- Print Topic - Archive

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

It's a bit bizzare really so we had a 19 year old centre back who Hurst didn't provide any opportunities to, released and then ends up at a championship club. Meanwhile we loan not one but two 19 year old centre backs from championship clubs to provide cover.

In other news looks like Montel Gibson is on his way back to league football.

I know Hurst gives a couple of young lads a pro deal every year but his track record of getting them into the first team isn't great.

He gave Clifton and Wright their first deals. Slade offered Wright a short-term deal and gave Clifton his debut (coming on in a 3-0 defeat at Yeovil I think) but it was Jolley who trusted Clifton the most. I'd go as far as saying if it wasn't for Jolley, the likes of Clifton and Wright would have been on the professional scrap heap back in 2018.

I really hope we can start keeping some of these young lads around because we are always told how good our academy is yet May arrives and first year pros are released to make way for another couple of token first year pros.

Khouri impressed last season yet can't get in the team (other than a rare 5 minutes against Altrincham).

Nothing about Idehan suggested he’d have been good enough for this season. He’s not a patch on Towler and playing for an u23s team doesn’t mean he’s championship quality. He may make it, and if he does so be it but that’s not a reflection on us.

This season is make or break for Wright, injuries are stacking up and there’s only so long teams will be able to sustain those lengthy injury lay offs. Clifton, another that had he not been local may have found himself released. This season he’s really stepped up but prior to this, and possibly last, he wasn’t any better or any worse than what we had.

Championship clubs operate like top flight clubs and have huge squads and u23s teams, they can hoover lads up and plenty are happy to earn a crust doing that for a while and then probably work their way back down the divisions…

For every Towler in Championship u23 squads, there’s a Morton.

[quote=465]It's a bit bizzare really so we had a 19 year old centre back who Hurst didn't provide any opportunities to, released and then ends up at a championship club. Meanwhile we loan not one but two 19 year old centre backs from championship clubs to provide cover.
/quote]

How is it bizarre? A while after we let him go, Idehen has been given a 6 month deal to prove himself, quite possibly on a lower wage than Runaway gave him. You could argue it is a move upwards, but also that it is sideways in terms of opposition. And brizzle will have plenty of good players ahead of him, Towler for one!

Idehen is 19, and may yet make it, but he has had a number of teams already and unlike starbuck there wasn't any interest when hurst made him available. Some people seem to want to knock every hurst decision. Might be better to see what happens after 6 months on this one, he could yet end up back in non league...

Gotta be honest, I thought he was awful and miles from league 2 level. He was shoved around too easily, slow to react and see the picture and physically weak. He'll get physically stronger and will benefit by not being coached by a madman, good luck to him.

I'd have kept Idehan personally and tried to develop him with a good loan at NLN/S with some appearances here and there. Quite clearly wasn't a ready made product in the way Pollock was but as we've seen with Clifton if you can be patient and persevere through their youth then you may have a player on your hands.

The difficulty any manager has with young players and GTFC (or any club I suppose) is the demand for success. If we bemoan the faults of senior pro's and their inability to score, pass, their touch or whatever, if a manager placed trust and faith in our academy graduates who will inevitably make mistakes as they find themselves it begs the question whether fans would support said youngster and the manager for the decision, or continue to bemoan if success doesn't follow it. With the managers job a precarious position at the best of times it's understandable that many won't often gamble with youth, particularly at this level where it can be very physical.

As someone mentioned in a post, with the larger clubs and their sizeable U23s there's a longer timeframe they can take to assess the development of the kids before they make decisions to release or promote to first team.

For the readers on the board there's a great book called 'No Hunger In Paradise' by Michael Calvin which is all about academy football. Very insightful to the harsh reality of that level of the game. Worth a read.

I think James it up quite nicely, Hurst has never really looked to develop the young lads during his time here.  That's not a criticism of Hurst, I think his approach is the victim of circumstance.  During his first spell the remit was always very short term, never looking beyond May time with a view to getting back in the football league.  That's not an environment that lends itself towards giving someone who's 19/20 a contract for another year to develop just a little bit more.  Whilst the likes of Paul Walker, Caine Winnfarah et al may have benefited from another year, Hurst felt that over the course of the season he was better using that budget on the likes of Evan Horwood or Christian Jolley come the final few months of the season.  You can't blame him for that.

