Comparison of Time Given to Young Players in the Premier League

[Xen]

Brilliant stat - didn't realise it was quite that extreme but that's seriously impressive. 37% of minutes going to under-22s. Considering that a large portion of the other minutes are for players in their mid-20s like Maguire, Pereira, Mendy, Ghezzal then we really are pushing youth with some serious conviction compared to the rest of the league.

 

It does somewhat explain our inconsistency, but one thing that stands out to me on that front is that most of our mistakes in recent fixtures have come not from the youngsters but from our experienced pros. Morgan, Fuchs, Simpson and Albrighton cost us against Newport, similar issues at the back versus Wolves, Mendy&Schmeichel put us 2 down at Southampton etc. If they get back into form and the youngsters can carry on maturing, something is bound to click and we'll see ourselves improve notably.

[Larry_LCFC]

1 minute ago, Xen said:

Brilliant stat - didn't realise it was quite that extreme but that's seriously impressive. 37% of minutes going to under-22s. Considering that a large portion of the other minutes are for players in their mid-20s like Maguire, Pereira, Mendy, Ghezzal then we really are pushing youth with some serious conviction compared to the rest of the league.

 

It does somewhat explain our inconsistency, but one thing that stands out to me on that front is that most of our mistakes in recent fixtures have come not from the youngsters but from our experienced pros. Morgan, Fuchs, Simpson and Albrighton cost us against Newport, similar issues at the back versus Wolves, Mendy&Schmeichel put us 2 down at Southampton etc.

 

 

But then you could argue the likes of Gray really lack a footballing brain at times. How many times have we seen him shoot or carry on dribbling insteading of playing a clear pass or throughball? Sometimes in knife-edge premier league games, that decision making is the difference between winning or losing.

Granted, he is one of more exciting and creative players, but sometimes you need that experience on the pitch.

[Xen]

5 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

But then you could argue the likes of Gray really lack a footballing brain at times. How many times have we seen him shoot or carry on dribbling insteading of playing a clear pass or throughball? Sometimes in knife-edge premier league games, that decision making is the difference between winning or losing.

Granted, he is one of more exciting and creative players, but sometimes you need that experience on the pitch.

I totally agree that we need the balance - and there are certainly cases where the youngsters have lost their heads and we've missed out because of it. I was merely playing devil's advocate in that its not just the youngsters to blame for our inconsistencies.

 

If it weren't for those errors I mentioned, we could be in the next round of the cup and up to 6 points higher in the league, 4 clear of 8th place.

[lcfcsnow]

15 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

Granted, he is one of more exciting and creative players, but sometimes you need that experience on the pitch. How many times have we seen him shoot or carry on dribbling insteading of playing a clear pass or throughball?

In Gray's case I don't think it matters how old he is, decision making is one thing but also timing is everything and after watching him for over 100 games now I'm not sure he can be taught.

[davieG]

31 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

Is that not half our problem though? We are relying too much on inexperience which clearly isn't working out great for us. It is important to bring some youth into the side but you could argue we have gone too much the other way.

 

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

 

It certainly explains our poor results, I don't think it justifies it.

I think it shows that the current senior players aren't good enough or do not fit in with the new approach and therefore makes the job that much more difficult. It would seem that this is a top down strategy that probably includes a restriction on funds. 

 

Unless we're prepared to pay massive amounts we're not going to get experienced players good enough to make the difference.

 

Puel is suffering from past big spend mistakes.

[turtmcfly]

32 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

Is that not half our problem though? We are relying too much on inexperience which clearly isn't working out great for us. It is important to bring some youth into the side but you could argue we have gone too much the other way.

 

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

 

It certainly explains our poor results, I don't think it justifies it.

 

If repeated chunks of 50+ million profit  is 'nothing', and poaching was restricted to our young players, then you'd have a good point.

 

Bring youth through, sell on at massive profit. Rinse/repeat, with an improving facilities and the financial clout to buy a higher quality of experience to add to the mix (and withstand cheap-shot raids on players). Other than being brought by someone happy to inject a billion quid into the club, I'm not sure how else we improve long term

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Great stats made even better with the fact that our young players are English

[Guest Papasmurf]

It shows that a hell of a lot of what Puel is doing is not for himself but the long term future of our football club.

