Players development vs the team

[Muzzy_Larsson]

13 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I appreciate themightyfin's answer of their opinion on how long to give players to develop, I think 2-3 years is a "huge" amount of time to be consistently in the first team when under performing.  But I appreciate the answer thank you, which is what I wanted.

 

Sadly everyone who replied avoided the second question, of whether a player or the team comes first.  Instead seemed more interested to bash my post instead.  It isnt a trick question, there is no right or wrong answer, its just each person's opinion which I wanted to know.

As a basis for comparison, Callum McGregor was in and around our first team for over three years, playing several positions, not pulling up many trees then Rodgers came in, he's now arguably our best player, played more minutes than anyone in world football last season, an international, has turned in man of the match performances in Europe against sides like Bayern Munich, Zenit and Valencia and was the subject of a rejected £19m bid from you guys in the summer.  Going by your logic we'd have tossed him on the scrap heap before he got the chance to properly develop.  Development of young players is not linear and depends on a whole bunch of factors.

 

Even the premier league is littered with similar examples, Harry Kane probably being the most obvious who had a few not so successful loan spells.  Gnabry another one.

[Suzie the Fox]

12 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I appreciate themightyfin's answer of their opinion on how long to give players to develop, I think 2-3 years is a "huge" amount of time to be consistently in the first team when under performing.  But I appreciate the answer thank you, which is what I wanted.

 

Sadly everyone who replied avoided the second question, of whether a player or the team comes first.  Instead seemed more interested to bash my post instead.  It isnt a trick question, there is no right or wrong answer, its just each person's opinion which I wanted to know.

To answer your question my black and white answer would be 'the team should always come 1st.' However as @The_Rorabhas alluded to above, playing Barnes isn't currently harming the team and we are doing so so well with him being a part of it. 

 

He isn't 100% yet and yes perhaps he shouldn't take on some of the shots he does, but he is by no means a greedy player and the amount of assists he has had so far this season shows this.

 

I personally really like Barnes and find him a very exciting player who to be honest has progressed every year for the last few years. Now he is on the top stage and given a little more i am confident he will prove his worth for us. 

[Chrysalis]

9 minutes ago, henrik_62 said:

As a basis for comparison, Callum McGregor was in and around our first team for over three years, playing several positions, not pulling up many trees then Rodgers came in, he's now arguably our best player, played more minutes than anyone in world football last season, an international, has turned in man of the match performances in Europe against sides like Bayern Munich, Zenit and Valencia and was the subject of a rejected £19m bid from you guys in the summer.  Going by your logic we'd have tossed him on the scrap heap before he got the chance to properly develop.  Development of young players is not linear and depends on a whole bunch of factors.

 

Even the premier league is littered with similar examples, Harry Kane probably being the most obvious who had a few not so successful loan spells.  Gnabry another one.

 

Just to be clear I have never said to toss Barnes on the scrap heap, I havent even said he should be dropped.  Try not to get too attached to a player and come in to the question with the mindset of defending a player, as I know people can become attached to players.  My preference for Barnes is for him to keep playing, but just to only shoot either when we have a healthy lead in the game or if its his only option, if a pass is on, he should pass instead, thats where I stand with him.

[Chrysalis]

12 minutes ago, henrik_62 said:

As a basis for comparison, Callum McGregor was in and around our first team for over three years, playing several positions, not pulling up many trees then Rodgers came in, he's now arguably our best player, played more minutes than anyone in world football last season, an international, has turned in man of the match performances in Europe against sides like Bayern Munich, Zenit and Valencia and was the subject of a rejected £19m bid from you guys in the summer.  Going by your logic we'd have tossed him on the scrap heap before he got the chance to properly develop.  Development of young players is not linear and depends on a whole bunch of factors.

 

Even the premier league is littered with similar examples, Harry Kane probably being the most obvious who had a few not so successful loan spells.  Gnabry another one.

 

You guys had no competition though, and your league position was pretty much guaranteed.  So you had that luxury.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

19 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

You guys had no competition though, and your league position was pretty much guaranteed.  So you had that luxury.

Not buying that, guys like McGregor etc may get a bit more leeway domestically because of what you say but they need to take a massive jump and perform in Europe for us at the elite level, Hamilton one week and Bayern Munich for example the next and guys like McGregor due to patience and proper development have been able to make that jump.