I can only really think of Andi Thanoj who broke through under Hurst and got a consistent run of games.  In Thanoj was a very good player who it's probably fair to say never quite fulfilled his potential for a variety of reasons.  But for the relative success we've had with the youth set-up, the success rate was poor during those Conference years.  Thanoj with Clifton and Wright enjoying loan spells at Grantham, Boston and Scarborough levels.

With 1878 having more of an eye on the future and long term planning, it surprised me that Starbuck and Idehen were let go.  Starbuck didn't have a great first year of a pro (Jesus, who had a decent year last season?) but he was outstanding as a final year YT and has since established himself nicely at an Academy Under 23 side. Of course there are arguments about some of the quality in those sides but by all accounts he's actually doing well, that's at a level that's considerably higher than the infrequent reserve games we have.    At this stage, this has to be chalked up as one that got away.

Quite unsure why Idehen has been singled out as such a poor performer last season.  I thought he looked raw but with potential.  He was making his first bow into professional football on the left hand side of a disjointed defence with either the injured Mattie Pollock or well off the pace Luke Waterfall one side of him, then the horrifically exposed Danny Preston the other side.  This isn't really a compliment but I thought in the early stages of the season he was our best defender.

I've got a feeling that Hurst felt both would benefit from moving away from the club, perhaps to refocus or just because that first year was so poor that there's no recovery for a young player in those circumstances.  The fact they've both been picked up by clubs much higher in the level doesn't suggest ability is the issue.

If (and this is speculating) they were released in order to free up funds for the squad in other areas, then it's bloody annoying that we've been lumbered with the salary of Sean Scannell for another and ended up signing Joel Grant.  Hindsight and all if's and but's, yet difficult to not wonder how many raw 18/19 year old lads could get another years development for the same cost as those two...

It looks like the youth production line is continuing to churn out talent under Neil Woods.  The gap is that bridge between youth and men's game. I've seen stuff from 1878 that they want to see our homegrown talent emerge and establish themselves, sometimes you've gotta give the lads a fair run at it to see if they'll make it.  Jack Lester didn't look anything like a Championship level striker in his first half season, it was only his loan spell at Doncaster that saw him come back a different beast altogether.

Problem we have is that there is no progression from youth to first team. They are youth players one minute and first team the next with nothing in between to help them develop. The step up from youth to first team is too big for some, especially those that are developing more slowly.

Quoted from mimma

Problem we have is that there is no progression from youth to first team. They are youth players one minute and first team the next with nothing in between to help them develop. The step up from youth to first team is too big for some, especially those that are developing more slowly.

Which is why you establish relationships with clubs and get them out on loan. It wasn't until Clifton had a season at Grantham and Max did a season at Scarborough followed by Boston that they started to show something.

Quoted from mimma

Problem we have is that there is no progression from youth to first team. They are youth players one minute and first team the next with nothing in between to help them develop. The step up from youth to first team is too big for some, especially those that are developing more slowly.

We aren't really in a position to carry passengers unfortunately, most of our talented kids go to big clubs that can hoard players anyway. I think this is another case of a kid who didn't adjust to the first team fast enough for us, we have one of those on loan though in his first season of men's football not adjusting well lol. We can't afford to keep players on hoping they'll develop by the time they are 25 into a player capable of first team football, we need people who can come in and do a job for us and not a giant squad of players who aren't good enough.

Nothing particularly about Idehan said to me we'd miss him, apart from maybe one friendly where he did a decent job he looked way out of his depth in L2. Good luck to him in the future but football is a difficult career to get into and many kids end up on the scrapheap in their mid 20's playing for non league teams or lower league teams in Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

But if we consistently take the approach that we can't afford to carry passengers, so to speak, we'll never truly develop our own players - not on a regular basis anyway.

As long as we see them as a drain on the budget, passengers etc. they'll always be just that.  I fully appreciate budget constraints and that we simply have to cut our cloth accordingly, but if we're only going to ever give one-year contracts to lads at 17/18 and release them unless they've established themselves in the first team then we'll always be disappointed.