 

Hopefully when we see a lot of these players realising their potential years from now we can appreciate all he's doing now. Despite the dogs abuse he gets on here.

[Guest Papasmurf]

Just now, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Great stats made even better with the fact that our young players are English

And 3 from our academy.

[Babylon]

44 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

Is that not half our problem though? We are relying too much on inexperience which clearly isn't working out great for us. It is important to bring some youth into the side but you could argue we have gone too much the other way.

I'd say that being 9th in the league whilst giving that many minutes to youth players, things are pretty great on a number of fronts. It needs stressing again that the club has a long term plan based on youth development, measuring the clubs success based on one or two seasons at the beginning of that process is pointless.

 

44 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

So the other option is what? Not buying good players just in case someone might want to buy them? We are trying to put ourselves at the forefront of youth development, we are only just seeing young talent looking away from big clubs and trying to get minutes to progress elsewhere. If we put ourselves ahead of the curve with our current plan, along with the training ground development we as a club could benefit massively over the next decade.

 

44 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

It certainly explains our poor results, I don't think it justifies it.

if those in charge at the very top have decided this is the way they want to go, it will justify it to them if in 5 years the cream of talent want to join us on regular basis.

[FOXYTALK]

puel in.

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Tielemans, Soyuncu, Barnes and Benkovic in and we'll just about break the machine

A few of them will be a year older (I think Maddison and Gray won't count to this next season), but if you were to look 23 or younger, next season with Wes probably gone, and maybe Maguire (I still think Soyuncu and Benkovic were signed expecting him to leave), we could easily line up with only Kasper, Vardy and Ricardo over 23 - or our starting lineup would be eligible for the U23s league.

[CosbehFox]

58 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

Is that not half our problem though? We are relying too much on inexperience which clearly isn't working out great for us. It is important to bring some youth into the side but you could argue we have gone too much the other way.

 

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

 

It certainly explains our poor results, I don't think it justifies it.

You have to place ‘poor’ in the context of the season. Poor currently has ya mid table - could be as high as 7th, could be as low as 13th by May but you can see why it’s been persisted with

[whoareyaaa]

34 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said:

In Gray's case I don't think it matters how old he is, decision making is one thing but also timing is everything and after watching him for over 100 games now I'm not sure he can be taught.

judging by his last goal I think he can and will get better in his decision making.

[Guest Bob Hazels shorts]

21 minutes ago, davieG said:

I think it shows that the current senior players aren't good enough or do not fit in with the new approach and therefore makes the job that much more difficult. It would seem that this is a top down strategy that probably includes a restriction on funds. 

 

Unless we're prepared to pay massive amounts we're not going to get experienced players good enough to make the difference.

 

Puel is suffering from past big spend mistakes.

I honestly can't see what the new approach is.

 

Admirable to play younger players bought for him and continue to play academy players that previously broke through.

 

I'd settle for someone to boss the midfield and pass forward regardless of age. 

[Stadt]

It’s great to see but what matters is if they improve, it’s naive to think young players develop in a linear fashion like they do on Football Manager. Even, arbitrarily, if all our young players are 10% better next season the same issues remain. 

 

It’s brave of Puel to give players these minutes but I don’t think he’s actually improved them personally beyond giving them game time (still important nonetheless). Our next appointment is vital because we need to continue to persist with younger players, Benitez likes older players and we’re back in the cycle of buying players without resale value.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Stadt said:

It’s great to see but what matters is if they improve, it’s naive to think young players develop in a linear fashion like they do on Football Manager. Even, arbitrarily, if all our young players are 10% better next season the same issues remain. 

 

It’s brave of Puel to give players these minutes but I don’t think he’s actually improved them personally beyond giving them game time (still important nonetheless). Our next appointment is vital because we need to continue to persist with younger players, Benitez likes older players and we’re back in the cycle of buying players without resale value.

