Oldest team in the league

[PodgeyRam]

I suspect MM's past behaviour might have influenced this trend. He talks a good game about the academy but time and time again when results go south for any stretch of games he sacks the manager. That gives managers no incentive to blood the youth, very much the opposite. 

Why bring in youth players and give them experience when they are prone to mistakes and poor runs of form? Better from a job security perspective to go with experienced players who are less likely to make these mistakes and are more likely to keep you in a job.

[Animal is a Ram]

1 minute ago, Ellafella said:

I wonder what MM makes of this? One of GR's KPIs is to have at least 1 Academy Product in the match day squad. Perhaps GR can get away with it as we sit 2nd? However, medium to longer term we really do need to shift a gear. Otherwise why have an Academy? We also need to stop hiding behind the phrase " they're not ready yet". I well remember Wassall saying "I wouldn't have predicted Wil Hughes would be the one to burst through at 17 from watching him at 16".

I think the biggest problem is the expectation. It's a lot easier for the manager when you're a comfortable mid-table team to slot young'uns in, and there's a lot less pressure on said player to do well.

With that in mind, it suggests to me that the players closest to breaking through are those on loan at clubs - Gordon and Elsnik at Swindon Town, and by some accounts doing well. U23s football will be very different to 1st team football, there's not as big a difference between Champo and League 1.

Might Gaz be tempted to bring Gordon back to slot in on one of the wings? I doubt Elsnik would displace Vydra - I understand that's the type of player he is?  

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

Not bothered if the players are all 18 or 40 as long as they have the quality, desire and fitness levels. 

[Ellafella]

2 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

I think the biggest problem is the expectation. It's a lot easier for the manager when you're a comfortable mid-table team to slot young'uns in, and there's a lot less pressure on said player to do well.

With that in mind, it suggests to me that the players closest to breaking through are those on loan at clubs - Gordon and Elsnik at Swindon Town, and by some accounts doing well. U23s football will be very different to 1st team football, there's not as big a difference between Champo and League 1.

Might Gaz be tempted to bring Gordon back to slot in on one of the wings? I doubt Elsnik would displace Vydra - I understand that's the type of player he is?  

Yes I understand the footballing argument and I sympathise with it. Yet I think that the Academy costs circa £5m per annum to run. So in cost-benefit-analysis terms you might argue that Hughes at £5m and Hendrick at £10m (did we really sell Hughesey for £5m less than we got for Hendrick ) have paid back 3 years' worth. But what I cannot quite fathom is that other teams {Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Florist} seem to quite frequently produce from within their own ranks. Demographically, you'd expect a similar number being produced by each club per capita, unless policy and selection issues differ. So, maybe policy and selection issues are the reason? 

[whiteroseram]

There's a difference between the age of the squad and the age of who's actually getting the most minutes on the pitch (which I believe this is measuring). 

GR certainly wanted to reduce the age of the squad, for example he's have liked to shift people like Bent and Shackell and replace with a younger back up (maybe even from our own U23s).

When it comes to who actually plays, well thats down to who performs. None of us expected Baird to be clear 1st choice and playing almost all of our minutes ahead of Wisdom, but not going to drop him! Same arguably goes for Nugent. 

 

We'd all love to see a load of our Academy in our 1st team but we have to be patient, if you're doing well those places in the line up don't become available, whereas at forest last season lots of positions were available so lots of young lads got a go.

[Animal is a Ram]

2 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Yes I understand the footballing argument and I sympathise with it. Yet I think that the Academy costs circa £5m per annum to run. So in cost-benefit-analysis terms you might argue that Hughes at £5m and Hendrick at £10m (did we really sell Hughesey for £5m less than we got for Hendrick ) have paid back 3 years' worth. But what I cannot quite fathom is that other teams {Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Florist} seem to quite frequently produce from within their own ranks. Demographically, you'd expect a similar number being produced by each club per capita, unless policy and selection issues differ. So, maybe policy and selection issues are the reason? 

Florest are the perfect example of my original point, they've mostly been a comfortable mid-table team, especially with the added pressure of their recent FFP troubles, they've been forced to promote from within.

Otherwise you're correct - it is a policy issue. It's been too easy for managers from Mac1 onwards to splash the cash. So apportion the blame for that to a perhaps naive MM, and each of the managers he has hired. I doubt there's been a manager since Clough left who has given at least a sub appearance to an academy product as Rowett has? Perhaps Pearson might have done, given more time? He did give Elsnik his first pro appearance.

[Ellafella]

All good replies; but doesn't address the central issue:

Why are we bothering to have an Academy? At the moment the answer is:

1. It will only begin to be useful in lean times when we are struggling / are mediocre in our division and out of necessity have to dump in some kids, the experience of which will either make them or break them. 

Other than that, the Academy is only useful to Swindons/Port Vales/Rushdens who get to loan our products.

