Cromer bor, Leicester signed Gray from Brum and put him immediately in the first team. There seems to be a marked reluctance by our club to give our youngsters the opportunity to gain first team experience preferring to put them out of loan. I do not understand that policy. Players improve by competing with the best and not just marking time in lower leagues, all it does is maintain their fitness and as in McGrandles case the risk of injury.
Well said Norkie There have been numerous times this season when Redmond has been anonymous, off the pace, etc and it would indeed have helped Murphy's development to give him a cameo or two at the top level. The only other current options are playing Howson or Vadis out of position wide(ish) right, or gettng Jarvis to switch across to the right, when he's clearly more effective on the left? No entiendo?
Cromer bor, Leicester signed Gray from Brum and put him immediately in the first team. There seems to be a marked reluctance by our club to give our youngsters the opportunity to gain first team experience preferring to put them out of loan. Isn't gaining first team experience in a competative environment the main reason for sending them out on loan? I do not understand that policy. Players improve by competing with the best and not just marking time in lower leagues, all it does is maintain their fitness and as in McGrandles case the risk of injury I disagree, playing competative football at a level they are able to compete at is very good for them to develop and more than just their fitness. As for Gray, we chucked Redmond in to the first team when he first joined so no different there. I think it just comes down to are these lads ready? In my opinion for PL no, it also seems to be the opinion of AN. I would much rather we had the Murphy's getting plenty of game time than 5-15 minutes every 3rd match for us. That really wouldn't enhance their development. I would hope that if we find ourselves in the Championship next year then a number of them will see significant game time but that will still be dependant on them showing more than the players currently playing in their positions. Would I pick a Murphy over Brady or Redmond? redmond maybe, but Brady no. Would I pick Toffalo over Olsson or Brady? Olsson possibly, and Brady to move him forward yes. Maddison, not sure yet, over Dorrans or O'neil yes, but Tettey, Howson, Naismith, Wes, I'm not so sure! Bah!
I hear you but I think that choosing when to play youngsters is way more complicated than that. It's easy for some clubs - e.g. Leicester - because the risk is really low. The team's confidence is high, they're picking up points, playing a youngster is worth the investment and the risk. By comparison, when you're staring relegation in the face, do you really want to risk dropping a point or three to give your youngsters a shot? Every point is precious. It's much harder for us to get youngsters into the squad from there. It's actually a similar problem at clubs like Chelsea and Man City - they were desperate to climb up the league tables and investing huge sums of money on big name players, but also on youngsters. The problem is, they can't risk actually playing them - only Wenger amongst the biggest clubs has managed to maintain the support of the board while having a youth policy at the expense of as many trophies as he might of won.
Hi bors, there is always a risk in football ie RvW, goes with the game. A good team is comprised of youngsters with the ability and energy to compete for 90 minutes and do the donkeywork while seasoned veterans use their skill to get the right result. I do not understand why our club should give Liverpool the benefit of one of their players gaining PL experience at the detriment of one of our players not having that chance. It has been said that we are one of the static teams in the PL, infusion of a younger squad would help to remedy that situation. How old was Rooney when he was first picked for Everton, same with Barkley. Why have we signed Bamford on loan if he is considered just a bench warmer. If the answer is they are not good enough, how will we know if they don't get the opportunity ? We even had one youngster opt to join Luton because he thought his prospects were better there. We have produced youngsters in the past re the Fashanu brothers, they did well when they got the opportunity. If players have to been loaned out to gain experience then why sign for us, why not just sign for the club they are loaned to. At least they will get to wear the shirt. Don't forget two of our loaned youngsters have yet to wear a Norwich shirt. Canary bor, I like your phrase, an investment but there is risk in football at all times, the only risk you can't cater for is a bad decision by the ref.
like I said, I hear you, but Everton's position and even our position when we put the Fashanu brothers into the team was much "safer" than it is now. I agree it would be good to go for the risk, but I think that explains why our club is tentative - they will play youngsters I've no doubt if we're relegated or safe before the end of the season, when we have nothing to lose
I am so glad Olsson is named and shamed there! I just despair at just how sh*t he is! I can't believe what I'm watching when he tries to defend.
General bor, playing competative football at a level they are able to compete at is very good for them to develop and more than just their fitness. So you are happy to have our youngsters become proficient in the lower leagues and develop to that standard. When we signed Pilkington and he played his first game in the PL he came up against a situation he had not experienced in the Championship. He was used to the standard of that league and tried a trick he had performed in that league. It didn't work, he found the expertise of players in the PL was far better than he had experienced before. The opposing fullback got the message across to Pilkington. He didn't try that trick again. He learnt by playing in the PL
Some excellent comments and I do feel our precarious position means that we are unlikely to play youngsters. I also agree that surely it is better for a player's development to be on loan and playing competitive football regularly as opposed to playing in the odd under 21 game etc. Would it be better in some respects if we were relegated and so able to give some of these youngsters a chance to make the step up????? Who knows???