 

As I said, even McGregor aside there's a load of examples in the EPL of a similar trajectory where patience has been shown and players getting there eventually, like the two I mentioned, amongst numerous others.

 

You can't apply some linear logic across the board like if a player hasn't become a mainstay with x years then he's no good, that'd be daft and it blatantly doesn't work that way.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

54 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

Just to be clear I have never said to toss Barnes on the scrap heap, I havent even said he should be dropped.  Try not to get too attached to a player and come in to the question with the mindset of defending a player, as I know people can become attached to players.  My preference for Barnes is for him to keep playing, but just to only shoot either when we have a healthy lead in the game or if its his only option, if a pass is on, he should pass instead, thats where I stand with him.

I've clearly got no emotional attachment to Barnes, I'm talking about the general theme more than the player in question.

Edited 18 December 2019 by henrik_62

[Muzzy_Larsson]

25 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

Just to be clear I have never said to toss Barnes on the scrap heap, I havent even said he should be dropped.  Try not to get too attached to a player and come in to the question with the mindset of defending a player, as I know people can become attached to players.  My preference for Barnes is for him to keep playing, but just to only shoot either when we have a healthy lead in the game or if its his only option, if a pass is on, he should pass instead, thats where I stand with him.

Come on now that's madness, do you really expect him to ever be given such instructions.

[baldeagle]

On 17/12/2019 at 08:56, Wolfox said:

We aren’t carrying anybody…. All players out subject to peaks and troughs in form

 

The tendency towards over reaction, based one draw and a disappointing performance, on the back of a record breaking winning streak is quite remarkable 

Don’t think that’s strictly true as were definitely carrying Matty James ...usually on a stretcher 

[Guest SO1]

Supporters had the same issues with Raheem Sterling when he was at Liverpool with Rodgers

I Remember watching Sterling make all of the same mistakes Barnes does and look how that all turned out. And there were some awkward moments!

Besides Barnes is a better natural finisher than Sterling, Sterling had the benefit of Suarez and Sturridge at their Peak. 50+ goals sure helps to take the pressure off.

I hope that Rodgers gets the time to help Barnes turn into the finished article as its something he didn't get to finish with Sterling.

 

Football fans are like sharks feeding on any perceived weakness no matter how successful the club.  The nature of the beast.

 

Edited 18 December 2019 by SO1

[Tom12345]

1 hour ago, Suzie the Fox said:

To answer your question my black and white answer would be 'the team should always come 1st.' However as @The_Rorabhas alluded to above, playing Barnes isn't currently harming the team and we are doing so so well with him being a part of it. 

 

He isn't 100% yet and yes perhaps he shouldn't take on some of the shots he does, but he is by no means a greedy player and the amount of assists he has had so far this season shows this.

 

I personally really like Barnes and find him a very exciting player who to be honest has progressed every year for the last few years. Now he is on the top stage and given a little more i am confident he will prove his worth for us. 

Agree. We are doing something right as a club - second in the league, 8 wins in a row, sold Maguire for £85m but still doing better defensively, managed to recruit top class players over the years at ridiculously cheap rates (Vardy, Mahrez, Kante, Evans, Ricardo to name a few), develop youngsters from unknowns or lesser knowns such as Chilwell and Maddison into England internationals, won the league only a few years ago ... I would say trust the management team. We have been doing everything for the benefit of the club if you look at all the things I just mentioned (plus more!). I am sure Rodgers is not playing Barnes because he pities him! He is there because he wants him there! Nacho has not been in the team for a long period also because Rodgers thought it was best for the team! Development is an important aspect to running a club: from making money, to recruiting players, to building team identity, to building team spirit. Teams that are simply full of mercenaries or rotate every second week dont seem to do well. Look at Man Utd - they used to be the best when it comes to developing players (eg. Giggs, Beckham, Neville brothers, etc) and having a uniquely Man U team as a result. Since then, they cared too much about just getting mercenaries in and forgot about building a team.  

 

As to how long an individual player should be given a chance to “develop” - a question in the original post - I am not sure the question was framed correctly. I think as you say it is always subject to what is best in the team - and sometimes the best is to stick with someone with potential and is doing nonetheless reasonably well rather than risk £40m on someone who may turn out to be a dud.

