2018/19 U23s, Development, U19s etc

[Sol thewall Bamba]

wHy ArEn'T wE pLaYiNg sOyUnCU!?!

Edited 2 October 2018 by Sol thewall Bamba

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Agree. I thought Hamza had a really good game and looked a class above the other players out there.

 

 

 

I understand your point and you do make the same point all the time.

 

Personally I think that Arsenal should use the games how they see fit. It's not an under 19s league and I'm glad of that. I wonder where all the Arsenal 20 - 23 year olds play a decent game of football when they can't get in the U23s because it's full of talented youngsters and they can't get in the first team because it's full of old pros.  I agree with playing some of our older players to help the youngsters, it would be better if we could sell Benny, Simmo and Jako but since we can't I don't mind an occasional appearance. i think it's good for the younger players to have someone like Kingy in there. 

 

That will help them more watching our 18 year olds play.

 

Arsenal sound like they have a system of superstars - shame that after 19 they all have to go somewhere else to play football and a shame (but not really) that their first team is really not any better than ours. The PRIMARY purpose of player development is to improve OUR first team or OUR bank balance. if you think it's to make every player better for any  other reason you're in the wrong sport and the wrong league. Maybe Chelsea love seeing their youth rejects suceed at other prem teams, like Manure must have loved their youth rejects suceeding with Leicester and maybe in the future Arsenal will too, but somehow I don't think that's their primary aim.

 

Again, personally, I like to watch and enjoy the matches and a weak 17 yo who is out of his depth would not achieve that aim. A bit like watching Benny out of his depth in the U23s.

If you haven't made it by 20/21 at Arsenal and you're not out on loan then you have been released or sold. I can't remember too many occasions where a PL player comes through the academy and doesn't play for the first team until their early twenties. We're probably hanging on to them too long. 

[Foxy-Lady]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

 

I understand your point and you do make the same point all the time.

 

Personally I think that Arsenal should use the games how they see fit. It's not an under 19s league and I'm glad of that. I wonder where all the Arsenal 20 - 23 year olds play a decent game of football when they can't get in the U23s because it's full of talented youngsters and they can't get in the first team because it's full of old pros.  I agree with playing some of our older players to help the youngsters, it would be better if we could sell Benny, Simmo and Jako but since we can't I don't mind an occasional appearance. i think it's good for the younger players to have someone like Kingy in there. 

 

That will help them more watching our 18 year olds play.

 

Arsenal sound like they have a system of superstars - shame that after 19 they all have to go somewhere else to play football and a shame (but not really) that their first team is really not any better than ours. The PRIMARY purpose of player development is to improve OUR first team or OUR bank balance. if you think it's to make every player better for any  other reason you're in the wrong sport and the wrong league. Maybe Chelsea love seeing their youth rejects suceed at other prem teams, like Manure must have loved their youth rejects suceeding with Leicester and maybe in the future Arsenal will too, but somehow I don't think that's their primary aim.

 

Again, personally, I like to watch and enjoy the matches and a weak 17 yo who is out of his depth would not achieve that aim. A bit like watching Benny out of his depth in the U23s.

I guess if i'm making the same point repeatedly it must be because the same thing keeps happening?  Similarly, just because I keep making the same point, it doesn't mean its wrong... 

 

The truth, I don't really care about LCFCs strategy on player development as that is entirely their choice and I only actually make the point to add balance to the media-spin about how well the U23s are doing as, in reality, they are competing against younger and less experienced players and the results are not an accurate reflection of player development or coaching expertise.

 

I also note you keep making the same point about how good it is for our youngsters to play with senior players. Worth considering that we only had 3-4 "inexperienced youngsters" (u21) playing last night (Dewsbury, Wright, Knight, Loft) where as Arsenal had TEN...so using your logic, I suspect their 10 U19s probably gained more from playing against experienced pros than our 4 gained from playing alongside them.  

Wouldn't it be nice for a change if OUR youngsters also got the benefit of playing against experienced pros from other clubs in the U23 league....but I somehow don't think that's going to happen while Rudkin/Beaglehole are primarily focussed on winning at all costs.  Just a thought...    

