do know are these.

1.Over the seven games since SC left we've acquired two more points than SC managed in his last 15 matches.

2.Those 15 matches included games against 5 of the bottom 7, from which we took 2 points and had a goal difference of -8

3. If SC had replicated the form of his last 7 games (5 points) over our last 7 games, we'd now in the relegation zone on goal difference and one point off the bottom of the league.  

4. Last night was bad but it has to be put into context of being the 6th time this season we've conceded 4 goals (1 in every 5.5 matches).  5 of those came under Cotts, two of them at home and both of those against teams who were in the bottom half of the table at the time. 

We were in freefall under SC and there was absolutely zero evidence that he could turn it round.  As soon as he left, we won a game with the same players in a different formation and, until last night, we'd just come off three wins on the bounce with no goals conceded.  The jury's out on whether LJ is the answer, and certainly Pemberton deserves credit, but I simply cannot see how anyone can doubt that things weren't working under Cotts and that the change was desperately needed.

[ChippenhamRed]

1 minute ago, Jack Dawe said:

You think I think that. I'm asking what people think Cotts was thinking. I think.

I don't think you think that, it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate a point.  Even if Cotts didn't think they were good enough, he should still have chosen someone to fill the bench.  With seven substitutes he didn't need to use him, but it would have been a positive statement that would have benefitted all our young players at all levels.

[Jack Dawe]

2 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I don't think you think that, it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate a point.  Even if Cotts didn't think they were good enough, he should still have chosen someone to fill the bench.  With seven substitutes he didn't need to use him, but it would have been a positive statement that would have benefitted all our young players at all levels.

Perhaps he feared that the way our first X1 were struggling, it would be detrimental to put one of the young lads on. Perhaps he could see and feared what happened to young Zak last night? Perhaps he was protecting them? Perhaps he intended to get us into midtable and introduce one or two late in the season when we were late? Or perhaps he didn't, and those that say he demonstrated dreadful management and attitude to the youngsters are right. I don't know.

It's interesting to hear what people think though

[ChippenhamRed]

1 minute ago, Jack Dawe said:

Perhaps he feared that the way our first X1 were struggling, it would be detrimental to put one of the young lads on. Perhaps he could see and feared what happened to young Zak last night? Perhaps he was protecting them? Perhaps he intended to get us into midtable and introduce one or two late in the season when we were late? Or perhaps he didn't, and those that say he demonstrated dreadful management and attitude to the youngsters are right. I don't know.

It's interesting to hear what people think though

Except with seven substitutes there was never any danger of the player having to come on, so none of those excuses are valid in my opinion.  Leaving an empty seat was damaging, and I presume it is what the club statement regarding commitment to player development was referring to.

[NickJ]

This is what I think.

I think that the fans who wanted SC out seriously overplayed the significance of the not putting 7 subs on the bench thing, as it suited their agenda.

No criticism intended, I would have used the same and similar tactics if I had been in that camp.

[Jack Dawe]

8 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Except with seven substitutes there was never any danger of the player having to come on, so none of those excuses are valid in my opinion.  Leaving an empty seat was damaging, and I presume it is what the club statement regarding commitment to player development was referring to.

So, there was never any danger of them coming on but it was damaging not to let them sit on the bench. That's what you think. That's your opinion. 

But what's your opinion on last night - was last night "damaging" to young Zak?

I think not putting the youngsters on the bench to fill up our sub allocation was "damaging" to SC, for sure