 

Also - as a side note - I am not sure about people complaining about Barnes shooting too much. Most of the times, he created those opportunities himself and are in the best position to shoot than to pass, and he does pass! He should do better with his shooting though and what he needs is composure and the confidence to shoot - I imagine this is what Rodgers would say to him - exactly the opposite of what some fans want him to think. It is only an issue if he is like Gray and consistently makes the wrong choice when a pass is better.

Edited 18 December 2019 by Tom12345

[HighPeakFox]

Fair enough @Chrysalis, I'll try to answer you too. 

 

It's a binary question, so of course, with such a stark choice, the team comes first. 

 

However... If one believes that it's not quite that simple, that considering the long term over the short term is more worthwhile, or one considers the damage to morale that bringing the wrong player in might do, then one might make the argument that the best needs of the team is met in persevering with the (for the time being) misfiring player. 

 

Hopefully now you feel heard, and you don't have to suggest I live in a cave again... 

[Guest SO1]

The last thing in the world Rodgers is going to tell Barnes is stop being aggressive. Risk = Reward.

One of my best memories of Liverpool was watching one of those two miniute training videos and Rodgers yelling "C'mon Raheem 1 v 1 Take him on!"

There's no Fxxxxxg way Rodgers pulls the reigns in on Barnes.

Edited 18 December 2019 by SO1

[urban fox]

Sometimes what is good for the development of the player is also good for the team. Surely if a player is given a chance and the right coaching, then as they improve, then so does their contribution and overall team performance.  We only see what happens on the pitch for 90 minutes a week. The coaching staff see the best and worst bits of a player every day of the week in training. If they believe that they have what it takes, then they will be given time. If they are not ready, then I presume they will be given extra coaching to improve any weaknesses. If said player, in the opinion of the coaches has peaked and is still below the level required, then they will not be picked if better alternatives are available. Simples.

[Xen]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Sadly everyone who replied avoided the second question, of whether a player or the team comes first.  Instead seemed more interested to bash my post instead.  It isnt a trick question, there is no right or wrong answer, its just each person's opinion which I wanted to know.

I mean, that was literally the entire point of my reply, as well as others', so well done on your reading comprehension... 

 

The team comes first, but right now the team is in a position where - in the league - there's little chance of gaining or losing anything significant, so the players' development can be prioritised without fear of repercussion. 

 

That's not to say that there would be repercussions, anyway. We've got to 2nd in the league with those same 'risky' players playing a very important role in the side, so they're clearly doing something right...

 

Its also not a black-and-white argument. What's good for the team in the immediate future isn't necessarily good for the team in the long run. Persisting with Barnes/Hamza/Iheanacho and finishing 4th instead of 2nd might look like a bad decision at the end of the season, but if that development time helps us to win the league (for instance) rather than slip into Europa League (or worse) then of course its better to prioritise player development.

[murphy]

6 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

I appreciate themightyfin's answer of their opinion on how long to give players to develop, I think 2-3 years is a "huge" amount of time to be consistently in the first team when under performing.  But I appreciate the answer thank you, which is what I wanted.

 

Sadly everyone who replied avoided the second question, of whether a player or the team comes first.  Instead seemed more interested to bash my post instead.  It isnt a trick question, there is no right or wrong answer, its just each person's opinion which I wanted to know.

I don't think that's true.  Many replies were saying that playing Barnes doesn't damage the team and therefore just disagreeing with your original premise.

 

I think that Barnes is worth his place in the team but the argument of player v team is moot as the development of the player will improve the team by default.  We as a club have taken a path to develop youth which I think is a brilliant model for a club like ours.  It is already paying huge dividends with sometimes three players in the team from the academy and one of them an England regular.

 

Take the signings of Maddison, Soyuncu and N'Didi.  About £60m for those and all have improved significantly and now must be worth 4 or 5 times their original fee.  I expect similar in the long run for the likes of Justin and Benkovic.  It is a great model to pursue as if you make a mistake in your recruiting it is not the end of the world and it gives us a chance to buy and develop players that we couldn't afford or attract if they were the finished article.  We also gain a reputation as a great club for a young player to join.

 

If we follow this strategy as a club then of course these players will have to play at the discretion of a great management team in order to develop.  Bringing someone in to replace Barnes now would just put a big roadblock in his development.  We could also spend £50m and not guarantee that this replacement is any better.