[CloudFox]

15 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

I guess if i'm making the same point repeatedly it must be because the same thing keeps happening?  Similarly, just because I keep making the same point, it doesn't mean its wrong... 

 

The truth, I don't really care about LCFCs strategy on player development as that is entirely their choice and I only actually make the point to add balance to the media-spin about how well the U23s are doing as, in reality, they are competing against younger and less experienced players and the results are not an accurate reflection of player development or coaching expertise.

 

I also note you keep making the same point about how good it is for our youngsters to play with senior players. Worth considering that we only had 3-4 "inexperienced youngsters" (u21) playing last night (Dewsbury, Wright, Knight, Loft) where as Arsenal had TEN...so using your logic, I suspect their 10 U19s probably gained more from playing against experienced pros than our 4 gained from playing alongside them.  

Wouldn't it be nice for a change if OUR youngsters also got the benefit of playing against experienced pros from other clubs in the U23 league....but I somehow don't think that's going to happen while Rudkin/Beaglehole are primarily focussed on winning at all costs.  Just a thought...    

Appreciate your insight on this, thank you. You're right, it's good to have balance on this area of the club.

 

I know it's been said a lot, but to confirm - Beaglehole and Ruskin's approach to the Academy is purely to win, rather than focus on development?

 

I'd be very curious to know what the owners think of the Academy and Beaglehole. My understanding is that Beaglehole and Rudkin are mates, hence why the former is still there. Surely with the new training ground and amount of money going into youth training facilities our owners will be keeping a closer eye on our youth development?

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

Appreciate your insight on this, thank you. You're right, it's good to have balance on this area of the club.

 

I know it's been said a lot, but to confirm - Beaglehole and Ruskin's approach to the Academy is purely to win, rather than focus on development?

 

I'd be very curious to know what the owners think of the Academy and Beaglehole. My understanding is that Beaglehole and Rudkin are mates, hence why the former is still there. Surely with the new training ground and amount of money going into youth training facilities our owners will be keeping a closer eye on our youth development?

I've been banging on about this for years now, we've pumped millions and millions in to all facets of this club but the leadership of our academy has remained the same for a decade. Where are we as a club a decade on? You can't expect the same level of improvement with zero change surely? We are going to have one of the best training facilities in the country but still the same gig at the academy, why not be brave and ambitious to match this in a very important and valuable area of the club?

[l444ry]

Seems to me that we have a reasonably promising set of youngsters coming through at the moment, yet some people are determined  to avoid giving Beaglehole any of the credit whatsoever. Looks like a bit of ill informed scapegoating similar to that which Rudkin usually gets subjected to .

[themightyfin]

Next to other teams we actually bring a lot of players through the youth systems who go on to have s good career here it elsewhere. A lot better than most premiership clubs in fact.

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Seems to me that we have a reasonably promising set of youngsters coming through at the moment, yet some people are determined  to avoid giving Beaglehole any of the credit whatsoever. Looks like a bit of ill informed scapegoating similar to that which Rudkin usually gets subjected to .

The point a few of us are making is, some of these players development is being slowed down by older players being selected so they aren't being exposed to a higher level of football around the ages of 17-19 and then also some of the 19-21 year olds that are in the U23 team are refused loan moves to play at a higher standard in favour of us trying to win the PL2. 

[l444ry]

17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The point a few of us are making is, some of these players development is being slowed down by older players being selected so they aren't being exposed to a higher level of football around the ages of 17-19 and then also some of the 19-21 year olds that are in the U23 team are refused loan moves to play at a higher standard in favour of us trying to win the PL2. 

I doubt it's the preferred strategy. Just think the squad is far too big and they're trying to keep some senior players ticking over myself. It's a bit messy at the moment  The 17-19 group have their own League. Also, I think they would only loan out u23 players to clubs they trust or know to treat our players in a way that helps their development as we see it. No point loaning out just because some team or other just for the sake of it.  

[LCFC FOX]

Should be changed to only one over 23 player allowed. It’s a shambles that team and yet they still lost. Or a rule where you can only play in the under 23’s if you’ve been out injured for over a month or something.

