I don't think Poch was that much different in terms of giving youngsters a chance. Yes he gave Reed a game here and there and others a few minutes at the end of games but that was only if a game had been well won or in Reed's case when we had Wanyama and Schneiderlin out. Chambers got on because Clyne got injured before the season started and then he played well. That is something Poch was good at. HE only took risks as last resort but if he had to play a player (Cork, Chambers, Kane) and they performed he stuck with them. It isn't so much the players minutes that people are questioning now. It is his interaction with the development side of things. That is part of the Southampton Manager's job under this business model and something that Adkins and Poch were very good at. They went to lots of academy games whereas Koeman just goes to see how his No1 keeper gets through his return. and then after a poor game proclaims the academy is crap. It was Adkins that brought JWP and Shaw through So the difference in the first team this season would have been minimal in terms of players playing although I suspect that there would have been more cameo minutes for Reed. As for buying more and better players. We didn't buy that many and they aren't better. I think we could have bought replacement first team players allowing more opportunity for youth on the bench or at least around the first team squad. As for Seager it is exactly the point that noone has seen him in a PL match. Noone had seen Reed, JWP, Shaw etc in a PL match until they were given a game. You don't know how they are going to perform until they are given a chance and noone is suggesting that he should start. last 10 minutes here and there to give him a chance. Reed should get more chances like that. We should also limit JWP to 10 minutes at the end too Targett another possible 10 minuter and move Bertrand forward? All these youngsters need to be in and around the squad and given some opportunity not left the kids side of the locked door in the ML pavillion and wheeled out for the cameras when we want to promote Saints as the miracle of English football. Can't stand Pochetino but he was a great all round manager even though his pas pass football sent me to sleep. Loved Adkins too. If what has been said about Koeman's apathy towards working with the academy is true then his position as manager of Southampton is untenable. That isn't someone moaning when the chips are down. This has only just come to light. I would think last season everybody though it was a lull and that players would come through again. We saw Hesketh and Gape. I think we just all thought that we had to wait and if you read the posts over the past year people have continually asked those in the know how young players are doing. They just didn't know Koeman's reluctance to play a part in the academy (if true.) I think after Guan's comment, people (including me) are just joining the dots and it does all tie in. I can't see the board even considering sacking Koeman during the season over results unless it continues and I don't think we will stay down there even if we lose the next 2 however I can see them making a very quick decision if it looks like news might leak out that the dream academy of British Football with the famed 'pathway' was all a front because the manager wasn't on board with it. Koeman has obviously been under some pressure other than just losing in the last few weeks. His demeanour has changed, his language has changed and he has started saying 'the players' or 'the team' instead of 'We' a lot. He has become quite defensive in his responses and started laying the blame on players in public, then goes public on the academy not being up to scratch. All of that should have been kept in house. Then we hear about senior players voicing concerns about others not behaving appropriately and that discipline is not being dealt out even handedly. This is a man management problem and could very quickly lead to Ronald losing the dressing room. Worrying times because a lot of 'insider' information has come out in the past week. How much there is to worry about? I don't know. I read the same stuff as you do and make up my own mind about things.
It's quality versus quantity. Cortese's expressed model (whether it was workable is a different question) was to largely buy at the top of the market for the starters, and back-fill the squad with kids. Thus, it wouldn't be Reed replacing Schneiderlin...it'd have been a higher-level DM type, with Reed replacing Cork and filling the spot currently occupied by Romeu. Part of the problem we have now, IMO, is that we aren't terribly confident in the overall strength of the squad, and thus worry that plugging a kid in will open up another hole. That's the reason why teams higher up the table, paradoxically, have more time for young 'uns than squads that don't enjoy the same depth of quality...they feel that they can absorb a 5/10 performance easier.
Good post Impsaint. Here is your last sentence: How much there is to worry about? I don't know. I read the same stuff as you do and make up my own mind about things. I've highlighted it because it covers so much. There has been a lot come out in the last few days with so many possibilities and you are right most of us have seen the same stuff. My take is similar to yours, but slightly different. I haven't made up my mind and that is simply because there are so many possibilities. All we can do is sit and wait and support.
To those saying we haven't seen Seager in a PL match - we have, he played vs Swansea last season. And against PL opposition in Palace in the cup match last year,.
Thats that sorted then. Came on after 72 and 92 minutes and didn't score so no need to have another look.
None of these things were perceived to be a problem until we started losing. And of course, if there is a flaw in a business plan then it will eventually be exposed and perhaps this is what is happening. When things are going well, people tend to look the other way. Or even if they aren't, it's hard to see the problem. At the same time, when things go down suddenly everyone complains. It's natural to be frustrated and to over-examine every little thing to try and figure out what is going wrong. Not just the fans, but also people within the club. I don't really doubt Guan2.0's posts in the sense that I think he does have some kind of insider info and isn't just making it up. At the same time, what he is reporting could involve many levels of hearsay. Some U21 player is frustrated and that gets picked up by some club official who is also frustrated who then relays it to Guan2.0 who is also frustrated. Why weren't these sources complaining 6 weeks ago about this stuff? As an explanation for why our team is struggling now and as a quick-fix solution I'm extremely skeptical. I doubt Cory Seager suddenly became a world beater over the course of six weeks. If he is good enough to improve our team, he should have been playing much more from the start, but no one was complaining about it then. And really, RK seems to be making an effort to try and get Juanmi playing time now. As he is only 22, to me that constitutes "giving the youth a chance." And yet people are already writing Juanmi off as crap. So basically like 80% of the complaining to me seems like just bad knee-jerk, finger-pointing. But if there is a issue with how Koeman treats the U21/youths/academy then that is definitely a problem long-term that needs to be considered. I just don't know how much we really know about it.
