Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

[Leveller]

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[simon uk]

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

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

 

[Unan]

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

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

Confused on Woodrow

[Monkeh]

12 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Phileas Fogg]

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

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

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

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

[Lrrr]

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

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

[Major Isewater]

24 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[Squeak]

25 minutes ago, Leveller said:

We have fifteen players out on loan

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

[Red Army 75]

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

[Major Isewater]

2 minutes ago, Squeak said:

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

Only Wolves have more out on loan , 16 . 

Source : The Post 

I know .

[TBW]

5 minutes ago, Squeak said:

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

Only Wolves have more out on loan with 16.

[iamalagerdrinker]

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

[Leveller]

7 minutes ago, cynic said:

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

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

[CheddarReds]

20 minutes ago, Leveller said:

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

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

[shelts]

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

[Major Isewater]

4 minutes ago, shelts said:

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

Perhaps you've answered your own question . 

[shelts]

4 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Perhaps you've answered your own question . 

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

[reddoh]

4 minutes ago, shelts said:

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

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

[Im_over_ere]

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

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

[WhistleHappy]

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

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

 

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

[Phileas Fogg]

16 minutes ago, Im_over_ere said:

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

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

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

[Bristol_South_End]

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

[BCFC Rich]

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

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

4

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

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

2 hours ago, Leveller said:

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

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

2

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

[cidered abroad]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

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

[Port Said Red]

In all walks of life people develop at different rates.

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

 

[Lrrr]

4 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

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

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

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Son of Fred]

5 hours ago, Leveller said:

Youth development. Puzzled? I am.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[cidered abroad]

22 minutes ago, glos old boy said:

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

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

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

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

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

[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

 

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[Red Army 87]

25 minutes ago, Ian M said:

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.

Another thing U23 football doesn't really prepare you for is playing in front of an expectant crowd, especially if your team are up against it. 

[Phileas Fogg]

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. 

This isn't a criticism, but I wonder if your views on this come partly from being an American and American sport.

I'm not a huge Basketball follower, but from what I understand, the draft system usually gives teams a few exciting prospects each season who get first team minutes with a view to being first team players. 

Sounds a bit like what you're proposing with Dowling?

[Leveller]

16 hours 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 .

I'm sure it wasn't a dig at me, but I'm not sure if that interview was posted yesterday before or after I started the thread. 

A bit of a coincidence - or was it - that it happened on the same day as the BP article? Possibly a coordinated media thing.

Anyway, both the thread and the Tinnion interview have been very interesting. I thought it was a theme that would provoke a good discussion, and it has.

 

[Ian M]

30 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I'm sure it wasn't a dig at me, but I'm not sure if that interview was posted yesterday before or after I started the thread. 

A bit of a coincidence - or was it - that it happened on the same day as the BP article? Possibly a coordinated media thing.

Anyway, both the thread and the Tinnion interview have been very interesting. I thought it was a theme that would provoke a good discussion, and it has.

 

The interview with Tins was released after your opening post.

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Ian M said:

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.

I get you. Maybe it's us being a little "senior" heavy for my liking. I know we need experience but I'm more hoping our mid 20s guys can take this on like Baker, Wright, Pack and Fielding for example. That way Downling or Morrell could take the place of O'Neil for example.

I just think the youth in England gets overlooked. That Sancho or Willock who've gone abroad this year will get quite a few minutes I would imagine in those leagues because the pressure isn't the same on the managers there. I'm just hoping we aren't stifling someone else just because someone has done it before. Think I've even read about a young man who was on loan at Stevenage last season who's gotten minutes for a German top flight team. Is someone like Morrell, Dowling or Hinds being overlooked because of experience and not what they've brought to the pitch in their time? 

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

This isn't a criticism, but I wonder if your views on this come partly from being an American and American sport.

I'm not a huge Basketball follower, but from what I understand, the draft system usually gives teams a few exciting prospects each season who get first team minutes with a view to being first team players. 

Sounds a bit like what you're proposing with Dowling?