The vast majority of professional footballers aren't anywhere near ready for first team action at 18, 19, even 20.  When they graduate from the youth team they're still kids pretty much.  Their physical, technical and tactical development has only just begun.  We give them 12 months to adjust, continue to develop and make an impact.  Simply not long enough for the absolute vast majority.

My personal view is that anyone deemed good enough to get a professional contract from the youth team should have a two-year contract as a minimum.  I know it's absolute worlds apart but the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool etc. don't issue one-year contracts to youth players because they know it's not enough.  The rare occasions in recent season where we have given time for the young lads to develop it has produced first teamers (Clifton and Wright).  The only one who progressed ahead of his time was Pollock, who was physically years ahead of his peers and a bit of an anomaly in that sense.

Of course the golden ticket is you get a transfer fee from a youth team graduate and can then reinvest that in both the set-up and then maybe the funding of some of the contracts for the new graduates.   Unfortunately we saw our recent football fortune on that front eaten up...

I think it's a bit daft to suggest that we've made some kind of mistake on him just because he's signed for a Championship club. They hoover up as much as possible for relatively little and hope they can develop players enough for a profit, a hell of a lot more players in these academies end up outside of football than they do in it. There's nothing to suggest we've made a mistake just yet.

FWIW I thought Idehen looked a million miles out of his depth for us but good luck to him trying to make his way in the game.

Clifton and Wright do appear to be the exception to the rule as we gave them both 3 or 4 years to establish themselves, since that point, about three seasons back they've both been firmly in and around the team when fit.

Actually Battersby comes into this category too but a few years younger, you'd guess that crunch time is coming up for him this or next year.

More generally our approach looks much like: YT gets a 12 month contract, said YT is binned off after 12 months and replaced by a new YT. Rinse, repeat.

Maybe we'd be better off taking on less each year and persevering with those taken on for longer, as with Clifton and Wright.

Quoted from diehardmariner

I think James it up quite nicely, Hurst has never really looked to develop the young lads during his time here.  That's not a criticism of Hurst, I think his approach is the victim of circumstance.  During his first spell the remit was always very short term, never looking beyond May time with a view to getting back in the football league.  That's not an environment that lends itself towards giving someone who's 19/20 a contract for another year to develop just a little bit more.  Whilst the likes of Paul Walker, Caine Winnfarah et al may have benefited from another year, Hurst felt that over the course of the season he was better using that budget on the likes of Evan Horwood or Christian Jolley come the final few months of the season.  You can't blame him for that.

I can only really think of Andi Thanoj who broke through under Hurst and got a consistent run of games.  In Thanoj was a very good player who it's probably fair to say never quite fulfilled his potential for a variety of reasons.  But for the relative success we've had with the youth set-up, the success rate was poor during those Conference years.  Thanoj with Clifton and Wright enjoying loan spells at Grantham, Boston and Scarborough levels.

With 1878 having more of an eye on the future and long term planning, it surprised me that Starbuck and Idehen were let go.  Starbuck didn't have a great first year of a pro (Jesus, who had a decent year last season?) but he was outstanding as a final year YT and has since established himself nicely at an Academy Under 23 side. Of course there are arguments about some of the quality in those sides but by all accounts he's actually doing well, that's at a level that's considerably higher than the infrequent reserve games we have.    At this stage, this has to be chalked up as one that got away.

Quite unsure why Idehen has been singled out as such a poor performer last season.  I thought he looked raw but with potential.  He was making his first bow into professional football on the left hand side of a disjointed defence with either the injured Mattie Pollock or well off the pace Luke Waterfall one side of him, then the horrifically exposed Danny Preston the other side.  This isn't really a compliment but I thought in the early stages of the season he was our best defender.

I've got a feeling that Hurst felt both would benefit from moving away from the club, perhaps to refocus or just because that first year was so poor that there's no recovery for a young player in those circumstances.  The fact they've both been picked up by clubs much higher in the level doesn't suggest ability is the issue.

If (and this is speculating) they were released in order to free up funds for the squad in other areas, then it's bloody annoying that we've been lumbered with the salary of Sean Scannell for another and ended up signing Joel Grant.  Hindsight and all if's and but's, yet difficult to not wonder how many raw 18/19 year old lads could get another years development for the same cost as those two...