Not sure that's true - looking at quite a few they've not really played before him (Iheanacho, Barnes, Choudhury) and you can't make a judgement. Maddison was signed by him and has stepped up to the top flight. Gray hasn't really changed, he's the same old frustrating player. Ndidi I think has improved aspects of his game (passing) even if it's not that clear because he's being made to focus on his weaknesses more. His passing was worse before, it was just less noticeable because he didn't have to play it around much. Chilwell obviously is his big success story.

[hackneyfox]

19 hours ago, Albert said:

 

How many managers

1 hour ago, Larry_LCFC said:

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

 

Kante & Mahrez were sold over in 2016 & 2018.

We are no longer a selling club, all these young players have been signed up on long contracts, if we don't want them to leave they don't ot at the rate of one a year.

[Stadt]

14 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not sure that's true - looking at quite a few they've not really played before him (Iheanacho, Barnes, Choudhury) and you can't make a judgement. Maddison was signed by him and has stepped up to the top flight. Gray hasn't really changed, he's the same old frustrating player. Ndidi I think has improved aspects of his game (passing) even if it's not that clear because he's being made to focus on his weaknesses more. His passing was worse before, it was just less noticeable because he didn't have to play it around much. Chilwell obviously is his big success story.

I think Puel is a decent (at best) manager but I don’t think he’s a good coach. It’s hard to tell and it’s mostly conjecture on my part but it doesn’t strike me that Puel has helped improve players technically or tactically. He deserves credit for persisting with Chilwell but by Chilwell’s own admission he did extra work over the summer which has clearly paid off with his physical development.

 

Ndidi’s passing hasn’t really changed significantly, it’s probably slightly better statistically but I’d imagine if it was possession adjusted there’d be little change.

 

Development is down to game time and the coaching received, Puel is the best in the world at the former but unconvincing at the latter.

[Nicolo Barella]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

Yep and that is important to running a sucessful club. Not all players work out, in fact most are medicore at best (this applies to any club). But when signing like Slimani and Silva don't work out the club is stuck paying mega wages for a player that we can't get any money back from because of their age and wages. With young players their wages are lower and even if they don't work out it's easier to get something back. For example, Ihenacho has disapointed but it would be much easier you would think to get something back for him than Slimani.  

 

That's why I think long term we have an advantage over West Ham and Everton. I feel like they are crippling themselves by rushing too quickly to be competitive. It could still work out for them, but our way is more sustainable long term. Look at Dormtund... they have lost players like Lewandowski, Auba, Hummels, Pulisic at the end of this season but usually remain competitive because of their focus on youth. Just a shame we weren't in for Sancho!

I actually think they can afford it, unlike us. Both draw huge crowds and aren't afraid to edge the line of FFP. West Ham are going about it a little more sustainably than Everton as well imo; they have had several "dry" transfer windows and have finally broken open the war chest now they have a long term, quality managerial appointment. I still think we can compete with them though. 

[Nicolo Barella]

7 minutes ago, Stadt said:

I think Puel is a decent (at best) manager but I don’t think he’s a good coach. It’s hard to tell and it’s mostly conjecture on my part but it doesn’t strike me that Puel has helped improve players technically or tactically. He deserves credit for persisting with Chilwell but by Chilwell’s own admission he did extra work over the summer which has clearly paid off with his physical development.

 

Ndidi’s passing hasn’t really changed significantly, it’s probably slightly better statistically but I’d imagine if it was possession adjusted there’d be little change.

 

Development is down to game time and the coaching received, Puel is the best in the world at the former but unconvincing at the latter.

I'd say the improvement of the likes of Albrighton as an inside forward is proof that he's good at it at least at some level. If the player is receptive, able and intelligent they will improve under Puel imo.

[Dames]

49 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I'd say that being 9th in the league whilst giving that many minutes to youth players, things are pretty great on a number of fronts. It needs stressing again that the club has a long term plan based on youth development, measuring the clubs success based on one or two seasons at the beginning of that process is pointless.

