Jump to content
torres

This needs to change

Recommended Posts

It’s obviously not the be all and end all but we certainly need a younger squad next year for many reasons 

 

The lack of energy and exuberance has been clear for a while in the first team. It sometimes comes across as lack of fitness it’s more lack of “legs”

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jos tried to use the youngsters. Didn't end too well...

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s done wonders for Barnsley.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We played the young uns and they got slaughtered on here.

 

Personally I love to see it!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we expected to stop all those teams from playing their youngsters though?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the youngsters playing for Championship teams don't belong to them though and will soon be off elsewhere.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

Most of the youngsters playing for Championship teams don't belong to them though and will soon be off elsewhere.

Very true. Be interesting to see that stat minus the loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are youngsters and then there are youngsters. 

 

I would suspect the best mix is a full range of ages, so long as you have the right players of course.

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minutes given to players 23 or under this season. We are by far the lowest across all divisions 

 

 

A90F35ED-CDB9-4E0D-A2C6-180061E468E3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, if we had four 22 year olds who each played 23 full league games so far, we would be above Leeds in that table. 
 

The table means nothing. Why choose 23? Why game minutes as opposed to number of unique players under 23?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

Thing is, if we had four 22 year olds who each played 23 full league games so far, we would be above Leeds in that table. 
 

The table means nothing. Why choose 23? Why game minutes as opposed to number of unique players under 23?

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

Thing is, if we had four 22 year olds who each played 23 full league games so far, we would be above Leeds in that table. 
 

The table means nothing. Why choose 23? Why game minutes as opposed to number of unique players under 23?


We don’t have four 22 year olds that have played every game though... that’s the issue.

 

That table is pretty poor and you can’t really defend it. A result of short term recruitment under DC.

 

We’re not a club with a great track record of playing under 23s and bringing youth through. Chris Turner and Jos did but it didn’t work out well for either of them. 
 

Even in the early 90s, Bart Williams would have been the only under 23 getting any game time for us?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we won promotion with 0 minutes given to youngsters we wouldn't bat an eye lid. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

There are youngsters and then there are youngsters. 

 

giphy.gif

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crookesowl said:

Minutes given to players 23 or under this season. We are by far the lowest across all divisions 

 

THEY ARE ALL TOO BUSY PLAYING FOR THE UNDER 23'S!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take loan players out and Leeds are on about 2,000 minutes, West Brom would be below Luton on about 4,000. And look at the teams near the top... Barnsley, Hudderfield, Charlton...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

Take loan players out and Leeds are on about 2,000 minutes, West Brom would be below Luton on about 4,000. And look at the teams near the top... Barnsley, Hudderfield, Charlton...


That’s a good point. That table is distorted by loans, it’d be more accurate if the loans were taken out.

 

157 minutes of league football for us played by under 23s is still bad though. Is the 157 minutes all from Urhoghide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, torres said:

It’s obviously not the be all and end all but we certainly need a younger squad next year for many reasons 

 

The lack of energy and exuberance has been clear for a while in the first team. It sometimes comes across as lack of fitness it’s more lack of “legs”

 

 

 

It's almost as if our academy was neglected for two decades by previous boards...

 

As for change, it isn't an instant thing, but our u18s have been national champions 2 seasons running, so there are potentially a number of lads to come through over the next 2-3 seasons.

 

Edited by Minton
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft I think a, more pressing matter is how many over 40s get a game. 

We are the overlooked minority. Our wealth of experience could prove rewarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...