 

That said I’m dissapointed in the club for playing so many over 23’s. What’s the point in it. Surely it makes sense to bring people from the under 18’s and let them develop.

Edited 2 October 2018 by LCFC FOX

[l444ry]

6 minutes ago, LCFC FOX said:

Should be changed to only one over 23 player allowed. It’s a shambles that team and yet they still lost. Or a rule where you can only play in the under 23’s if you’ve been out injured for over a month or something.

 

That said I’m dissapointed in the club for playing so many over 23’s. What’s the point in it. Surely it makes sense to bring people from the under 18’s and let them develop.

Not sure what the current rule is but it used to be four over aged players. Don't forget, the Elite Development System replaced the old reserve leagues so this rule makes some sense.

[Foxy-Lady]

18 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Seems to me that we have a reasonably promising set of youngsters coming through at the moment, yet some people are determined  to avoid giving Beaglehole any of the credit whatsoever. Looks like a bit of ill informed scapegoating similar to that which Rudkin usually gets subjected to .

I think if you check my original post on yesterdays game you will find it was an evidence based analysis and I was simply referring to the facts.....but please feel free to highlight any of the facts you don't agree with if you wish to discuss it properly? 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

23 minutes ago, l444ry said:

I doubt it's the preferred strategy. Just think the squad is far too big and they're trying to keep some senior players ticking over myself. It's a bit messy at the moment  The 17-19 group have their own League. Also, I think they would only loan out u23 players to clubs they trust or know to treat our players in a way that helps their development as we see it. No point loaning out just because some team or other just for the sake of it.  

I still think there needs to be a bit of a change in our approach but that's not ignoring the decent work that Beaglehole and Peake have done. There's a winning culture and great team spirit which is seen in the likes of Knight, Choudhury etc who ought to be on the fringes of the 1st team. How Knight hasn't been loaned out yet, or Ndukwu is outrageous.

[lgfualol]

What happened to Connor Tee? He is in fifa so must be alright. Not physical enough for hoofs?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

If you haven't made it by 20/21 at Arsenal and you're not out on loan then you have been released or sold. I can't remember too many occasions where a PL player comes through the academy and doesn't play for the first team until their early twenties. We're probably hanging on to them too long. 

But we are not Arsenal nor Chelsea. From what I can see we use the U23 team to keep some of our fringe players match fit and interested, some of our senior players to help the development of our younger players, we play younger players to help them develop at the highest level - remember this is just a match and only the culmination of a lot of other development that these players will not get at many other clubs in the world - and we try to develop younger players to sell on.

 

Not sure why you would want the u23 team to be full of 18 yos and the U18 full of 16 yo etc... Maybe Arsenal should be challenged as to why they are playing players in the incorrect age ranges.

 

 

1 hour ago, Foxy-Lady said:

I guess if i'm making the same point repeatedly it must be because the same thing keeps happening?  Similarly, just because I keep making the same point, it doesn't mean its wrong... 

 

The truth, I don't really care about LCFCs strategy on player development as that is entirely their choice and I only actually make the point to add balance to the media-spin about how well the U23s are doing as, in reality, they are competing against younger and less experienced players and the results are not an accurate reflection of player development or coaching expertise.

 

I also note you keep making the same point about how good it is for our youngsters to play with senior players. Worth considering that we only had 3-4 "inexperienced youngsters" (u21) playing last night (Dewsbury, Wright, Knight, Loft) where as Arsenal had TEN...so using your logic, I suspect their 10 U19s probably gained more from playing against experienced pros than our 4 gained from playing alongside them.  

Wouldn't it be nice for a change if OUR youngsters also got the benefit of playing against experienced pros from other clubs in the U23 league....but I somehow don't think that's going to happen while Rudkin/Beaglehole are primarily focussed on winning at all costs.  Just a thought...    

I don't disagree with everything you say, I just comment when I do in the spirit of discussion, not atagonism. I actually think you are much much closer to the situation than I am and understand it far better. Sometimes I think you are too close and biased because of it. that is not a criticism, just an observation.

 

You have one view of the u23 - that it is for developing young players (especially u18), I have a different view that it is both for development and a replacement of the old reserves team to give all squad players match time. I'm certainly not saying that I'm right and you are wrong.

