calscot 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There are certain conditions that need to be met before a club will take a player on loan. You have to remember that whoever does will not only be "developing" a player for the good of another team, it will also be at the expense of their own youngsters and indeed their regular players. So what's in it for them? What they want and need is a player who is of a standard which can enhance the first team and get them better results, while not costing a lot. SPrem clubs will be unlikely to consider a player from a lower division to fit in that category - or usually even from their own league. They will presumably only be interested in players that they see as from a level above them - just as we did with Weiss. That will sometimes include Celtic as they are operating at a different financial level, just as we are from Raith. The problem there is that you tend not to be able to play a guy against his own team, or perhaps if it's allowed, you won't trust them to stick the knife in. This means if it happens too often then it could influence the league in favour of a club loaning out loads of players to their rivals. So I expect there are some rules. There is one of the many strange, paradoxical arguments on here that our players are supposedly good enough for our first team - one that's expected to wipe the floor with everyone in the Championship while winning a cup or two, and therefore good enough to walk into almost every team in the country ahead of their first team players and their own developed youths. But from the same people, we supposedly have the worst youth development in the country with the worst manager who somehow "puts them back years"... It can't be both and is obviously neither. What it all says is that our youngsters must be reasonably good but not quite good enough or ready enough for a demanding club like Rangers. It would be surprising if they were as we're have to be doing something of a very high factor better than everyone else. The probability is that they'll all likely make it somewhere in football but only a very few will make it as a squad player in the top two teams in the country. That's even just common sense. The thing is, that Rangers can't afford to risk results by playing them in a team of 11 players, when every game is a must win, where even a series of wins is severely criticised (another paradox). This way the players will all get the chance to play alongside and against experienced, seasoned professionals in a very competitive league. This will give them experience and hopefully improve them as a player. How they cope or possibly shine will affect their Rangers career, but at less risk to our results. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 297 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 And you call me ignorant? Jeez - so widely off the mark? Like what? - I stand by my comment you have quoted - in the context it was made. McCoist will win the league. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Jeez - so widely off the mark? Like what? - I stand by my comment you have quoted - in the context it was made. McCoist will win the league. He won the league when you made that comment too. You know full well what you meant and you know you got it very wrong. The complete reverse has happened to everyone eating their words. Just about everyone is in unison as to his incompetence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Saying the kids will get a chance if they are good enough is just nonsense. They won't and don't. Yes, if you totally discount all the ones that did and do... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yes, if you totally discount all the ones that did and do... Who are they like? We had one youngster playing against Queen of the South. Our average age would have been nigh on 30. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yes, if you totally discount all the ones that did and do... Only 2 have had a proper chance in the last 2 years and one of those was forced upon the manager and even then he is played out of position. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 JMHO but I don't think calling folk "ignorant" advances the debate at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Who are they like? We had one youngster playing against Queen of the South. Our average age would have been nigh on 30. Well you've just ruined your argument by saying there was one. That suggests youngsters do get a chance rather than don't, which was what you were supposed to be defending. Anyway, if you want to pick and choose the example games then here's one from a year ago: 01 Gallacher 24 02 Christopher Hegarty 20 03 Faure 22 05 Wallace 26 06 McCulloch 35 04 Robbie Crawford 20 08 Black 28 09 Templeton 24 10 MacLeod 19 11 Andrew Mitchell 21 07 Little 24 Subs 15 Kyle McAusland 20 17 Barrie McKay 18 Average age of starters is under 24 with a couple of very young subs. I make that 8 academy players out of 13 who "got a chance" plus a couple of other youngish players. However, they lost in extra time in the League Cup against Forfar, and so didn't quite take that chance to show they are good enough for Rangers - and the backlash for the manager wasn't good. Now here again is where you will have to make contortions again as you rate this result as one of Ally's worst and virtually a sackable one. Very strange for someone who would supposedly put developing youth before results... The game you mention with older players, we won 4-2 against an in-form side in a higher league... I think Ally