Utilising the U23s on the first team bench.

[Parsnip]

Just now, Paul71 said:

I know what you mean, but with lots to play for and the play offs hopefully coming up Palmer is likely to be involved more than Thomas.

And he should be. If the lead was only 1-0 or even 2-0 then Palmer's the man. But 3-0 and cruising? Kids!

[Norman]

27 minutes ago, Boycie said:

I agree, but Thomas could of come on with the first two subs leaving a spare for cover.

Would you play him in the play-offs?

[rynny]

8 minutes ago, Norman said:

Would you play him in the play-offs?

Wouldn't yesterday's game be the perfect time to see if he could be involved? 

[sage]

1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

Posted something v similar in the derby v Bolton thread but got shot down somewhat. 

I agree that we need imo to take opportunities to bed in new pairings even a slightly tweaked system to explore options.

The endless like for like subs have been done and they don't tell us anything. All we end up practicing with our subs is our complete inability to adjust when we might actually need to chase a game.

Please don't tell me we needed to "close out" a game at home to a woefully out of form team when we only have a 3 goal cushion. I mean there's cautious but.....

They had 4 chances in 15 minutes, including hitting the woodwork twice and having one cleared off the line. We should be able to manage the game, but we weren't doing.  

[Dimmu]

13 hours ago, Boycie said:

Today was the best opportunity to get young Luke Thomas some game time.

The first subs used could of included Luke, Vydra’s reaction on getting subbed told me he wasn’t changed due to injury.

So with this opportunity, why give the lad 7 mins?

Come on, what’s the point? Are we serious about the academy?

If we can’t offer them more than 7 mins at 3-0 up then something’s not right.

I can’t see many more games where we’ll have a 3 goal luxury to bring these lads gently in.

Sorry for the rant, but I want the Academy to work for us.

I posted about the same phenomena earlier, but it didn't go down well as Rowett's halo was shinier at the time.

58 minutes played against Hull, game 5-0 and we have Bennett on the bench.

Changes Winnall 73, Russell 74, Martin 80.

I just don't get it.

[nottingram]

I remember when Wassall made some changes at 3-0 up once. We drew 3-3 and he received some of the worst abuse from his own supporters I’ve ever seen.

[Norman]

5 minutes ago, rynny said:

Wouldn't yesterday's game be the perfect time to see if he could be involved? 

Not for me. How would some of those expecting to be playing have took it?

Morale, fitness, trust, contract clauses....

Rowett has to man manage a lot of different personalties and players. I would trust him to make the right call. Which I think he did. 

[Sith Happens]

20 minutes ago, Parsnip said:

And he should be. If the lead was only 1-0 or even 2-0 then Palmer's the man. But 3-0 and cruising? Kids!

Thats why, at this stage, i would rather give someone who is likely to be involved minutes than someone who is not.

[Boycie]

22 minutes ago, Norman said:

Would you play him in the play-offs?

Firstly we have to get there, but what if he had come on and scores with a little bit of individual skill? We won’t know.

Same way we won’t know if Lawrence or Weimann will stay fit for the next 8 games.

[rynny]

2 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I remember when Wassall made some changes at 3-0 up once. We drew 3-3 and he received some of the worst abuse from his own supporters I’ve ever seen.

The changes he made though were Blackman and Bent on for Martin and Thorne, we became outnumbered in midfield and the ball was not sticking upfront as we went 4-4-2. He did nothing to rectify that mistake, he still had another sub, which was not used and Johnson playing LM, he could altered it back to 4-3-3 by dropping Johnson back and Blackman out wide, or even making another sub and bringing either Hanson or Butterfield on.

9 minutes ago, Norman said:

Not for me. How would some of those expecting to be playing have took it?

Morale, fitness, trust, contract clauses....

Rowett has to man manage a lot of different personalties and players. I would trust him to make the right call. Which I think he did. 

No player should expect to play.

If a senior player cannot be happy that a youth player is given an opportunity to play when we are 3 up and comfortable then I'm not sure they are the type of player I want at the club. Especially a youth player that has performed so well in the under 23s this season.

