Terell Pennant

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Nobody takes risks on kids unless they think they really have the chance of making it, certainly not unless they need to.

 

People seem to confuse giving kids the chance with giving good players a platform. Saints don't just give every tom, dick and harry a chance, they play the kids who they think are good enough.

 

The last thing we want is the manager giving substandard younger players a run out for the sake of it.

I agree with you to a point, but there's a grey area between what a manager might think and whether a player is ready. Anyway, I've a feeling we won't have too many problems with Shakespeare on this point but there are managers who favour giving youth a chance and others less interested.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I agree with you to a point, but there's a grey area between what a manager might think and whether a player is ready. Anyway, I've a feeling we won't have too many problems with Shakespeare on this point but there are managers who favour giving youth a chance and others less interested.

Points matter first and foremost. If we get ourselves into a good position early doors and don't look like having a bad season, it's a damn sight easier to give kids a run out. We've not been in that position for goodness knows how many years. We've stumbled from relegation to title wins virtually every other season for what seems like a decade now.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Points matter first and foremost. If we get ourselves into a good position early doors and don't look like having a bad season, it's a damn sight easier to give kids a run out. We've not been in that position for goodness knows how many years. We've stumbled from relegation to title wins virtually every other season for what seems like a decade now.

Yeah I said this in another thread this morning. There's a myth that the big clubs are stunting young players progress, yet they are more likely to give game time to academy players because they aren't worried about relegation. It's the struggling clubs that can't afford to give kids a go, look through the appearances of Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Man Utd of a season and they'll have more academy players getting games than the likes of us, West Brom, Stoke and Palace.

[vanity]

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

Exactly the point. He's only willing to play players already deemed good enough.

 

He doesn't seem to be to into risking youth players who obviously will be hit and miss but obviously have room for development.

I don't think that is right. He hasn't had the chance yet really. He was coaching for a job and to keep us from relegation so he went with the best team. Even the dead rubbers he neesed to do well bc he wanted the job. This is his first time with freedom and we saw Lawrence play major minutes against Liverpool, and we will almost certainly see some of the younger players on Wednesday against Wigan. If kids haven't even reached the level of our back-ups, playing them is a bit silly. 

 

Now, if he did this with a kid who was roughly on par with a veteran, or even a bit less than and wanting his graduate studies in the Prem for that final polish, and who was dominant in his league, yes, agree 100%, I am a big believer in a culture that rewards youth that massively succeeds at the lower levels, we want the reputation of playing young players who might be ready, een if they fail sometimes. Just a but premature to say what Shakey is like after two preseason games as the head man.

[Dan]

I'm not knocking Shakespeare for it yet as, rightly stated, he hasn't really had a chance. I reckon Barnes would've got some minutes last season at the end if he could, as would James (I know he's not a youngster, but on the subject of opportunities being limited).

 

I think Chilwell's been quite unlucky that we signed Fuchs. If Chilwell was a year older in his development he'd have gotten in over Konchesky for sure.