It looks like the youth production line is continuing to churn out talent under Neil Woods.  The gap is that bridge between youth and men's game. I've seen stuff from 1878 that they want to see our homegrown talent emerge and establish themselves, sometimes you've gotta give the lads a fair run at it to see if they'll make it.  Jack Lester didn't look anything like a Championship level striker in his first half season, it was only his loan spell at Doncaster that saw him come back a different beast altogether.

Excellent post!

I think I share the frustrations that many of us have — we'd like to see local talent in the team but, as it's been pointed out by various people already, fans also want Hurst to deliver promotion this May.

If not this May, then next.

It's hard to give youngsters a chance when the pressure is always on. Effectively, they've got to be as good as McAtee, Pearson, Fox, Taylor, etc, from minute one, to get in the team, stay in the team and lead the team to promotion.

Appreciate it's not as cut and dry as that but, basically, that's the gist. Pollock looked the part from the moment he made his debut at Exeter. Raw, but already effective and more to come.

I thought Southwell might have made it under Hurst - didn't he score a hat-trick in an FA Trophy game once? No good looking at where he is now and saying 'he clearly wasn't good enough' because who knows how good he could've gone on to be with full-time Football League-standard coaching?

Charlie I'Anson also looked the part in the early days of Scott & Hurst. Can't remember the circumstances around his departure though.

Quoted from RichMariner

I think I share the frustrations that many of us have — we'd like to see local talent in the team but, as it's been pointed out by various people already, fans also want Hurst to deliver promotion this May.

If not this May, then next.

It's hard to give youngsters a chance when the pressure is always on. Effectively, they've got to be as good as McAtee, Pearson, Fox, Taylor, etc, from minute one, to get in the team, stay in the team and lead the team to promotion.

Appreciate it's not as cut and dry as that but, basically, that's the gist. Pollock looked the part from the moment he made his debut at Exeter. Raw, but already effective and more to come.

I thought Southwell might have made it under Hurst - didn't he score a hat-trick in an FA Trophy game once? No good looking at where he is now and saying 'he clearly wasn't good enough' because who knows how good he could've gone on to be with full-time Football League-standard coaching?

Charlie I'Anson also looked the part in the early days of Scott & Hurst. Can't remember the circumstances around his departure though.

Southwell tumbled back down after a move to Wycombe but then again, it's 3+ hours away from home so that may have been a factor. Would the extra portakabin have seen him have a good career with us? Hard to say.

I think I'Anson and Thanoj both left because we wouldn't contribute more to their accomodation or something like that. Those youngsters that seem to be more ready than most at a young age do seem to come here as other clubs cast offs: Bennett, Pollock, Burrell, Khouri as well as I'Anson and Thanoj.

I'Anson left because he wanted to move back to Spain where he grew up. He's featured at various levels in Spain since, including a brief stint in La Liga at Elche.

Watched Goundry and Adlard play for Bridlington at Lincoln United a couple of weeks back and the step up from playing youth football to even clubs at this level is quite considerable particularly the physical side of the game.

Goundry was surprisingly playing midfield and had a decent first half but second half was not so prominent and had the misfortune of losing the ball which resulted in an equalising goal. Think Adlard scored but missed two or three pretty easy chances when put through one on one. For me he was very quiet and not demanding of the ball or his teammates and did lack any physical presence.

Of the two Goundry seems to have the better potential as couldn’t see anything in Adlard’s performance that made me think he could make the grade. Hope the lad goes on to prove me wrong and in reality it’s a judgement made on seeing one performance and everyone has poor games so hopefully I saw him on a bad day.

Quoted from Lincoln Mariner 56

Watched Goundry and Adlard play for Bridlington at Lincoln United a couple of weeks back and the step up from playing youth football to even clubs at this level is quite considerable particularly the physical side of the game.

Goundry was surprisingly playing midfield and had a decent first half but second half was not so prominent and had the misfortune of losing the ball which resulted in an equalising goal. Think Adlard scored but missed two or three pretty easy chances when put through one on one. For me he was very quiet and not demanding of the ball or his teammates and did lack any physical presence.

