http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/11731090.England_call_for_Sparsholt_youngster/ Well done to this lad on his England call up and good to see the Sparsholt program already showing signs of success. We saw first hand with Tyrone MIngs that youngsters can develop at later times and mature not just physically but mentally too. As well as the obvious possible benefits to the club this gives these kids a decent education and qualifications should they be unsuccessful as professional footballer and not left hung out to dry
That's excellent because hypothetically [the buzz word of the moment] he could have missed his chance to become a professional footballer. With that kind of recognition it would be back on for him.
Totally disagree with this. Sinclair fitted back in no problem, played clever balls (his reverse pass in the first half) was less greedy than before (the pass to Seagar who the had a simple tap in) was confident ( his volley in the second half was fab) and covered a lot of ground covering back for Josh Debayo (working defensively was always a weak point before). His problem will be his size and being a bit injury prone same as Isgrove. He may not make the step up but it won't be for lack of effort or being prepared to learn/develop. He is one if the cleverest players in the 21s and has far more final ball potential than Sims who should learn to release the ball sooner and with more effect. There seems to be a problem for young guns in attacking positions. Those that work hard for the team are rewarded less than those that work hard to show off their solo ability via extended dribbles and shooting at every opportunity. I believe with the right coach the former can deliver just as much as the latter and may actually make that killer pass or more often help a team settle by hold up play. They can be players like Steve Davies who rarely loses the ball as is very consistent.
Jake Sinclair aged 20 Josh Sims aged 17 He has 3 years on Sims so obviously will have matured more and will think more intelligently etc. He works hard but I see it doesn't really lead to much. I wouldn't compare him to Davis either. To me he is all effort no pay off kind of player. At 20 he needs to step up or he will go. How can you disagree with me then say he may go but not for the want of trying? I said nothing about how hard he tried either. Players can try but still not be up to it. Nothing is wrong with my post. He is 20 at 20 you should hopefully be in and around the first team, Sinclair isn't. That's why I said he has to step up. He will be 21 this year so time is running out. I'm not saying he is totally **** I am saying I don't think he will cut it. End of the day working hard can only get you so far.
If you look at the bit I commented in it was the bit about his loan affecting him negatively. Whilst I agree he may not make the step up I totally disagree that Scotland affected him badly. I think he is a better player. As to final product. 1 assist out of 1 game is product. Football is fine margins. His volley and reverse pass could easily have led to more goals. So in conclusion I stand by my comments - I think Scotland was good for him. Also 'How can I disagree with you?' Errrrm this is football. It's mostly opinion and a few facts thrown in. On the 'make it' discussion. Some players develop late and then make it. There are plenty of examples of players seemingly in the wilderness and then getting to the oasis of success. Making it at 16-19 does not always go well. They may make their millions but will they still be reaching their potential at 23 onwards? I am hoping that a slower break through is beneficial for lads like Jake as I hope their dreams are still fulfilled.
He needs to step up (which is true). He has younger players ahead of him at this time. Scotland affected him he played 111 mins so a match and a bit.(so it didn't really affect him positively). He would have no match fitness etc and didn't learn much at all (apart from sitting on a bench in Scotland is cold). If he stayed here he would have played most weeks in the U21's, so it affected him negatively. I'm not saying you can't disagree if I said he was **** etc. I'm saying at nearly 21 he needs to step up or he will go, can you disagree with that? If you disagree then fine ( the post last night was a tired rant anyways). If he does get cut tho hopefully he finds a club he will get game time at,can we agree on that?
Are there younger players ahead of him in the development squad in the wing positions? Because he came straight in to the side. I suppose you are referring to Isgrove and that he would have been on the bench if Rowe was fit?
I was more on about younger players starting to make their step up to the main squad while he hasn't (yet).
Is there any truth to the reports that we released Mings because he was too small? That really doesn't sound like us. Our U21 side consists mostly of short player, bar the CBs.
Yes we can certainly agree on that. I was told he played a fair bit of U20 games scoring a few so not sure that match fitness was much of an issue. The Saints U21s haven't exactly had loads of games especially over Christmas. I would love to know why his season long loan was cut short. Hopefully it was a positive move by Les Reed and Koeman and that they want more control on his development.
This has to be a worry for the older 21s but it's mainly non-attacking players (Targett, McCarthy and Heskey as Seagar has yet to make an appearance I think) Koeman has given appearances to. Be interesting to see what he does with Gallagher who is the same age as Sinclair. No-one survives from the year above him except Jack Stephens I believe.
Apparently Stephens played central midfield for Swindon today. I believe this was the position Beefy believes is his long term one. He scored as well!