 

I really don't care what effect our team has on the Arsenal setup but if you think it's good for them then it must be good for our lads to be with them all the time.

 

What use do you think it would be for our Squad if the U23 game ended up being Arsenal u18s against Leicester U18s ? For me that should be what's happening at U18 level NOT u23.

 

As for Beaglehole, It is clear you have an enormous dislike for the guy. I don't know him and I just take it for granted that he is doing the job which he has been told to do by his "seniors".

 

Winning is a good thing. I'm not sure why you want us to field an U18's team in the league and get trounced 10-0 (did you say that Arsenal's 16 year olds beat our 18 year olds 7-0). 

 

Each to their own level for me.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The point a few of us are making is, some of these players development is being slowed down by older players being selected so they aren't being exposed to a higher level of football around the ages of 17-19 and then also some of the 19-21 year olds that are in the U23 team are refused loan moves to play at a higher standard in favour of us trying to win the PL2. 

You obviously know more about the official strategy than me - I know nothing. It seems from over here that we always loan out a few players, maybe we could loan out more but I don't know if they get the offers and I'm not sure that training week in week out with a low league or non-league team is really much better than getting the use of our highly trained team of development guides (strengthening, diet, training...) in a wonderful top quality situation.

 

 

23 minutes ago, LCFC FOX said:

Should be changed to only one over 23 player allowed. It’s a shambles that team and yet they still lost. Or a rule where you can only play in the under 23’s if you’ve been out injured for over a month or something.

 

That said I’m dissapointed in the club for playing so many over 23’s. What’s the point in it. Surely it makes sense to bring people from the under 18’s and let them develop.

not sure what point you're making. A team full of kids is going to lose more heavily and be more of a "shambles" Don't you think that Soyuncu and other fringe players should be allowed to get match fitness at their own clubs?

 

why have an u18 league team if they all play for the U23s?

[Foxy-Lady]

5 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

I don't disagree with everything you say, I just comment when I do in the spirit of discussion, not atagonism. I actually think you are much much closer to the situation than I am and understand it far better. Sometimes I think you are too close and biased because of it. that is not a criticism, just an observation.

 

You have one view of the u23 - that it is for developing young players (especially u18), I have a different view that it is both for development and a replacement of the old reserves team to give all squad players match time. I'm certainly not saying that I'm right and you are wrong.

 

I really don't care what effect our team has on the Arsenal setup but if you think it's good for them then it must be good for our lads to be with them all the time.

 

What use do you think it would be for our Squad if the U23 game ended up being Arsenal u18s against Leicester U18s ? For me that should be what's happening at U18 level NOT u23.

 

As for Beaglehole, It is clear you have an enormous dislike for the guy. I don't know him and I just take it for granted that he is doing the job which he has been told to do by his "seniors".

 

Winning is a good thing. I'm not sure why you want us to field an U18's team in the league and get trounced 10-0 (did you say that Arsenal's 16 year olds beat our 18 year olds 7-0). 

 

Each to their own level for me.

 

 

Fair play...you are quite right that we are all entitled to our opinion to help the spirit of discussion as long it is made in a constructive manner and certainly no offence taken on my part. 

 

But just for the record, I don't necessarily think that we should be fielding teams of the same age as everyone else just for the sake of it.....I just think we should be challenging players to step-up' to the next level in their development (whatever age they are) to 'stretch' them and aid their progress which is what I think personal development should be all about in all walks of life....and which is precisely what I think is not happening here

[LCFC FOX]

2 hours ago, FIF said:

But we are not Arsenal nor Chelsea. From what I can see we use the U23 team to keep some of our fringe players match fit and interested, some of our senior players to help the development of our younger players, we play younger players to help them develop at the highest level - remember this is just a match and only the culmination of a lot of other development that these players will not get at many other clubs in the world - and we try to develop younger players to sell on.

 

Not sure why you would want the u23 team to be full of 18 yos and the U18 full of 16 yo etc... Maybe Arsenal should be challenged as to why they are playing players in the incorrect age ranges.