Of the two Goundry seems to have the better potential as couldn’t see anything in Adlard’s performance that made me think he could make the grade. Hope the lad goes on to prove me wrong and in reality it’s a judgement made on seeing one performance and everyone has poor games so hopefully I saw him on a bad day.

Goundry was playing in front of the back 4 against Cleethorpes Town on New Years Day too. Adlard only got 5 minutes so can't comment on him but it was clear Goundry isn't a midfielder. Very physical and won those battles all game though.

Quoted from diehardmariner

But if we consistently take the approach that we can't afford to carry passengers, so to speak, we'll never truly develop our own players - not on a regular basis anyway.

As long as we see them as a drain on the budget, passengers etc. they'll always be just that.  I fully appreciate budget constraints and that we simply have to cut our cloth accordingly, but if we're only going to ever give one-year contracts to lads at 17/18 and release them unless they've established themselves in the first team then we'll always be disappointed.

The vast majority of professional footballers aren't anywhere near ready for first team action at 18, 19, even 20.  When they graduate from the youth team they're still kids pretty much.  Their physical, technical and tactical development has only just begun.  We give them 12 months to adjust, continue to develop and make an impact.  Simply not long enough for the absolute vast majority.

My personal view is that anyone deemed good enough to get a professional contract from the youth team should have a two-year contract as a minimum.  I know it's absolute worlds apart but the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool etc. don't issue one-year contracts to youth players because they know it's not enough.  The rare occasions in recent season where we have given time for the young lads to develop it has produced first teamers (Clifton and Wright).  The only one who progressed ahead of his time was Pollock, who was physically years ahead of his peers and a bit of an anomaly in that sense.

Of course the golden ticket is you get a transfer fee from a youth team graduate and can then reinvest that in both the set-up and then maybe the funding of some of the contracts for the new graduates.   Unfortunately we saw our recent football fortune on that front eaten up...

I'm not sure I would consider Wright a first team player, he's barely in the team enough. More of a backup/super sub who can come on and make something happen. The idea of training youngsters and using money from transfers is nice enough but we don't really have that luxury right now, fans demand we get promotion and most of the budget is being used on the first team. A lot of people have this ongoing fantasy about a team full of local lads because we have this obsession with players also being fans of the club. I'd prefer we spend the budget on getting promoted, don't care if players come for the money as long as they do the job they are paid to do by winning games for GTFC. If we are up there again in higher leagues then maybe we can focus more on development of players and shifting a much larger budget around.

95% of young players will not make it in football, big teams just have the budget to develop them and get a few gems from it per year.

The issue, of course, is down to finance.

Thanks to the EPPP, the Premier League teams hoover up the best young talent for a pittance and can easily afford to pay them a fraction of a first team player's wages on the off chance they'll prove up to task and save a multi-million pound transfer fee a few years down the line. Those that aren't quite good enough for the PL tend to be sold to Championship clubs to recoup some of the costs, others are released and find their way down the pyramid. Much the same goes for Championship clubs, though to a lesser degree.

For lower division/Conference clubs, it's an entirely different situation. Even a low-paid youngster will take up a reasonable chunk of a first team player's salary and keeping them on in the hope that they will develop into first team players is a big gamble. Sending them out on loan as with Clifton and Wright is a good option, assuming they settle and get some experience, but the difference in standard between our division (which contains mostly professional clubs) and the ones below is substantial.

Looking at most of the players mentioned in this thread who we've released in due course shows that they really weren't good enough after all, because I think none are actually playing first team football at a higher level than us now. Southwell is the only one who played League football elsewhere, I think (and he had 2 seasons of full-time Football League-standard coaching at Wycombe) and he's a division below us right now.

Pollock the only one to go higher and actually play anywhere above us in recent years due to his loan spell at Cheltenham. Whether or not Starbuck/Idehen and the last who went to Middlesbrough whose name escapes me will make it in the league remains to be seen. It would have been nice to keep them and try to get them some game time, but probably more difficult for a team hoping to be pushing for promotion than one just tooling around in mid-table and hoping for the best.

Going out on a loan to get experience against seasoned pros in lower leagues, or playing in more regular reserve games, must be the way forward, especially in the 2nd year of their contracts.

Perhaps an agreement with the likes of Cleethorpes Town, Scarborough and Bridlington to give youngsters a definite "live and play away from home" experience, giving them a taste of a 1st out of Town transfer.