learned his lesson. Rangers fans, including yourself, have shown no patience for playing young players, but I'm sure you'll figure out a way to blame Ally anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Well you've just ruined your argument by saying there was one. That suggests youngsters do get a chance rather than don't, which was what you were supposed to be defending. Anyway, if you want to pick and choose the example games then here's one from a year ago: 01 Gallacher 24 02 Christopher Hegarty 20 03 Faure 22 05 Wallace 26 06 McCulloch 35 04 Robbie Crawford 20 08 Black 28 09 Templeton 24 10 MacLeod 19 11 Andrew Mitchell 21 07 Little 24 Subs 15 Kyle McAusland 20 17 Barrie McKay 18 Average age of starters is under 24 with a couple of very young subs. I make that 8 academy players out of 13 who "got a chance" plus a couple of other youngish players. However, they lost in extra time in the League Cup against Forfar, and so didn't quite take that chance to show they are good enough for Rangers - and the backlash for the manager wasn't good. Now here again is where you will have to make contortions again as you rate this result as one of Ally's worst and virtually a sackable one. Very strange for someone who would supposedly put developing youth before results... The game you mention with older players, we won 4-2 against an in-form side in a higher league... I think Ally learned his lesson. Rangers fans, including yourself, have shown no patience for playing young players, but I'm sure you'll figure out a way to blame Ally anyway. You realise you have picked a game that was before our transfer ban lifted ? I'm not sure what that proves, particularly given a number of those players have left the club and weren't up to much. We have had decent youngsters like Telfer, Gallagher, Gasparotto etc who have barely had a sniff. You know, the players that did very well for the u20's last season and seem a level above the players that went out to Forfar. Our average age that went out to Dundee United last season was almost 29 and was likewise for most of the season. What is the point of having an aging team for a penniless not up to much? Where is the scope for development? Which young players have I shown no patience with? Are you making up things again? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 You realise you have picked a game that was before our transfer ban lifted ? Sigh, I did say there would be contortions. Yes, I realise that every time and for every topic. You seem to realise it when it's about playing youngsters, (even though it's pretty irrelevant, as it doesn't change that they played), but you don't realise it when slagging off the manager... Can you actually explain what your point is in a consistent way? I'm not sure what that proves, particularly given a number of those players have left the club and weren't up to much. More contortions. It proves that players were given a chance and did so badly that some fans like yourself were outraged. I thought it was obvious. The fact that some have left and weren't up to it, makes my argument and is against yours. So again, your point is inconsistent. We have had decent youngsters like Telfer, Gallagher, Gasparotto etc who have barely had a sniff. You know, the players that did very well for the u20's last season and seem a level above the players that went out to Forfar. You seem to now be very particular about which specific players should be played and that misses the whole subject. Either young players need played to be developed or not. Again you need to explain this consistently. Our average age that went out to Dundee United last season was almost 29 and was likewise for most of the season. I haven't calculated all the teams, but remember doing it once or twice and that number doesn't ring true - especially considering the ages of our squad members. Perhaps you would like to publish your data... It may be true for specific games but like I've shown when you do that, you can get one where it was under 24. That team lost to lower league side. The team you mention lost to a higher league side. The team for most of the season won an incredible number of games and went through the league unbeaten... But even then, what does average age have to do with anything - why is that a more desirable number to go for rather than number of points gained in the league? You can win stuff and develop young players without having a very young average age, especially when you have a pretty capable older player that skews the figures. It seems you would have dropped the likes of Weir just to bring the average wage down by over a year, rather than consider what team will get you the win... What is the point of having an aging team for a penniless not up to much? Where is the scope for development? This has been dealt with in other threads, you're just going round in circles and again contradictory. You advocate spending less money on players from the division we're in - which firstly would make it unlikely we win the title at the first attempt and secondly would have no scope for development. Which young players have I shown no patience with? Are you making up things again? Do you really need me to explain this? Look, it's not hard, what am I making up - the young players that played in the Forfar game or the fact that you thought the result they helped achieve was unacceptable? I realise that after replying to your post, the latter probably depends on how you want to twist things to suit your agenda. You really must be into yoga... 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.