davieG Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I guess it's all relative but all this talk of an emerging team seems to be a bit of a smokescreen. I've always taken the view that it meant we had a team made up predominantly of youngster, if they mean jelling still, well I think that's highly questionable also. Now granted some changes where forced on RK but I don't really see the team that started at Brum fitting this 'emerging' description. I may be out by the odd year but that team was Tiatto 33 Johnson 32 Kenton 28 Low 27 McAuley 27 Johansson 26 Hughes 23 Hume 23 McCarthy 23 O'Grady 20 Logan 20 Average Age 25.5 Well balanced? Surely with enough age and experience in it to be classed as average, as team I would hesitate to call it an emerging one. Are we being mislead by what appears to be a key justification for poor perfomances?
Babylon Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I guess it's all relative but all this talk of an emerging team seems to be a bit of a smokescreen. I've always taken the view that it meant we had a team made up predominantly of youngster, if they mean jelling still, well I think that's highly questionable also. Now granted some changes where forced on RK but I don't really see the team that started at Brum fitting this 'emerging' description. I may be out by the odd year but that team was Tiatto 33 Johnson 32 Kenton 28 Low 27 McAualey 27 Johansson 26 Hughes 23 Hume 23 McCarthy 23 O'Grady 20 Logan 20 Average Age 25.5 Well balanced? Surely with enough age and experience in it to be classed as average, as team I would hesitate to call it an emerging one. Are we being mislead by what appears to be a key justification for poor perfomances? I agree it's not a young teamt, although replace Tiatto with Porter, Kenton with Stearman, Hume with Fryatt, Johnson or Hughes with Wesolowski, McCauley with Kisnorbo and you have a pretty young team. In one article that talked about the "emerging team". They were on about people like McCauley and Low as making the step up so they were still finding their feet at this level. Maybe they mean at the level they are playing rather than age?? Maybe we are emerging... as what I don't know, a pile of shite at the minute.
Thracian Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I labelled it the return of the Chosen Men at the time.... He used our bug to revert to type at Birmingham and then had the front to falk about "faith". He was always going there with defending 0-0 in mind and perhaps trying to pinch it at the end. And if it wasn't for Logan's heroics we'd have been stuffed before we ever thought about attacking.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I guess it's all relative but all this talk of an emerging team seems to be a bit of a smokescreen. I've always taken the view that it meant we had a team made up predominantly of youngster, if they mean jelling still, well I think that's highly questionable also. Now granted some changes where forced on RK but I don't really see the team that started at Brum fitting this 'emerging' description. I may be out by the odd year but that team was Tiatto 33 Johnson 32 Kenton 28 Low 27 McAualey 27 Johansson 26 Hughes 23 Hume 23 McCarthy 23 O'Grady 20 Logan 20 Average Age 25.5 Well balanced? Surely with enough age and experience in it to be classed as average, as team I would hesitate to call it an emerging one. Are we being mislead by what appears to be a key justification for poor perfomances? Whoops. It would have been a bit different if the more normal choice of Porter on the left wing - being about 14 years younger than the alternative would shave off over a year from the average. Once Johnson is consigned to the sidelines with Weso taking up his rightful starting place, that'll shave off another year. I think the age was slightly elevated by the team selection this week - having our two outfield over-30s did it. I think an average age shy of 23.5 years is really quite young on the whole - lots of players in the age range from 18 to 23. I think, however, that despite the numbers looking decidedly 'average' as opposed to young, we do still have something of an emerging side. Yes the average age suggests otherwise - but that doesn't detract from the fact our four main strikers are 20, 20, 22/23 and 26. We've a left winger who isn't even 20 yet (is he?) Our present number one goalkeeper is also 20. Our CB pairing is 23/27. We have a RB aged 20 (when he plays). Generally our team is in it's (very) early twenties with a few slightly older players in the mix (Tiatto and Johnson primarily). If Gradel hits the big-time soon, that'll shave another half-year off the average age. There's plenty of youth in the team, and there's a little experience here and there... I don't think we're being misled as such - they do have a point when they talk about the youth in our team. The main point is that we do have a lot of youth in the side - indivuidual players, rather than the team as a whole.
davieG Posted 3 October 2006 Author Posted 3 October 2006 Whoops. It would have been a bit different if the more normal choice of Porter on the left wing - being about 14 years younger than the alternative would shave off over a year from the average. Once Johnson is consigned to the sidelines with Weso taking up his rightful starting place, that'll shave off another year. I think the age was slightly elevated by the team selection this week - having our two outfield over-30s did it. I think an average age shy of 23.5 years is really quite young on the whole - lots of players in the age range from 18 to 23. I think, however, that despite the numbers looking decidedly 'average' as opposed to young, we do still have something of an emerging side. Yes the average age suggests otherwise - but that doesn't detract from the fact our four main strikers are 20, 20, 22/23 and 26. We've a left winger who isn't even 20 yet (is he?) Our present number one goalkeeper is also 20. Our CB pairing is 23/27. We have a RB aged 20 (when he plays). Generally our team is in it's (very) early twenties with a few slightly older players in the mix (Tiatto and Johnson primarily). If Gradel hits the big-time soon, that'll shave another half-year off the average age. There's plenty of youth in the team, and there's a little experience here and there... I don't think we're being misled as such - they do have a point when they talk about the youth in our team. The main point is that we do have a lot of youth in the side - indivuidual players, rather than the team as a whole. I seem to have a blind spot with his name
Surreal Madrid Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 The team that finished had an average age of below 24. I haven't got the time or patience to compare that with other Championship teams that played at the weekend, but I'd have thought it was one of the lowest in terms of average age.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I seem to have a blind spot with his name Just don't let it happen again. He's a legend in the making, don't ya know.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Plus we have youngsters in the key positions (Logan as goalkeeper, McCarthy as centre-back, first name on the teamsheet and captain, Porter as our only attacking midfielder and Fryatt, Hume and O'Grady as strikers). I can see the "emerging team" thing but only as long as he gets Johnson out and plays Wesolowski as first choice week in week out and gives players like Gradel the chance they deserve.
BartonFox Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Plus we have youngsters in the key positions (Logan as goalkeeper, McCarthy as centre-back, first name on the teamsheet and captain, Porter as our only attacking midfielder and Fryatt, Hume and O'Grady as strikers). I can see the "emerging team" thing but only as long as he gets Johnson out and plays Wesolowski as first choice week in week out and gives players like Gradel the chance they deserve. And still that baffles me. Ah well <_<
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 And still that baffles me. Ah well <_< I'm not exactly thrilled about it either but to be fair he has done okay in recent weeks. I still think he's a perennial disaster waiting to happen but our fans seem to rate him.
lookwhaticando Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 I'm not exactly thrilled about it either but to be fair he has done okay in recent weeks. I still think he's a perennial disaster waiting to happen but our fans seem to rate him. Sorta like a Rab Douglas that doens't play in goal?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 3 October 2006 Posted 3 October 2006 Sorta like a Rab Douglas that doens't play in goal? Yeah, if you like. Or Andy Johnson if the rules dictated that you conceded a goal every time you passed the ball straight out of play.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.