Those of you who watch the Reserve matches how far is Emerton off the first team? I ask because all the reports I read tells me that he has played well he has also scored a few goals. On Saturday we were lacking Stewart, Barmby, Waghorn and Pusic which left us short of attacking players as a result we had both McKenna and Harper on the bench and only one attacking player. Even had we lost both central midfield players to injury we still had Cairney. If Emerton cannot get onto the bench in those circumstances when can he expect to be considered? If he is so far down the batting order perhaps a spell on loan may help him.
Danny Emerton
- Thread starter AndrewM
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I suspect we're working on a loan deal for him at the moment, he looks a handy player, but being 19 and only having played for the reserves, the club are probably nervous about dropping him into the first team.
I just cant understand it. If the kid is playing way above what is expected of a reserve(youth) team player why not get him on the bench? Im afraid our reserve team just isnt worth the money we pump into it. We must get ourselves in a competitive league with credible opposition and test the youth system or else it just isnt worth considering. The players from our youth system, apart from maybe one exception seem to hit a wall and that is far as they go.
youd think hed have been sent somwhere or given a chance by now, 19 isnt all that young nowadays, theres 15 and 16 year olds breaking through these days
Tigers 40 I said much the same thing at the end of last season. City have had a fantastic youth team before and then when they have got into the reserves they stand still. Might be that they don't get to play a game every week but also I would question what encouragement they get. I am certain they get very disheartened at never seeming to progress and not many of them go out on loan. Look at Gavan Holohan, this is his second contract but for some reason he still has not been out on loan to get some experience. He was once given a squad number, trained with the first team and then was dropped back to the reserves again. I know there will be a lot that disagree with me but there seems to be something wrong with our system.
At one point, under Parkinson I think, these younger players didn't even train with the first team. It was just them in a completely seperate session, there could only have been about 6 or 7 of them in total! I'm sure the current system is better than that, but I get your drift. Conor Townsend has gone out on loan today but players like East, Bradley, Emerton and Holohan are considered to be ahead of him (I'd have thought anyway) and haven't been anywhere on loan. If Townsend is good enough for Grimsby why aren't there any teams who want Emerton or East?
I think the reason for cutting the number of subs was the very same reason that the country is cutting jobs. Theres no money around and savings need to be made. I think, for once the FL listened to the lesser clubs who have small gates etc and it gave them a chance to reduce their squads accordingly.
I'm not doubting, but Pearson doesn't really like the Hull City youth players, instead he just goes for the Man Utd ones. I think the same about Gavan Hoolahan he is also a great player.
spot on. you took the world right out of my mouth. Sven and Poyet have had much to say on this crazy change.
there was no good reason to change it down to 5. the rule did not insist that you had to name 7 and now its just 5 the kids dont get a look in like they would have done. Emerton-Bradley-East to name but 3. hopefully next season this wont be an issue as the PL stays with 7 subs.
i heard that it is being put under review to change it back for champsionship clubs due to the number of clubs wanting it back to 7. it was the lgue one & two clubs who wanted the reduction and out voted the championship clubs.
in both cup comps Its 7 subs. it could only happen in this country for sure.
I heard that practically every single club in the football league voted for 5 subs, with the exception of just one or two championship clubs (most likely Fester and Wet Sham). I believe our club voted in favour of the 5 subs rule.
that is the reason given Buts its total hog wash. the clubs did not have to name 7 as there was no max or min. all this rule has done is stop youth players getting a chance.
thats a tad harsh of you. if they are good enough then NP will use them. i dont understand why City dont offer the likes of East - Bradley - Emerton and Hoolahan to Scun thorpe as they stay local and it helps all parties. These questions need to be answered by the club.
nope. very few championship clubs wanted the change. blame leagues one and two.
all the FL had to say was those who want 7 can and those who dont, dont have to name 7.
finance excuse is a lazy excuse. Yet again the FL is failing the youth of this country.
in both cup comps its still 7 subs but not compulsory. CRAZY. it could only happen in this country.
Tell us how you know for sure. I understood that only 2 clubs voted against it because it was in all the papers and it was a statement from the Chairman of the FL. Have you got a mole or summut?
On SSN the day this change was announced, Sven and Poyet talked at length about it and said that it was clubs chief execs that had voted(for financial reasons) not the managers and that it would hinder youth developement. Poyet said that England does little to help its youth and he had 2 players that would miss out due to the change. Sven said that he had heard many managers @ championship level who wanted to stay @ 7 for the same reasons. But as the vote was by all FL clubs the majority won. Sven added that the championship club managers would try and get it back to 7 but it would not be a compulsory 7. It never has been. This question needs to asked again to both Pearsons at the Tigers Premier Club meeting on 7th November to find out the latest position. Its strange that this topic has since been layed to rest for now at least.
My anger is based on why change it when you dont need to have 7 and why are the cups still at 7 ? crazy situation.
It wasn't popular with the Championship clubs and it was carried through by the votes of League One and League Two clubs. I don't think the actual voting was disclosed, but the managers of Leicester, Reading, West Ham, Brighton, Brizzle, Burnley and Boro all came out at the time and said they were very disappointed that the rule had been brought in.
backs up my post olm but i did not know that so many had gone public. i saw on SSN sven and poyet's press confereneces on the topic and also comments made by wally brolly man at the time. i wonder what the latest position is then with the championship clubs and why this league should suffer. surely any change should be on an individual league basis. the cups remain on 7 subs so why not apply the same logic to each league. crazy situation.