This needs to change

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

2 hours ago, punkskaphil said:

It’s done wonders for Barnsley.

 

Wasn't exactly a managers choice though was it ?

[Emerson Thome]

1 hour ago, nilsson said:

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?

 

No, there's 23 minutes of Da Cruz in there too (another loan...).

 

Also, 23 is a bit of an arbitrary age. We do have 5,000 or so minutes of 24 year-olds playing this season (Iorfa, Dawson, Murphy). Iorfa and Dawson both only turned 24 a month or so before the season started.

[torres]

7 hours ago, Minton said:

 

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.

 

 

Is it national or is it graded like the u23's do you know?

 

 

[handworth52]

totally agree that we need younger players , the reason that the age of squad has been so high was because of the appalling transfer policy adopted by carlos and chansiri , even bruce said we need to get squad age down , a lot of those players were given long contracts and with no way of losing them on deals there were on or are on. regards our u23s its was tried under jos and at 1 point I think we had 8 points from 16 games when a lot were getting picked cause of huge injury list .he picked stobbs as a false striker , preston ,jack lee, alex hunt and a few others none of them are anywhere near football league standard im afraid , and this season our u23s are struggling the lad borokov has only 2 goals this season at that level ,he would need 20 to be looking getting into 1st team . it looks like all the best young lads go elsewhere and we in effect are league 2 at best regards young players. 

[handworth52]

8 hours ago, Minton said:

 

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.

 

you prob know more than me regards u18s but I know they won there league twice but didn't know that involved man utd Liverpool etc thing it was at a lower or regional level , the u18s don't usually go too far in youth fa cup usually come up against the likes of Chelsea  who are more powerful etc. there`s been so much promise over last few years with u18s then when they get to u23 level they don't seen to progress , ie connor grant,borokov etc 

[matthefish2002]

The table makes pretty poor reading but we have an opportunity to do something it about it in the summer when we are expecting a bit of a shake up in the squad.

[pussface]

10 hours ago, Onge said:

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

For Jos.

[twolaptops]

2.5 minutes for Abdi

[shezzas left peg]

It's all about a good blend for me, it's not about having one or the other, experience, or a team of youngsters. 

It's about balancing experience, character and youth into a team that has a bit of everything... That's what sucessfull teams do. 

[Musn't Grumble]

I would simply want to see the best side playing every week regardless of age. The team shouldn't be picked on the date on the birth certificate but on overall ability.

 

Whilst we are unlikely to see another fifty year old playing in the top division (Stanley Matthews was 50 years old when he made his final appearance in Division One; he was forty-two when he made his last England appearance), athletes who look after themselves and keep clear of serious injuries can still be playing at a high professional level in their mid-thirties these days.

 

Footballers, like most other athletic sports, tend to peak in their late twenties although, like most other things, this can vary on a player by player basis (I think the average age of the team these days is about twenty-eight[???])

 

Having said that, if the academy isn't producing the goods, it is the overall recruitment and coaching policy that might be at fault. I get the impression that it is the golden rules of physicality and early recruitment (signing up big kids as young as nine or ten[???] and the programme advert from a couple of years back asking for a six-feet-plus fourteen year old to play in goal) that are flawed. There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the late developer fifteen year old or that five feet six ball dribbling wizard to be considered but maybe I am wrong on that?

 

On that basis, given their modest physiques as youngsters, had Messi or Maradonna been born on Vere Road instead of elsewhere, they might not have even got as far as the academy.

[pazowl55]

20 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

I would simply want to see the best side playing every week regardless of age. The team shouldn't be picked on the date on the birth certificate but on overall ability.

 

Whilst we are unlikely to see another fifty year old playing in the top division (Stanley Matthews was 50 years old when he made his final appearance in Division One; he was forty-two when he made his last England appearance), athletes who look after themselves and keep clear of serious injuries can still be playing at a high professional level in their mid-thirties these days.

 

Footballers, like most other athletic sports, tend to peak in their late twenties although, like most other things, this can vary on a player by player basis (I think the average age of the team these days is about twenty-eight[???])

 

Having said that, if the academy isn't producing the goods, it is the overall recruitment and coaching policy that might be at fault. I get the impression that it is the golden rules of physicality and early recruitment (signing up big kids as young as nine or ten[???] and the programme advert from a couple of years back asking for a six-feet-plus fourteen year old to play in goal) that are flawed. There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the late developer fifteen year old or that five feet six ball dribbling wizard to be considered but maybe I am wrong on that?

 

On that basis, given their modest physiques as youngsters, had Messi or Maradonna been born on Vere Road instead of elsewhere, they might not have even got as far as the academy.

On that basis aswell then you could say how has Alex Hunt come through our academy to play in the first team. Probably the same size as a Messi or a Maradonna were. But with an ounce of the talent.

Edited February 6, 2020 by pazowl55

[Burnsie]

A lot of those teams higher on the u23 table appear to be lower in the table that matters

[shezzas left peg]

1 hour ago, torres said:

 

Is it national or is it graded like the u23's do you know?

 

 

I think I remember haslam or his predecessor that whent to man City saying it's down to how high they grade facilities as well as finishing top of your division, we're in the second tier. 

 

[Watto]

It's not just our youngster's though , we haven't got enough in the squad full stop , definitely struggle with energy because of that.

[Minton]

2 hours ago, torres said:

 

Is it national or is it graded like the u23's do you know?

 

 

 

It's graded according to the status of the academy. We are category 2, so play in the Professional Development League. The category 1 academies play in the Premier League 2.

 

It changed a few years back and a lot of clubs reduced their status or closed their academy completely (Brentford and Barnsley are good examples) in order to save money. The requirements for a Cat 1 academy are high (players must be on an 18 month deal minimum, there has to be a full time academy director, certain facilities must be available and many more) so the costs are high and have to be consistently high. To put it into context, the Blunts are category 2 as well.

 

I was also incorrect in saying we were twice champions, it was last season only. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Minton

[billyblack]

11 hours ago, Owls2k said:

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

True. But we havent

[prowl]

Do we have any U23 players worthy of replacing any of the existing squad?

 

You can't put the cart before the horse, even the best of the U23's lack experience of first team football. They need to go out on loan to get that experience. Urhoghide looked a potential talent but got caught out by his inexperience, he would have been more able to cope after a season in L1 or 2.

 

Maybe we need better U23's

 

Managers are employed based on winning, lose too many and they get the boot. They aren't paid for developing young players. It follows that if the youngster improves the first team the manager would be stupid not to play him. All managers want good young players, there's no sign that any of ours are ready and that is likely to remain the case unless we send them out on loan to develop. DC says we are all a family, well a good family tries to prepare it's youngsters for the future by educating them and giving then different experiences. The Sheffield Wednesday family fails to do this by insisting on getting other clubs to pay too much in wages when it's actually in our interests to get the U23's out on loan.

 

Let's be a bit more flexible and see if we can get the lads out on loan.

 

(I'm generally supportive of DC)

[soldierboyblue]

13 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”

 

 

The integration of the younger players needs to be carefully manged just look at what Jos achieved when throwing them all in.

[torres]

1 minute ago, soldierboyblue said:

The integration of the younger players needs to be carefully manged just look at what Jos achieved when throwing them all in.

 

I don't think ours particularly (not sure they are good enough) should be used

 

We just need a younger squad 

 

Hopefully addressed in the summer 

[ChapSmurf]

13 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”

 

 

 

We don't necessarily need a younger squad, just a hungrier one with greater football intelligence.