Use it as part of a hardening up process to show them the reaiities of professional football. Teach them independence and give them experiences that will help to shape them properly.

I mentioned this ages ago it's called having an affiliate club like Gainsborough etc sensing Young players out easily without having to chase around. I have no idea why we haven't done anything like this before.

Quoted from acko338

Going out on a loan to get experience against seasoned pros in lower leagues, or playing in more regular reserve games, must be the way forward, especially in the 2nd year of their contracts.

Perhaps an agreement with the likes of Cleethorpes Town, Scarborough and Bridlington to give youngsters a definite "live and play away from home" experience, giving them a taste of a 1st out of Town transfer.

Use it as part of a hardening up process to show them the reaiities of professional football. Teach them independence and give them experiences that will help to shape them properly.

Clee town as a live and play away from home experience?

Andy Reid, head of Forest under 23s, was talking about this on the radio on Saturday. They prefer their youngsters to go out to stable clubs, who have a set way of playing and a settled management and 'brand/philosophy'
He spoke very positively about Lincoln, whose CEO had actually gone to Forest and given them a presentation on the club's philosophy and set up ,plus how loanees would be looked after.
interestingly Pete Smurthwaite, chairman of Bridlington, was a guest at GTFC earlier in the season, about the time Goundry and Adlard went there on loan; maybe there's the beginning of a relationship there?

Quoted from forza ivano

Andy Reid, head of Forest under 23s, was talking about this on the radio on Saturday. They prefer their youngsters to go out to stable clubs, who have a set way of playing and a settled management and 'brand/philosophy'
He spoke very positively about Lincoln, whose CEO had actually gone to Forest and given them a presentation on the club's philosophy and set up ,plus how loanees would be looked after.
interestingly Pete Smurthwaite, chairman of Bridlington, was a guest at GTFC earlier in the season, about the time Goundry and Adlard went there on loan; maybe there's the beginning of a relationship there?

This approach from Lincoln wasn’t a one off as far as I’m aware, they did to other clubs, coupled with the relocation of the training ground, it proved to be a contributing factor to gaining promotion.

They’ve struggled this year and find themselves in a relegation battle, probably something to do with clubs not sending as many players out on loan or recalling them, and a manager becoming seriously ill during preseason…

Yeah the Bridlington Chairman was very complementary about Goundry and it's positive that they've also taken Adlard also. Let's hope it's the start of a longer term relationship as season long loans are likely to offer the best chance for the players to acclimatise to mens football.

Quoted from Kris2

I'm not sure I would consider Wright a first team player, he's barely in the team enough. More of a backup/super sub who can come on and make something happen. The idea of training youngsters and using money from transfers is nice enough but we don't really have that luxury right now, fans demand we get promotion and most of the budget is being used on the first team. A lot of people have this ongoing fantasy about a team full of local lads because we have this obsession with players also being fans of the club. I'd prefer we spend the budget on getting promoted, don't care if players come for the money as long as they do the job they are paid to do by winning games for GTFC. If we are up there again in higher leagues then maybe we can focus more on development of players and shifting a much larger budget around.

95% of young players will not make it in football, big teams just have the budget to develop them and get a few gems from it per year.

But then we get stuck in that cycle don't we?  We look just at the immediate promotion and when we get it, we have to rebuild again.  Then it's gamble if it works or not.  The promotion in 2016 was badly needed, I honestly don't think we would have ever got out the Conference if we hadn't done it that year.  It felt like that one last huge surge.  But when we got into League Two, we had to start again because that side had been built with the sole intention of getting promoted.  The likes of Monkhouse, Clay, Arnold, all geared up towards one objective.  We didn't get the rebuilding right and we sloped back into the Conference within 5 years (with other factors at play too, of course).

Naturally, if we have the choice of a side that's flying high in, let's say, League One where not a single player was born within 50 miles of Blundell Park or a fully home-grown squad that's absolute dogshit and struggling at this level, then it's a no-brainer.  I don't think anyone is really, or at least realistically, expecting a Crewe style set-up where we field an all-local XI.