Would anyone other than a romantic idealist persist with it given this level of benefit? 

[Sparkle]

57 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Yes I understand the footballing argument and I sympathise with it. Yet I think that the Academy costs circa £5m per annum to run. So in cost-benefit-analysis terms you might argue that Hughes at £5m and Hendrick at £10m (did we really sell Hughesey for £5m less than we got for Hendrick ) have paid back 3 years' worth. But what I cannot quite fathom is that other teams {Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Florist} seem to quite frequently produce from within their own ranks. Demographically, you'd expect a similar number being produced by each club per capita, unless policy and selection issues differ. So, maybe policy and selection issues are the reason? 

Worth noting that Hendrick plays every week when fit in the premiership for a team in the top 6 - very impressive and actually might be just what we need 

[Ellafella]

29 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Worth noting that Hendrick plays every week when fit in the premiership for a team in the top 6 - very impressive and actually might be just what we need 

It would be interesting to watch him now for 90 minutes and see how his consistency has improved {assuming it has}.

[Papahet]

How depressing when anything over 30 is classed old

[archied]

2 hours ago, Ellafella said:

I wonder what MM makes of this? One of GR's KPIs is to have at least 1 Academy Product in the match day squad. Perhaps GR can get away with it as we sit 2nd? However, medium to longer term we really do need to shift a gear. Otherwise why have an Academy? We also need to stop hiding behind the phrase " they're not ready yet". I well remember Wassall saying "I wouldn't have predicted Wil Hughes would be the one to burst through at 17 from watching him at 16".

Does that say more about wassell or Hughes though 

[Sparkle]

26 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

It would be interesting to watch him now for 90 minutes and see how his consistency has improved {assuming it has}.

Probably doing what he is told to do, excellent international footballer playing at the top end of the premiership- well it’s factually correct 

At some point we will get a hefty sell on him

[SKRam]

But let’s factor in a 43 year old manager, now that’ll bring the average age down. Include the managers age I say! 

[nogbad van 50]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

Yes I understand the footballing argument and I sympathise with it. Yet I think that the Academy costs circa £5m per annum to run. So in cost-benefit-analysis terms you might argue that Hughes at £5m and Hendrick at £10m (did we really sell Hughesey for £5m less than we got for Hendrick ) have paid back 3 years' worth. But what I cannot quite fathom is that other teams {Brentford, Sheffield Utd, Florist} seem to quite frequently produce from within their own ranks. Demographically, you'd expect a similar number being produced by each club per capita, unless policy and selection issues differ. So, maybe policy and selection issues are the reason? 

You’ve made an interesting reference or two there so I thought I’d check the Brentford one out of curiosity.They currently have 8 English players in their first team squad but only one,Josh Clarke,is a product of their youth system.The others are signings from a variety of other clubs such as Arsenal,Chelsea,Walsall,Exeter and Shrewsbury.Having watched our under 23s I can only see Lowe,Luke Thomas,Elsnik and maybe Zanzala making our first team squad at some stage. As nice as it would be to see an Academy product break through ,the Championship is a hell of a tough division and until Rowett moves out some of the dead wood we all know about,the chances will be few and far between for a youngster to break through. Rowett’s a pragmatist and whilst he’s getting results with the team,albeit not a youthful one,he’ll stick to his guns and,I for one,can’t fault him for that.

[Sparkle]

2 minutes ago, rcarso1 said:

You’ve made an interesting reference or two there so I thought I’d check the Brentford one out of curiosity.They currently have 8 English players in their first team squad but only one,Josh Clarke,is a product of their youth system.The others are signings from a variety of other clubs such as Arsenal,Chelsea,Walsall,Exeter and Shrewsbury.Having watched our under 23s I can only see Lowe,Luke Thomas,Elsnik and maybe Zanzala making our first team squad at some stage. As nice as it would be to see an Academy product break through ,the Championship is a hell of a tough division and until Rowett moves out some of the dead wood we all know about,the chances will be few and far between for a youngster to break through. Rowett’s a pragmatist and whilst he’s getting results with the team,albeit not a youthful one,he’ll stick to his guns and,I for one,can’t fault him for that.

Brentford operate on the MONEYBALL system - it seems to work for them, they also sell everyone before their contracts run out

[nogbad van 50]

19 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Brentford operate on the MONEYBALL system - it seems to work for them, they also sell everyone before their contracts run out

Well,good luck to them,they’re obviously happy to survive the way they are doing! Mind you,their scouting system seems a good one.?

[JoetheRam]

Gary Rowett's Barmy Dads Army!

Age, or rather youth, has to be the most overrated attribute in football.

Look at the great Milan side, particularly the back 4, of the mid-late 00's. Maldini Stam Nesta Cafu. How about throwing on a 41 year old Costacuerta to freshen things up? Or a 35 year old Serginho? If you're good enough, you're young enough.