 

So the other option is what? Not buying good players just in case someone might want to buy them? We are trying to put ourselves at the forefront of youth development, we are only just seeing young talent looking away from big clubs and trying to get minutes to progress elsewhere. If we put ourselves ahead of the curve with our current plan, along with the training ground development we as a club could benefit massively over the next decade.

 

if those in charge at the very top have decided this is the way they want to go, it will justify it to them if in 5 years the cream of talent want to join us on regular basis.

I have to agree with you on this point Babs. I've been guilty in the past of also assuming that if we don't kick on and start taking cups more seriously we could end up having our best young players harvested. The Hudson-Odoi situation over the past week has made me reconsider that stance. Chelsea are ready to chuck 80k pw at this lad and he doesn't want to take the money and probably play a bit part at Chelsea - he wants to leave for his own development.

 

There is currently a trend forming where young players are not prepared to sit tight at big clubs and not play, they want to be playing first team football and progressing and there is a gap forming in the market that we are well positioned to exploit.

[yks]

1 hour ago, Larry_LCFC said:

How many of these decent youth players will we still have in 3 years time? We've seen how the big teams come in and poach our rising stars. All this could well be for nothing.

Yeah, better buy mediocre 29 years old player no big clubs would want to buy from us ever.

[Finnegan]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

That could usefully be posted in the Puel Out thread, though I'm sure even this wouldn't make some of the real Puel Out headbangers think.

That's not to say that Puel should have carte blanche forever, regardless of results/performances, just because he's developing lots of young talent - but it SHOULD give him more time and leeway: this season, minimum, barring catastrophes.

 

I'd have expected us to be near or at the top of any table of this kind, but twice as much "youth time" as any other club, while holding our own in mid-table is pretty stunning.

If those young players continue to improve and stay with us, we could be just a couple of players short of a team capable of challenging the top 6 next season.

 

 

I think its a little bit misleading to use it to comment one way or another on Puel's performance to be honest. I wouldn't be looking to beat him up for playing older players if he was picking Wes, Silva, Iborra and Co or go nuts when he's picking kids because the squad is so thin there's no abundance of choice. 

 

Simply using young players means nothing, especially when (as is the case with Maddison, Ndidi, Chilwell, arguably Gray and now Barnes - only one of whom he signed) they're the best players the club actually has in their position and he doesn't have a lot of options. 

 

He has a record of trusting youth, which is nice, but I think there's a difference between trusting and developing. 

 

Chilwell is our only young player who has improved under Puel. Gray and Iheanacho look short of confidence and are chopped in and out of the squad on whim, Ndidi is in the worst form he's been in at the club. 

 

As much as he's public enemy number one round here, I actually do wonder how much Rudkin deserves some credit for the youthfulness of the squad. He's the only constant when it comes to our recruitment and he presumably played a part in the signings of Madders, Gray, Ndidi, Iheanacho and the chase now for Tielmans, not to mention I assume he was involved with the academy when Chilwell and Barnes were coming through? 

 

Just a thought. 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I think its a little bit misleading to use it to comment one way or another on Puel's performance to be honest. 

 

Simply using young players means nothing, especially when (as is the case with Maddison, Ndidi, Chilwell, arguably Gray and now Barnes - only one of whom he signed) they're the best players the club actually has in their position and he doesn't have a lot of choice. 

 

He has a record of trusting youth, which is nice, but I think there's a difference between trusting and developing. 

 

Chilwell is our only young player who has improved under Puel. Gray and Iheanacho look short of confidence and are chopped in and out of the squad on whim, Ndidi is in the worst form he's been in at the club. 

 

As much as he's public enemy number one round here, I actually do wonder how much Rudkin deserves some credit for the youthfulness of the squad. He's the only constant when it comes to our recruitment and he presumably played a part in the signings of Madders, Gray, Ndidi, Iheanacho and the chase now for Tielmans, not to mention I assume he was involved with the academy when Chilwell and Barnes were coming through? 

 

Just a thought. 

I'd say a lot, the club have obviously sat down and discussed how they want to go about things and I'd imagine it's very much his plan put forward to the owners for being a sustainable football club.