 

 

I don't disagree with everything you say, I just comment when I do in the spirit of discussion, not atagonism. I actually think you are much much closer to the situation than I am and understand it far better. Sometimes I think you are too close and biased because of it. that is not a criticism, just an observation.

 

You have one view of the u23 - that it is for developing young players (especially u18), I have a different view that it is both for development and a replacement of the old reserves team to give all squad players match time. I'm certainly not saying that I'm right and you are wrong.

 

I really don't care what effect our team has on the Arsenal setup but if you think it's good for them then it must be good for our lads to be with them all the time.

 

What use do you think it would be for our Squad if the U23 game ended up being Arsenal u18s against Leicester U18s ? For me that should be what's happening at U18 level NOT u23.

 

As for Beaglehole, It is clear you have an enormous dislike for the guy. I don't know him and I just take it for granted that he is doing the job which he has been told to do by his "seniors".

 

Winning is a good thing. I'm not sure why you want us to field an U18's team in the league and get trounced 10-0 (did you say that Arsenal's 16 year olds beat our 18 year olds 7-0). 

 

Each to their own level for me.

 

 

You obviously know more about the official strategy than me - I know nothing. It seems from over here that we always loan out a few players, maybe we could loan out more but I don't know if they get the offers and I'm not sure that training week in week out with a low league or non-league team is really much better than getting the use of our highly trained team of development guides (strengthening, diet, training...) in a wonderful top quality situation.

 

 

not sure what point you're making. A team full of kids is going to lose more heavily and be more of a "shambles" Don't you think that Soyuncu and other fringe players should be allowed to get match fitness at their own clubs?

 

why have an u18 league team if they all play for the U23s?

Because it’s called the under 23’s? England senior players can’t play in the Under 21’s World Cup.

 

The under 23’s should be for players ages 18-22. 

 

I just dont see the point in playing players like benny, king and Simpson when they blatantly have no future here. It’s just wasting a young lad an opportunity to play.

[Foxxed]

58 minutes ago, LCFC FOX said:

Because it’s called the under 23’s? England senior players can’t play in the Under 21’s World Cup.

 

The under 23’s should be for players ages 18-22. 

 

I just dont see the point in playing players like benny, king and Simpson when they blatantly have no future here. It’s just wasting a young lad an opportunity to play.

We ain't going to sell them or loan them out if they ain't fit and playing football?

[KingsX]

This is such a vital topic, and this thread has given me some education.  But it goes round in circles, throwing off more heat than light.  Is an objective view possible?

 

We can surely agree that the value of the academy is not measured in PL2 position or U21 cups.  It’s in developing youth into first team contributors, and in player sales.

 

So just like players, academies have “end product” which is what I’d like to see measured and compared.  I personally don’t care who is Rudkin’s mate and how long he has been here.  I just want a clear view of his end product, how it compares to clubs making similar investments, and whether it is trending up or down.

 

The inputs are player purchases and signings and academy costs.  There is a stock of junior players, some of whom have quantifiable value -- e.g. Barnes who rates ₤150K on transfermarkt, but ₤20M over on wbaunofficial . The outputs are player sales and first team players.  The latter could be quantified by appearances and playing stats, and the estimated value of their contracts.  Chilwell is the poster boy, but even Andy King has provided ₤10M in value (as we’ve paid him that much), and is still worth a couple million (whether he would leave is off topic).

 

Is this kind of info put together somewhere?  Transfermarkt is spotty and doesn’t put it all in one place.  Or is there another way to reach a more objective view?

Edited 2 October 2018 by KingsX

[Ric Flair]

43 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

We ain't going to sell them or loan them out if they ain't fit and playing football?

How do all other PL teams shift their players not in their 25 man squad then, as very few do what we do and keep playing them in the U23's

[themightyfin]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

How do all other PL teams shift their players not in their 25 man squad then, as very few do what we do and keep playing them in the U23's

I think you will find they play a lot more behind closed doors friendly games than you realise. 

Eg did you know we lost 2-0 to a lincoln side last week behind closed doors? There are games available for everyone to stay fit. 

Edited 2 October 2018 by themightyfin

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

I think you will find they play a lot more behind closed doors friendly games than you realise. 

