gisabeer 409 Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 In the past circumstance has hindered our youth system where the quick option of flashing the cheque book was opted for rather than taking the time to bring our youngsters through. That has now changed over the last season or two and hopefully the likes of loy and co will have the to develop in the first team. Loys position though is probably the toughest to succeed in though, having to compete with the likes of boyd, miller and Jelovic so far in his career. But we have to stop writing these kids off without giving them a decent chance. Fleck for example has been written off by many but has shown in the last two games hes played that hes more than capable. so dont be to hasty when it comes to judging them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 What is your opinion of Young Jordan McMillan mate. Sadly living in Bermuda I haven't had the chance to see many of the youngsters coming through. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Of course we could. Just because we didn't field a full bench doesn't mean we couldn't! That's semantics and you know it. Sure, we could have put my 6 yr old on the bench to fill it..... But if Walter is putting 6 instead of 7 on the bench then it suggests there are only 6 options from his two squads or no-one remaining that he wanted on the bench. How much game time has Loy had for the 1st team ? That would be a bigger indicator than how many times he has been on the bench in my opinion 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Who would accept playing youngsters if it meant giving up the league? I used to think I would, in the hope that in a few seasons you'd have a team who knew each other and had developed with each other. In reality though, losing the league means you end up going further back. I think young players are like apprentices - they can occasionally, in moments of brilliance, outshine the people above them - but they can't do it consistently. Most people are better at their job at 30 than they are at 20 because they have more experience and know what it takes. The ideal time to play 3 or even 4 youngsters in a team was back when we had money and had really quality to support them. Just now we have one or two quality players and really good professionals. I'm not sure it's enough to support a team of youngsters. When their head goes down it can stay down and they need to get used to winning as it's as easy to get used to that as it is losing. It'd be a big risk. I'd prefer it if we had some systematic way of introducing them - like Smith identified the ones he thinks will make it and made sure they got games in cups, and X minutes every X games, regardless of the position we were in in the game so they got a sense of responsibility but in managable doses. Edited January 19, 2011 by bmck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'd certainly like to see us not rushing out to replace Miller when we've got skillful young lads just dying for an opportunity. Rory Loy has been on the subs bench a good few times this season and we've got another 2 or 3 young strikers training with the 1st team at Murray Park who could be given opportunities and experience in games where we're 2 or 3 goals up. Rory Loy is 23 in a couple of months! Did he score a single goal for St Mirren? Dunno why he's still on our books he's clearly awful 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Who would accept playing youngsters if it meant giving up the league? I used to think I would, in the hope that in a few seasons you'd have a team who knew each other and had developed with each other. In reality though, losing the league means you end up going further back. I think young players are like apprentices - they can occasionally, in moments of brilliance, outshine the people above them - but they can't do it consistently. Most people are better at their job at 30 than they are at 20 because they have more experience and know what it takes. The ideal time to play 3 or even 4 youngsters in a team was back when we had money and had really quality to support them. Just now we have one or two quality players and really good professionals. I'm not sure it's enough to support a team of youngsters. When their head goes down it can stay down and they need to get used to winning as it's as easy to get used to that as it is losing. It'd be a big risk. I'd prefer it if we had some systematic way of introducing them - like Smith identified the ones he thinks will make it and made sure they got games in cups, and X minutes every X games, regardless of the position we were in in the game so they got a sense of responsibility but in managable doses. It's just about being sensible, something we rarely do. Bring the youngsters on when we're comfortably in front. Introduce them slowly, not too many at a time etc. It's starting to happen this season but only out of necessity. Something else we should do is play youngsters in position we need to fill instead of playing senior players out of position. 18/19 is the age players should be getting into the first team. To have almost 23 year olds with near no first team experience on our books is ignorant. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 It's conceivable we could lose Davis, McGregor, Miller and Bougherra before the end of January .... without adding anyone to the squad. What value these youngsters then. Worse, any young player actually making an impact isn't likely to remain at Ibrox much more than a year (Wilson). The youngsters we're afraid of risking today may soon become the youngsters we can't hold on to tomorrow. I think the bleeding of homegrown talent may quickly become a bigger problem than lack of funds to sign new players. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 It's just about being sensible, something we rarely do. Bring the youngsters on when we're comfortably in front. Introduce them slowly, not too many at a time etc. It's starting to happen this season but only out of necessity. Something else we should do is play youngsters in position we need to fill instead of playing senior players out of position. I agree with that, but I also think W. Smith's old and cynical and probably realistic enough to know that the youngsters wouldn't be spared if included in a position to be filled, if we still lost the game and they played poorly. We rarely have comfortable leads these days. But I suppose, if they're good enough, they'll play their part. He must know which ones have a future. 18/19 is the age players should be getting into the first team. To have almost 23 year olds with near no first team experience on our books is ignorant. They should be getting glimpses at that stage, but shouldn't be expecting a regular slot till 20 odd. Especially at a big club. But I agree no experience at 23 does seem bizarre. Difficult to get striking experience as a youngster at Rangers, but for him still to be here with no-one like me who just watches first team games having an idea of how good he is because he's never played seems odd. I can only imagine we don't have many good young strikers and he's the most capable in the event that our main strikers and our backup strikers and any of our midfielders who could play up front are out injured. Which sounds improbable, but could happen this season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I think the bleeding of homegrown talent may quickly become a bigger problem than lack of funds to sign new players. It seems to be the most bizarre bit about our policy. By any other club's standard 'bleeding' is a measure of success and how they fund their other signings. We seem to let most of our young players go relatively cheaply, Hutton aside. If Wilson were playing for that French side renowned for producing players he'd have been a ten million signing or something. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Something telling about our youth players is I really don't know much about any of them other than Fleck and Ness. They appear, often do well then you never hear from them again. Even Ness, I'd struggle to think what he looks like properly/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.