Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

2017/18 U23s, Development, U19s etc

By davieG, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Foxy-Lady

Foxy-Lady

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

He looks promising but he's not at the same level as Thomas is right now.

Probably right but wikipedia advises Eppiah is only 18 (nearly 19) so Thomas does have an extra year on him. 

Given the right opportunities and development pathway,  Eppiah looks like he has excellent potential

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxy-Lady

Foxy-Lady

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Bob Hazels shorts said:

Players do want to go out on loan but not often allowed.

I understand the club doesn't or tries to avoid propping the wages up. 

 

Dont quite get the logic behind this statement?

The club will have to play 100% of the players wages if they are not out on loan so how are they fiancially "propping the wages up" if they are only paying 50-80% of the players wages when he is out on loan?

Most of the lower league clubs cannot afford to meet the full wage costs of some of some our young players.... but they can offer valuable playing time and experience in return for LCFC helping to under-write some of the costs.

 

Benefit for the player and the club is the player (assett!!) is gaining valuable experience in competitive senior football beyond U23s football and we are potentially saving some money on the wage cost in the process! 

 

Surely a win-win scenario for all parties........unless the club feels they will get a greater return on their investment by letting the player stagnate in U23s development football at 20-23 years old?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Foxy-Lady said:

Dont quite get the logic behind this statement?

The club will have to play 100% of the players wages if they are not out on loan so how are they fiancially "propping the wages up" if they are only paying 50-80% of the players wages when he is out on loan?

Most of the lower league clubs cannot afford to meet the full wage costs of some of some our young players.... but they can offer valuable playing time and experience in return for LCFC helping to under-write some of the costs.

 

Benefit for the player and the club is the player (assett!!) is gaining valuable experience in competitive senior football beyond U23s football and we are potentially saving some money on the wage cost in the process! 

 

Surely a win-win scenario for all parties........unless the club feels they will get a greater return on their investment by letting the player stagnate in U23s development football at 20-23 years old?

I agree with what your saying , completely.

 

Except the last point - maybe the club doesn't think that players are stagnating in the u23 dev squad. They get the chance to play with experienced pros against good quality youngsters, from good quality teams. Seems pointless being an u23 development league if players have to be under 20 to meet your requirements. We have other teams for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxy-Lady

Foxy-Lady

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, FIF said:

I agree with what your saying , completely.

 

Except the last point - maybe the club doesn't think that players are stagnating in the u23 dev squad. They get the chance to play with experienced pros against good quality youngsters, from good quality teams. Seems pointless being an u23 development league if players have to be under 20 to meet your requirements. We have other teams for them.

Common perception in football circles is that if you aren't playing first team football by 21 (even on loan) then you are unlikley to progress much further in the pro game and you will spend last 2-3 years of your contract in U23s football, at which point you will most likley 'disappear' into non/lower leagues.

 

Of the 1% that make it through to the pro-game from U16 scholarship contracts, very few of them will still have been be playing U23s football at 21 years old (ie Gray, Chilwell, Amartey, Ndidi, Barnes, Davies, Rashford, Woodburn, Alexander-Arnold, Pickford, Loftus-Cheek, Fosu-Mensah etc, etc....).

 

U23s football is an ideal development platform for young players (age 17-21) to gain experience and senior players to get game time after injury....... but it is not an ideal place to be if you are a 21-23 year-old hoping to make a career in the pro-game. Chances are if youre not good enough to be out on loan or playing 1st team by 21, then youre probably not good enough...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

Common perception in football circles is that if you aren't playing first team football by 21 (even on loan) then you are unlikley to progress much further in the pro game and you will spend last 2-3 years of your contract in U23s football, at which point you will most likley 'disappear' into non/lower leagues.

 

I don't think that's backed up with evidence is it?. I understood the trend in the prem at the moment is that players are making the first teams a lot later in life than ever before and this is having a filter down effect in English football.

 

I may be wrong and been told erroneous information. Yes there are a few phenoms who have an early breakthrough and maintain it but they are the rarity. I also understand that the situation at a team like Chelsea is much different to the majority of teams in the prem, where some of their many, many young players get loaned out and play first team football.

 

If you are correct then U23's is a useless league as it would only have u19's playing in it, likewise the U19's league would have only 16 year olds playing in it. We may as well go back to a crappy reserve league instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxy-Lady

Foxy-Lady

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FIF said:

I don't think that's backed up with evidence is it?. I understood the trend in the prem at the moment is that players are making the first teams a lot later in life than ever before and this is having a filter down effect in English football.

 

I may be wrong and been told erroneous information. Yes there are a few phenoms who have an early breakthrough and maintain it but they are the rarity. I also understand that the situation at a team like Chelsea is much different to the majority of teams in the prem, where some of their many, many young players get loaned out and play first team football.

 

If you are correct then U23's is a useless league as it would only have u19's playing in it, likewise the U19's league would have only 16 year olds playing in it. We may as well go back to a crappy reserve league instead.

Agree that majority of players are now making the first teams "later in life" but suspect this is largely due to transfer policy and proven players being bought from 'outside' (ie Iborra, Da Silva, Dragovic, Slimani etc...) where as the players actually "breaking through" the system tend to be 19-21 year-olds.....as in the example below of the FIVE players at our own club, three of who came through English academy system and were not playing U23 football age 20. 

(ie Gray, Chilwell, Amartey, Ndidi, Barnes, Davies, Rashford, Woodburn, Alexander-Arnold, Pickford, Loftus-Cheek, Fosu-Mensah etc, etc....)

 

Difficult to think of too many players who "break through" at 23?

 

Chelsea are actually the perfect example of what happens when no pathway exists for Yth playesr and what should be done to ensure they maintain their development. They have a great acadamy system (as is supported by the number of 'homegrown' talents they provide to the England age groups) and the issue at CFC is there is no pathway from Academy to first team which is EXACTLY WHY so many of their young players are loaned out at age 18-20 as opposed to staying in U23s football as it is recognised that this will hinder player development in the longer run. 

(I would wager a substantial sum of money that avg age of CFC U23s will be notably lower when they play LCFC U23s on Friday night))

 

For the record, I didnt say U23s football is useless, I merely said it was not good for 21-23 year-olds to be occuplying playing time as they should be striving to play at the "next level" and in turn, it stifles development opprtunity for younger players who mught have more of a chance of breaking through if a pathway existed

 

U23s football was only recently introduced (previously U21s) to accomodate a higher number of contracted players who found themselves without game time after age 21. Unfortunately, like many well intended ideas, it will have a counter effect of clogging up the system and stifling opportunity if not used properly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AjcW

AjcW

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If Sean St Leger thinks this co commentary will lead to a career in the media, he's going to be disappointed.He's so monotonous. 

If he genuinely managed to nob Taylor Swift with that voice bloke deserves a ****ing knighthood

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...