For me it has to be about that philosophy of giving young lads a chance and that we're a club that bloods youngsters with a view to developing them.  Now that development can be as first team players for us or it can be so we can sell them for a tidy profit that we reinvest back into the set-up (be it first team transfers or the youth set-up).  The ethos over the last 20 or so years has been short-term, looking no further than the end of the season with no real plan for developing kids.  The only brief period we had was under Buckley Mk III when he blooded Bennett, North, Taylor, Hegarty and a few others.

If nothing else, experience tells us that the more successful Town teams of modern history have a core running through them of talent grown from within.

Just to add, I completely get the balance between the finances. No-one is going to settle for a 16th placed finish at this level on the caveat that Khouri, Adlard and co. got another years contract.

I'm just highlighting that I think it's a real shame we're looking at it through short-term lenses. I don't want to drag up old arguments but the profits of Pollock and Grist could really have made a difference at a time when we genuinely seem to be bringing a glut of talent through the ranks. Someone like Khouri, for example, looks to have something about him. He's not the finished article but there's a lot to work with. In 4 months time he's out of contract and will likely have had a sprinkling of first team appearances this season under him. When Hurst looks at renewing his contract in the summer, it's likely be having to look at it through the same angle as when looking at Scanell and Grant, i.e. what it is they've contributed to the first team. Not with an eye on next year, or the year after.

Quoted from acko338

Going out on a loan to get experience against seasoned pros in lower leagues, or playing in more regular reserve games, must be the way forward, especially in the 2nd year of their contracts.

Perhaps an agreement with the likes of Cleethorpes Town, Scarborough and Bridlington to give youngsters a definite "live and play away from home" experience, giving them a taste of a 1st out of Town transfer.

Use it as part of a hardening up process to show them the reaiities of professional football. Teach them independence and give them experiences that will help to shape them properly.

Whilst I get your point to some degree, we need a couple of promotions under our belt first as most teams below us are part-time. Moving away to Bridlington and twiddling their thumbs most of the week in anticipation of training on two evenings isn't going to be good for development.

You have to consider that we loan a number of players ourselves and moan about the idea that they must play so I think anyone going out on loan needs to be kept on their toes and work for their place. After all, it's supposed to be an experience that prepares them for a career in the game. I also think it's important to seek regular and honest feedback whilst also having a team of staff that get out and watch these players regularly so their performances can be critiqued and improved. It's no good sending them out on loan to Timbuctoo and not checking up on them unless they think the government decide when it rains.

My take is that we must trust the judgement of the people who get paid to make these decisions and there will be more to it than the fans know about.

Most fans are terrible judges of a player anyway.

Unless said players are obviously a cut above and will almost certainly make the grade, it's a gamble for the rest whether they are going to make it as a pro or not. Promising younger players sometimes fizzle out, whilst ones who don't look particularly that good, go on to make a career, often developing when older and stronger.

The ones that look particularly good will be hoovered up anyway and we won't be able to stop teams higher up taking them if they want them enough.

Not many players who are released by clubs go on to make a decent career in the game, which suggests that the people who make these decisions get it right more often than not.

There is evidence in Wright and Clifton that players can step up to the first team and win a pro contract: It's just that most of them simply won't.

Just to add that I'Anson is apparently playing in the Spanish 3rd division at present, which is semi-pro level. Well, I assume he's playing but there aren't any indications he's played a match since 2020 from his Wikipedia page. Whether this is due to injury or not, I don't know, but probably another indication that he perhaps wasn't up to the required standard after all, just like the other youngsters who left us.

I suppose the difference between these days and 20 or 30 years past is that, back then, you'd often have young players as the back-up who came in when the first choice or cover wasn't fit. In recent years, rather than playing an 18 year-old full-back when you have injuries or suspensions, we end up playing an older midfielder (often a winger) or central defender in the position. I say full-back specifically, because I always remember that the young players who did get a chance tended to be full-backs or wingers. You'd rarely see young central defenders given a chance with Bennett and Pollock the notable exceptions.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Whilst I get your point to some degree, we need a couple of promotions under our belt first as most teams below us are part-time. Moving away to Bridlington and twiddling their thumbs most of the week in anticipation of training on two evenings isn't going to be good for development.