Eg did you know we lost 2-0 to a lincoln side last week behind closed doors? There are games available for everyone to stay fit. 

Good, that makes it even less of a reason for the likes of Benalouane and players who have no future here playing in our U23's.

[nwl fox]

7 hours ago, Foxy-Lady said:

The truth, I don't really care about LCFCs strategy on player development 

? Whilst i agree with a lot of what you say, sorry but nobody is buying that line!! You must be one of the top 3 contributors on this thread...

[Foxy-Lady]

9 hours ago, nwl fox said:

? Whilst i agree with a lot of what you say, sorry but nobody is buying that line!! You must be one of the top 3 contributors on this thread...

I genuinely dont really care what they do or how they do it as it doesn't impact me in any way ....I just find it very annoying and it offends my intelligence when I read all the media bulls*** they peddle about how well they are doing and how successful they are.

Im fairly confident I could finish in the top 3 of an U14s league if I was managing a team of decent 18 year olds 

 

I happen to have some very good connections at the club and if you check most of my posts, you will find that I am simply trying to put a more balanced view on all the media spin/hype and I rarely bother to post subjective comments.....even though there is quite a lot I could actually say that might considerably influence the view of others.  Personally, id rather just stick with the facts and let others formulate their own views

 

 "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"... appears to be the mantra of the LCFC media spin machine

[Guest]

12 hours ago, KingsX said:

This is such a vital topic, and this thread has given me some education.  But it goes round in circles, throwing off more heat than light.  Is an objective view possible?

 

We can surely agree that the value of the academy is not measured in PL2 position or U21 cups.  It’s in developing youth into first team contributors, and in player sales.

 

So just like players, academies have “end product” which is what I’d like to see measured and compared.  I personally don’t care who is Rudkin’s mate and how long he has been here.  I just want a clear view of his end product, how it compares to clubs making similar investments, and whether it is trending up or down.

 

The inputs are player purchases and signings and academy costs.  There is a stock of junior players, some of whom have quantifiable value -- e.g. Barnes who rates ₤150K on transfermarkt, but ₤20M over on wbaunofficial . The outputs are player sales and first team players.  The latter could be quantified by appearances and playing stats, and the estimated value of their contracts.  Chilwell is the poster boy, but even Andy King has provided ₤10M in value (as we’ve paid him that much), and is still worth a couple million (whether he would leave is off topic).

 

Is this kind of info put together somewhere?  Transfermarkt is spotty and doesn’t put it all in one place.  Or is there another way to reach a more objective view?

I think this is a good post but I'd add that the U23 team isn't just about the academy and it's players. The two are linked but they are not exclusive.

 

12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

How do all other PL teams shift their players not in their 25 man squad then, as very few do what we do and keep playing them in the U23's

Do many teams, other than the big 6, have as big a squad as we have at the moment? If they do I guess they are failing to sell/loan their players out because I haven't seen that much movement from players not in the starting 16 of teams (other than the big boys).

 

 

12 hours ago, themightyfin said:

I think you will find they play a lot more behind closed doors friendly games than you realise. 

Eg did you know we lost 2-0 to a lincoln side last week behind closed doors? There are games available for everyone to stay fit. 

Interesting. Then it makes a lot of what I have said complete BS. thanks. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Foxy-Lady said:

I genuinely dont really care what they do or how they do it as it doesn't impact me in any way ....I just find it very annoying and it offends my intelligence when I read all the media bulls*** they peddle about how well they are doing and how successful they are.

Im fairly confident I could finish in the top 3 of an U14s league if I was managing a team of decent 18 year olds 

 

I happen to have some very good connections at the club and if you check most of my posts, you will find that I am simply trying to put a more balanced view on all the media spin/hype and I rarely bother to post subjective comments.....even though there is quite a lot I could actually say that might considerably influence the view of others.  Personally, id rather just stick with the facts and let others formulate their own views

 

 "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"... appears to be the mantra of the LCFC media spin machine

I like your subjective posts. We want more gossip, intrigue and insider knowledge. spill the beans Foxy-lady.

 

Spin is important for marketing. If talking up our trophies gets us bigger fees or gets a few more decent youths to want to join us then it's a good thing isn't it?