Braveheart bor, what this site is about, expressing an opinion, nothing wrong with that. If we are unfortunate to suffer relegation then without doubt there will be a change in the composition of our team, could be a chance for our youngsters or the board will decide to bring in more experience players as they have done in the past. We will just have to wait and see, after all it is the board who make the final decision.
I take what you're saying but I still think they are better off progressing at increasingly better loan clubs than the dead rubber league of the u21s and 15 minutes here or there. They will learn more playing competitive footy at any level against pros fighting for their careers. Why else would someone leave for Luton? Another point would be if they're not ready and you chuck them in, their confidence could be knocked if they have a mare. Bah!
Hi General bor, I can understand your view but I must wonder what is beneficial to a player playing 90 minutes for a team lower than us in the pecking order, we are a PL club, we should be giving our youngsters opposition to improve their play so they can become potential PL players, both Wisdom and Bamford are on loan to play in the same league as us, the PL. They have not been loaned to a club in a lower league. That is the policy we should adopt or at worse nothing under Championship level. If youngsters want 90 minutes football they can get the exercise at Colney but should be told their performances affect their promotional chances. Nothing to stop the club organising friendly games with suitable opposition to keep the lads together. A job I think would be suitable for Neil Adams. Carlisle Utd suffered a financial setback through floods, they would appreciate any help they could receive.
The problem is, that we are near the bottom of the PL food chain. So if a youngun isn't getting in our team then it is wholey unlikely that he would get into any other PL team. Ideally you're right that it would be great if they could play in the Championship to gain experience at the highest level. But if no championship side is interested, then what? Will the player benefit more from playing in the career death U21 league that is horribly uncompetitive? or for that matter friendlies (is that even worse than the U21's? You have to remember that this is a player who championship clubs haven't asked to loan so it's very unlikely that we could chance them in the PL! The best option then is to send them to Lge1 or to some other level to get proper competative minutes. As youngsters this can man them up and if they shine then someone further up the footballing food chain will take a look. If that's us with a view to playing them then great, if it's a loan in higher division also good, or if we don't think they will ever make it at CR and can get some sponduliks for them after a good loan spell then great, it will help fund the next youth who might. The only benefit I see in keeping them in house is that you can have them train for our system, but that can be done when you think they're ready. Bah!
Great post, Generalissimo, kinda puts the whole issue to bed for me Only thing I'd say - and it's guesswork, is NCFC identify these kids quite young, pay for their schooling, training, development etc only for Coventry or M K Dons, for example, to get the perceived benefit of all that by merely covering their (not insane at that age) wages while they're on loan there. So, if we survive (please god) this season, none of our trainees or academy boys will ever be good enough and if nobody offers decent "sponduliks" for them, the whole process has cost US, the parent club money?
i think there is still hope for; the Murphy's, Toffalo, Maddison and others. In terms of PL maybe not right away but with a good season in the championship, they maybe ready to make the jump. And barring injury I would think that if we are to write them off they should still be worth enough to help keep the academy self sustaining. But that's the gamble you take with not just youth but even seasoned pros. At least a youngun should be relatively cheap and you have time to try and get them to the requisit standard. Football is littered with lads who haven't made the grade, but also a number of highprofile expensive flops. RvW's transfer could have funded 10+ younguns and I bet collectively they would bring in more money, more appearances for city and almost definitely more goals in the long run, I think it's a pretty good way for the club to go. Especially if we can pinch some of the hotter prospects like JM. We still need to go for players like RvW, at least what we thought we were getting with him! But as a club we can only get prospects, somewhere on there development path or older players like Naismith who couldn't make the top 6 level or arguably top half level as he wasn't making the Everton starting lineup but maybe have something to prove. Polished players in their mid-20's will have bigger ambitions. The longer we stay up the better able we'll be to improve the quality of prospect coming in and then we'll see more youth given it's chance. Most of these lads we're buying have presumably been passed up by the big boys otherwise we just wouldn't have got them in the first place so, they are a second tier of youth prospects and as such it might be a little unfair to expect too much of them in a first team sense to early. Bah!
Sorry General, too much sense there for this board. Though the big boys were after Maddison so we have pulled off a coup there. When AN became our manager we were lead to believe that he was not adverse to giving youth a chance, but due to our situation he is finding it increasingly difficult to pursue this philosophy. I had hoped that young Harry Toffolo would be given a chance this season and looking at Olssons woeful performances so far (were WBA really going to pay £4m for him 13 months ago?) we probably should have taken a chance on him.
I would have loved to see Josh Murphy on our bench as an impact sub, with a bit of flair, pace, directness and local lad wanting to fight for the shirt. I would have loved to see Toffolo start games this season after pre-season. He's miles better then Olsson, if we weren't gonna get a decent LB, we should have kept Harry here.
