As most of you will be aware i'm quite protective of our young players and youth v experience was never a better focal starting point for that. So i constantly try to keep an eye on how the younger members of our squad are being treated in regards to selection, incoming players and match time. None more so than a question I now have in regards to Jake. It's known that despite a silver pot, I was a great cynic of Martin Allen certainly with regards to his treatment of Connor Essam and Danny Jackman. Essam was a particular one that sticks in my mind because MA used to make reason, that he needed to improve his fitness and send him on loan to places like Luton, then would generally fire a player up, only next to move them on. Montrose one off the top of my head that fell into that category. It always gives me a cynical laugh when i look back at one of the media marketing pictures of the Centenary kit, displayed by none other than Payne and Essam. Now the cynic in me could say what was being marketed the kit or the players. But that's the cynic in me when naturally we know it was the kit. Have a read of this brief article: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/sport/taylor-i-made-right-jake-11609/? Now the cynic in me returns. I've voiced my thoughts this season many a time about certain positions within the team, that seem nailed on. Not just under MA but also PT. So its ok for a 34 year old to play every game, but a 19 year old 'looked a bit tired' - nothing to do then with the loanee's sitting on the bench. I sense the powers that be in Watford becoming restless. Obviously all nothing more than a personal opinion. I'm sure a 19 year old's recovery time is quicker than a 34 year old...isn't it? Like i said before Mr Taylor loan's should not be coming in to replace our own...I'll be watching this situation closely. Views please...
Agree with most of that brb. Except the bit about fitness of 19-y-o's against older players (although not 34, thats a bit too old). In the AFL in Australia which requires exceptional fitness levels, the fittest and longer lasting players (during the games) are normally the mid to late 20's. The younger players (say 22 and younger) are regularly rested or rotated to the bench because they haven't had the years of building up 'core fitness'. The younger sides (and players) tend to fade away a bit later in the season because they just can't keep going week after week, which the older players can due to many seasons of fitness and training. I'd have thought it would be similar in football even though the fitness levels are somewhat lower than AFL. Having said all that, there seems to be a lot more different pressures on managers putting players on the field other than just the best 11 starters and subs to suit. Loans (and the parent club), contract clauses, marketing, the future etc etc (not to mention a few other 'dubious' reasons as per the recent accusations about Warnock). Must be pretty tough being a football manager...
Another nam that should be mentioned is Callum Davies. We've conceded 45 goals this season and Barrett has been out of form for a long while. Why continue with playing the slow and sluggish experienced player who is out of form than play a young and hungry defender with lots of talent, posess similar defending traits as Barrett, but is also faster and more athletic than him?
The last 3 games have seen us beat Wolves and Swindon sandwiching a bad loss at Colchester in-between, this is a run of results we could only dream of earlier in the season. So the back 4 haven't changed (Hewitt did come in) but the main difference has been the absence of Whelpdale and Lee (Lee did play 50 minutes against Wolves) replaced by Hess and Dack. What people choose to read into this is up to them but if Whelps and Lee were fit for Friday would you play them.
I notice on the PT injury update article Lee and Whelpdale aren't mentioned, the plot thickens! ok. so I'm bored.
Now Lenny, you know what i tell is the truth and not rubbish. The emphasis of my original post is that PT according to that media report states 'he thought he looked a bit tired' and the reference of the article was in regards to Jake. So nothing to do with us bringing in these loans from places like Watford as bench warmers currently ie no match time, I did highlight this issue in a roundabout (sorry to mention roundabouts alwaysright) way at the time. Unless i've missed a few minutes somewhere. So PT feels Jake 'looks tired' but not your more favoured experienced players eh Lenny...strange that. It's a bit like MA saying Essam needed to work on his fitness and we all know the outcome of that story...I was so tempted to say underlying motive. Oh I just did...lol I noted The Gills PegLeg mentioned Davies earlier, quite right I had not forgot him either. Obviously I can only assume he looks permanently tired and due to this Barrett will be a nailed on place for 46 games. So now let us look back to nine days ago (14/01/2014 12:29pm) as i take to my time machine... So rather than me pedalling rubbish it appears you actually agree with me. I knew it was love. Denial, denial, denial, when underneath it all you feel the passion. and for anyone that missed it this is all tinged with humour
Hess and Dack are both a damn sight better players than ***an yet we seem to have decided he is more deserving of a place. It beggers belief really.
***an's been playing up front tho hasn't he? Not keeping Dack or Hess out of the team. I agree that we should be keeping both those youngsters in the side though. Maybe on the bench occasionally to keep them fresh.
Even if ***an does play on the wing, Dack and Hess are no wingers. Technically its Gregory or Linganzi who are keeping them out of the side.