Have read most of the posts and there is a clear division of views. If this is true; it's a huge leap of faith by the board and I sincerely hope it's the. right decision. Frankly, I am a little worried if this is true because I have concerns over what appears to be his reticence to play academy players and I have some issues over his tactics. That said, managers that stay for the long term can establish at clubs credentials over a period of time. So I am left with mixed feelings over this development. This probably means I have upset the pro's and con's lobbies... ah well, so be it...
You know I just don't get this thing with the youth team not being played. If they were good they would have already been playing, not now as many suggest when we are perhaps not playing so well our at the least not getting the rub of the green. Any would never play someone they didn't think was ready or when it was safe to do so. MP rarely played them and when he did it was only for a few minutes. The Board mainly aimed at LR will want to direct attention from them/him as it isn't RK fault re the standards of the younger players. Would anyone use someone thru didn't rate on a really important project at work that could get you sacked if it screwed up... If players were good enough RK wouldn't care how old they were. I believe people are jumping on this bandwagon only because of recent results as not much was said prior. Also just because we have had great recent success with development of young players, it came always happen and we just have fewer coming through just now.
You do realise most aren't even going on about youth being played right? Most are saying the link between the u21s to the first team seems to be shut. As I said before the u21s trained with the first team under Poch. Yet under Koeman the u21s train with the u18s. It's not about giving the youth a chance at any cost it is about, but it is about giving them a chance and platform to preform on.
Beefy, I did not know this and it's worrying because by training with your peers you have an opportunity to develop more. What l find strange is that we were told before RK joined was that RK was all for youth development.
My use of the term youth is the U21s. If they were good enough they would play. You don't necessarily have to play them to find out, it can help to see them but if you know enough from training and reserve games then why would you take the risk. The only ones from there that are possibly going to make the grade is Reed, Hesketh and Stephens. Reed should have played more, I would drop Vic yo play him alongside Romeu who I thought was excellent Saturday. The others are still a while (min 12-18 months from getting near. I wouldn't risk it, particularly when our initial goal was Europe and now it could be fighting relegation which is a possibility. No way should anyone be tried to see how they go at this stage particularly when many of the games have been really close. I don't think we have played so bad, just need a bit of the luck. Last season Long s header would have gone in of the post, but this time it went out! It it's possible that will change and wet will start scoring more. I still believe a lot of our issues are down to our CB pairing...
Well, I do think I get what your saying, I'm just suggesting it isn't so important if the route to the first team is blocked if the players aren't ready. What difference does it make. In business I'd do the same thing, and I have to with the job I have!
What Beefy means (I think) and I mean is that Pelle is our No1 choice and Long his alternative. When Pelle is unavailable and Long is a starter then Hesketh or Seager (or academy alternative) should be on the bench as the alternative. It isn't about promoting youth to the starting 11 or them being put in ahead of experienced players but they should at least be No3 choice and should get more opportunities even if they are 5 minutes here and there. Take that scenario for all positions. 2 DM positions so Reed is in line there not move JWP or Davis from their positions. Koeman moves experienced players from their positions as sticking plasters rather than give any young player a chance.
Yeah, the "pathway" argument is a valid one. Even if Koeman believes the U21's are not good enough to see major minutes or help the club, there is value in having them train with the first team, and in getting them a few minutes here and there. You never know; they could surprise. And if not, at least it gives them a reward for working hard and something to strive for. And to me, MP made that bit of extra effort to give players a few minutes at the end of games even if somewhat meaningless short-term. It's something that is at once over-rated and under-rated. The immediate impact of playing Gallagher 5 minutes is minimal. But the trickle down impact in terms of keeping with a philosophy and showing the academy players there is a place for them if they work hard, and that the team is looking out for them is important. For a different team, maybe it doesn't matter. But for a team that wants to have youth development as a priority, you should be willing to go the extra mile even if it means sacrificing some other things. I'm not sure though, that this is a sackable offense. If you have a manager that you feel does most other things well, just sit them down and say "We want to see more involvement with the academy players-- showing up at the U21 matches, getting more of them opportunities to train with the first team, etc." If RK is completely unwilling to do this, then you show him the door. But it's also possible that while maybe RK is not that keen on the youth a compromise can be reached where he can be convinced to spend more effort in this area if that is what is desired. I don't believe Koeman is just completely like "Screw these kids." Or that the Reed/ML are like "I don't care how bad they are, play the academy products at any cost."
I get the hphhilosophy of promoting them to the benc and in some cases there could be u case i.e. Reed and maybe Hesketh bit not convinced about the others. Perhaps Ron is making a point re the standards and maybe he thinks most of them will never make the transition and perhaps the wider message is about investment into the first team and he is making a point out of our. If out works and we get more money then all good, after all if the players were better they would perhaps be playing our kept a place in the bench. I'm all for promoting from within it they are ready and able...
Why does RK have to see U21 players for himself? Surely he has put a trust worthy person in charge of them, so he can trust that persons judgement as to whether a player is good enough for the step up? RK doesn't have a reputation for not playing the youngsters, his previous clubs surely would be testament to that? The fact a few of us are of the opinion he should be playing this or that player from the U21 has no relavance surely? As the idea of changing one player for another during a game has got to be that that player can bring something extra or different to the game? Or perhaps maintain the status quo? In other words bringing on a player who is at least equal to, whoever or better than the player he is taking off. If he is not convinced his youngsters don't fit the bill then surely he is making that decision to secure the clubs position within the league which is his prime responsibility. Not bring the youngsters through at any cost.