It could be but even in basketball they have a development league or European basketball if a player isn't quite ready for the NBA. Often a player can be drafted but not signed. They hold their draft rights and the player can play in the development league or in Europe to gain more experience. Just depends on the player. It may because the league and pool of players is smaller but in the NBA, not too many top prospects get overlooked. My thing with football is you see quite a few players leave one place to excel somewhere else because they didn't get the opportunity. As my response earlier on this, I just hope we aren't overlooking someone who has all the attributes just because he hasn't played too much. Maybe we don't have that player and the staff realised that everyone needed a loan. I don't know. What would probably ease my mind on it is Kelly and Vyner getting starts because they've earned them and to rest our other full backs. Not forced to play because of injury or suspension. 

[steviestevieneville]

7 hours ago, Leveller said:

I'm sure it wasn't a dig at me, but I'm not sure if that interview was posted yesterday before or after I started the thread. 

A bit of a coincidence - or was it - that it happened on the same day as the BP article? Possibly a coordinated media thing.

Anyway, both the thread and the Tinnion interview have been very interesting. I thought it was a theme that would provoke a good discussion, and it has.

 

No , not a dig at you at all just a general observation . 

[RaspberryRed]

21 hours ago, glos old boy said:

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

You are of course welcome to your views but that is harsh in the extreme about BT

That man has given us great service & one of our greatest moments and stepped-up for a job he was never ready for again because he loves the club only for it to end in a really horrible way for all parties. I know as a fact he was really hurt & haunted by the whole experience and failing at a club he would run through brick walls for. That's why it's great he's back where he belongs and doing a fantastic job.

Again knowing him very loosely then one thing Brian isn't and that is a puppet. He was born in a mining village and pretty much an adopted Geordie. Not sure if you know anyone from these areas or have ever met anyone then the last thing I would call them is a puppet. They tend to shoot in the hip and say how it is

His demise at Bristol City as I alluded to earlier was a terrible terrible situation seeing him sat in the dugout at Swansea he was in pieces.

The fact that you cannot argue with is that we may well be doing a Chelsea but surely that's a much more prudent way of doing things. Scouting young players bringing them through our Academy and maybe just maybe get to that point where half of the first team could be players that have potentially been with the club for four or five years if not longer. You have only have to look at Lloyd Kelly, George Dowling, and numerous others to see that there development comes on leaps and bounds for going out and having to find their feet as opposed to everything being done for them at academy level including their schooling.

Is almost like you can physically and psychologically roadtest the players you have purchased or are developing and I can certainly feel the different air around the place in terms of everyone pulling in the same direction, making some great decisions about young players and also developing some top-quality talent that I have no doubt whatsoever will end up playing in the first team of the club that we all love.

I know he wasn't our player but take Tammy for an example and yes I am probably cherry picking one of the best examples there has been in terms of young players on loan. He's been at Chelsea since he was a kid he's got the potential to play in their first team but was absolutely nowhere near being a regular so rather than play under 23 football they loan him to us for a season a win-win situation. If he'd only scored say 10 or 12 goals (yes not worth thinking about as we would have been relegated) the rest is history and he has now been loaned to a premiership team and I have no doubt he will probably be into double figures or nearing that by Christmas. A season of premiership football under his belt playing against the best players in the world and then BOOM everything every Chelsea fan wants to see an Academy youngster in their starting 11 week after week with the potential of becoming a scoring sensation.

All achieved by loaning him to a club they trusted in the championship followed by one they trusted in the premiership and then they have delivered at their doorstep a player ready to score goals for the club he loves.

I'm REALLY excited about numerous 16 to 21yo's on our books that will take the club forward, both in the 1st team and then large fee's in Tranfers or maintaining us in this league and beyond

How the hell can that be wrong? Surely that's got to be a good thing.

[Son of Fred]

On 05/09/2017 at 20:05, JamesBCFC said:

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.

Suprising-should be sent off for deliberate elbow whatever the game-kids,Sunday league,u23,premier league..orbital fractures can be extremely dangerous,so anything that helps to reduce such incidence practiced.

[Son of Fred]

On 05/09/2017 at 14:20, CheddarReds said:

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

Good start for Morrell at Cheltenham-lets hope it continues and leads to a permenant-were planning to stay in the Championship/push on,and Joe ain't gonna make it.

Take the money.

[22A]

If our U23s are now regarded well, does that mean they'll be invited to compete in next season's Checkatrade Trophy?