You have to consider that we loan a number of players ourselves and moan about the idea that they must play so I think anyone going out on loan needs to be kept on their toes and work for their place. After all, it's supposed to be an experience that prepares them for a career in the game. I also think it's important to seek regular and honest feedback whilst also having a team of staff that get out and watch these players regularly so their performances can be critiqued and improved. It's no good sending them out on loan to Timbuctoo and not checking up on them unless they think the government decide when it rains.

Would they have been twiddling their thumbs? If Bridlington only train twice a week wouldn't they have been training at Town the rest of the week?

Quoted from arryarryarry

Would they have been twiddling their thumbs? If Bridlington only train twice a week wouldn't they have been training at Town the rest of the week?

That's what happens usually but the post I was replying referred to them moving away for the duration of the loan. I totally get the principle but we need a couple more promotions under our belt before we can adopt that kind of model properly.

Quoted from Maringer

Just to add that I'Anson is apparently playing in the Spanish 3rd division at present, which is semi-pro level. Well, I assume he's playing but there aren't any indications he's played a match since 2020 from his Wikipedia page. Whether this is due to injury or not, I don't know, but probably another indication that he perhaps wasn't up to the required standard after all, just like the other youngsters who left us.

Which would be equivalent to League One / Two level (it's the 3rd step below La Liga and La Liga 2, but split into East and West regional leagues). Appearance statistics on wikipedia profiles are inaccurate, he's been playing regularly for them including in the playoffs last season where they beat Barcelona B ([url=https://www.rfef.es/noticias/cronica-ucam-murcia-se-lleva-frenetico-choque-subcampeones-once-metros-2-2]match report[/url]) and narrowly missed out on promotion to La Liga 2 losing 1-0 to Ibiza in the final round ([url=https://www.transfermarkt.us/ud-ibiza_ucam-murcia-cf/aufstellung/spielbericht/3570545]match statistics[/url]).

Very clearly is up to the required standard.

It might be the 3rd tier, but it's still a semi-professional league. Many 'big' countries (including Spain and Germany) don't have the depth of professional leagues that we have in the UK. Whether or not the standard of the Spanish semi-pro 3rd division is higher than the lower professional leagues here is a different question. Spain has a population quite a bit smaller than England/Wales as well, of course.

I have to admit, I don't know whether his current club is professional or not. It probably is a decent standard (we've seen plenty of good semi-pro players in the Conference as well), but I don't think there is any indication that he very clearly is up to the required standard for league football. Could well be, and perhaps he's at a semi-pro club because he's got another good career on the side, or perhaps he is a pro at this club?

On the case of I'Anson, we're judging him now against when he left us, which was scarily ten years ago as an 18-year-old.

Probably not the best example of someone we didn't give a chance to if he wanted to return to Spain, although I do recall Rob Scott slagging him off a bit around that time which suggests he wasn't that well thought of.

It's hypothetical because there's absolutely no way of saying he would have developed further at any set rate, or indeed at all. But after leaving us, I'Anson has gone on to have a pretty decent career at a level much higher than where he left us and that we're still at. He's played in LaLiga. I think we would be quite happy if we signed anyone from that level now, regardless if they were a fringe player at a struggling team or not.

The argument of young lads we release not proving us wrong is a bit flawed to me, when they leave Town it's usually only a downward path for them. Idehen and Starbuck are generally exceptions in that clubs higher up the ladder pick them up. Once they leave a 4th/5th tier side it's usually to the regional leagues, once there they lose the level of development and professionalism that they had before (often the appetite too). I think the question should be, again it's hypothetical, how well would these players have developed if they stayed with us until they were 20 rather than 18?

I thought I'Anson looked decent, especially considering his youth. Surprised he didn't stay, but then there was a lot of strange stuff going one when Rob Scott was involved with the club and I can see why the chance of a move to Spain would be appealing for a young lad with family roots there. Checking his career, I see that he made a couple of La Liga appearances but also a few more in their second division than I realised. This doesn't change the fact that he's in the prime of his career and has been playing in semi-pro leagues for the past few seasons.

Ah, well, a different case. Fact is that most of the young players we've developed who looked promising haven't made it at our level. Not surprising given the way the youngsters are hoovered up by the bigger clubs, but it would have been good to have one or two more make the grade.