Young Players And Loanees

[RedUn]

I have just read that the reason we lost to Chesterfield was we had too many young players and too many loanees in the team.

Our starting line-up had 4 players under the Bosman age limit (ie U/23s) and 2 loanees.

Would anybody care to venture a guess at the comparable figures for the Spirites?

[Guest ashtonyate]

I have just read that the reason we lost to Chesterfield was we had too many young players and too many loanees in the team.

Our starting line-up had 4 players under the Bosman age limit (ie U/23s) and 2 loanees.

Would anybody care to venture a guess at the comparable figures for the Spirites?

Now your going to tell me they were all under 12 are you, I think 4 young player plus 2 loan signings are to much when you are playing poorly the team needs more experance players at the moment it not fair on the youngsters.

I noticed that Skuse And Coterell are getting some stick thats unfair on them they should not be placed in that position

[RedUn]

Now your going to tell me they were all under 12 are you, I think 4 young player plus 2 loan signings are to much when you are playing poorly the team needs more experance players at the moment it not fair on the youngsters.

Thank you for trying to answer the question ... oh no, wait a minute, you haven't ... I suppose I'll have to help you then.

We had four U/23 players in our starting line, they had six; we had two loanees, they had three!

But that's OK because if our youngsters were outnumbered by their peers then obviously we had more experienced pros on the field (7 to their 5). And according to you that balance should work to our advantage, right? But it didn't. So the logical conclusion (stop me if you've heard this before) is that it is our journeymen who don't cut the mustard.

We don't need more experienced players we need better ones!

[Guest ashtonyate]

Thank you for trying to answer the question ... oh no, wait a minute, you haven't ... I suppose I'll have to help you then.

We had four U/23 players in our starting line, they had six; we had two loanees, they had three!

But that's OK because if our youngsters were outnumbered by their peers then obviously we had more experienced pros on the field (7 to their 5). And according to you that balance should work to our advantage, right? But it didn't. So the logical conclusion (stop me if you've heard this before) is that it is our journeymen who don't cut the mustard.

We don't need more experienced players we need better ones!

I am with you now we get some more youngsters and loanees.What we need is a big load of confidence, when a team is playing well its ok to have more younsters i suppose

We are not and on Saturday you could see as soon as they scored we just fell a part.Experance is the answer we lack that at the moment and I also think its unfair to place young players of 17 in that position

now some on this forum are starting to have a go at Skuse & Cotterell which is hard on them.

The players on loan the lad from hull is too slow and the one from Charlton is very raw and both are no better than Keown & woodman

I am with you now we get some more youngsters and loanees.What we need is a big load of confidence, when a team is playing well its ok to have more younsters i suppose

We are not and on Saturday you could see as soon as they scored we just fell a part.Experance is the answer we lack that at the moment and I also think its unfair to place young players of 17 in that position

now some on this forum are starting to have a go at Skuse & Cotterell which is hard on them.

The players on loan the lad from hull is too slow and the one from Charlton is very raw and both are no better than Keown & woodman

[RedUn]

I am with you now we get some more youngsters and loanees.

Where did I say that? I merely pointed out that since Chesterfield had more of both than we did it is ludicrous for you to blame youngsters/loanees for our team's lack of character.

I'll use a bit of emphasis now to help you understand what I actually did say (indeed have been saying since Christ was a carpenter):

We don't need more experienced players we need better ones!

[Guest ashtonyate]

Where did I say that? I merely pointed out that since Chesterfield had more of both than we did it is ludicrous for you to blame youngsters/loanees for our team's lack of character.

I'll use a bit of emphasis now to help you understand what I actually did say (indeed have been saying since Christ was a carpenter):

We don't need more experienced players we need better ones!

Yes we all know that we need better experance players but how do you get them you have got to pay for them, this free transfer lark is waste of time you either get young and inexperance ones or ones that clubs are trying to get rid of.but my point is we afford to sign good players and have an academy we never seem to have the money to sign quality players.Also Jesus never sang with the Carpenters

[gazareth]

Murray is experienced. Unfortunately he's also gash. Ditto Quinn. Ditto Joseph.

It's all very well having experienced players, but as RedUn says, we need better players all-round, not just older ones.

[Guest ashtonyate]

Murray is experienced. Unfortunately he's also gash. Ditto Quinn. Ditto Joseph.

It's all very well having experienced players, but as RedUn says, we need better players all-round, not just older ones.

I am saying the same thing but you will need to pay a transfer fee to get them most of the time, and we cant afford to to do that so we are being told by the board so where do we go from here it looks like down if Johnson has no money to deal with??