Let's flip your question around, how will a youth player feel playing as well as Thomas has this season and not get any chance of playing in the first team? What's the point of being at the club if they aren't going to get a chance no matter how they perform in the under 23s?

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Firstly we have to get there, but what if he had come on and scores with a little bit of individual skill? We won’t know.

Same way we won’t know if Lawrence or Weimann will stay fit for the next 8 games.

Then we just disagree on who needs minutes and who doesn't.

If we had nothing to play for, then i'd agree.

[Norman]

Just now, rynny said:

The changes he made though were Blackman and Bent on for Martin and Thorne, we became outnumbered in midfield and the ball was not sticking upfront as we went 4-4-2. He did nothing to rectify that mistake, he still had another sub, which was not used and Johnson playing LM, he could altered it back to 4-3-3 by dropping Johnson back and Blackman out wide, or even making another sub and bringing either Hanson or Butterfield on.

No player should expect to play.

If a senior player cannot be happy that a youth player is given an opportunity to play when we are 3 up and comfortable then I'm not sure they are the type of player I want at the club. Especially a youth player that has performed so well in the under 23s this season.

Let's flip your question around, how will a youth player feel playing as well as Thomas has this season and not get any chance of playing in the first team? What's the point of being at the club if they aren't going to get a chance no matter how they perform in the under 23s?

Flip your answer around.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Boycie said:

I think my rant was aimed at the Clubs intended use or view of the Academy rather than a opinion on this performance of the team or result.

I think the result was a much needed one and a huge relief in the ground.

Huddlesone was majestic, my man of the match, Lawrence and Weimann good too, an all round solid performance against a team near the bottom. We know what Sunderland did to us, so this wasn’t a game to be taken lightly.

But at 3 nil up and replacing a winger? Hardly going to make the wheels fall off is it?

I think you're right but, "rant" is probably an overreaction. I think Gary said he didn't want to make his final substitution too early in case of any injuries. The game was pretty much safe (well, as safe as it can be with Derby) but we couldn't risk letting them getting remotely back in. You never know, it may come down to goal difference. 

[Boycie]

23 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think you're right but, "rant" is probably an overreaction. I think Gary said he didn't want to make his final substitution too early in case of any injuries. The game was pretty much safe (well, as safe as it can be with Derby) but we couldn't risk letting them getting remotely back in. You never know, it may come down to goal difference. 

Yeah you’re right, it wasn’t really a full on rant.

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I know what you mean, but with lots to play for and the play offs hopefully coming up Palmer is likely to be involved more than Thomas.

Exactly but hey ho Steve McClaren had plenty on loan and used them before U23s so why are people hammering Rowett. 

[nottingram]

28 minutes ago, rynny said:

The changes he made though were Blackman and Bent on for Martin and Thorne, we became outnumbered in midfield and the ball was not sticking upfront as we went 4-4-2. He did nothing to rectify that mistake, he still had another sub, which was not used and Johnson playing LM, he could altered it back to 4-3-3 by dropping Johnson back and Blackman out wide, or even making another sub and bringing either Hanson or Butterfield on.

I was just making the point that a game is never really won. Say he makes a change, Thomas for Weimann, on 65 minutes and we concede straight away. That gives them 25 minutes to get two goals, with the momentum. Sure, there’s defensive players on the bench, none of which are deemed good enough to start, and we’ve lost the easy out ball of Weimann to ease pressure. We go on to draw 3-3 and it’s all Rowett’s fault for thinking the game is won, we’ve all of a sudden not got two wins under our belt, and put 5th place looks less secure.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Yeah you’re right, it wasn’t really a full on rant.

It was a rant after a 3-0 win 

Rowett can’t win whatever. 

[Boycie]

40 minutes ago, curtains said:

It was a rant after a 3-0 win 

Rowett can’t win whatever. 

Shurrup you!

[Boycie]

46 minutes ago, curtains said:

Exactly but hey ho Steve McClaren had plenty on loan and used them before U23s so why are people hammering Rowett. 

We had no prospects coming through did we? Hanson, he had chances I think?

 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

We had no prospects coming through did we? Hanson, he had chances I think?

 

The prospects we have now need to be brought on slowly. 

For what’s its worth I think Luke did very well when he came on and it will do him the power of good