Rangers coach Ian Durrant raves about Jamie Barjonas after Youth Cup performance

[craig 5,199]

LOL. That's the worst excuse for losing I've heard in years. No wonder we produce so few youngsters good enough for the first team if it's true

 

Call it the worst excuse all you like - but I can ASSURE you that the pro teams that have any real ambition don't see winning the Youth Cup as the holy grail. The ONLY thing they are concerned with is providing the 1st team with more players.

 

If winning at all costs in the youth cup was the answer then we would have been playing Zelalem, Oduwa etc just to win this game - you want that ? You think it makes sense ?

[craig 5,199]

And after reading all that we see our Youths got beat 2-1 by St Mirren youths. That should be the main talking point.

 

No, it really shouldn't. The talking point should be that a 16 yr old has stepped up and had a fine game against, in some cases, players 3 yrs older than him and some already playing first team football. And unless I am mistaken a number of our U17's have played for the U20's this season, helping us to wins in games too.

 

I prefer we use our U17's and U20's to develop players to come into the 1st team squad. I wont be losing sleep over not winning the Youth Cup. But you go right ahead Rab.

[elfideldo 410]

Youth Cup being an U20 tournament means it has less relevance than it ever had. Most teams have players of that age in and around the first and don't use them in the youth cup.

 

If the U18 league goes ahead next season then moving the Youth Cup back to the age group it started out at may be a good idea.

[RANGERRAB 3,307]

Call it the worst excuse all you like - but I can ASSURE you that the pro teams that have any real ambition don't see winning the Youth Cup as the holy grail. The ONLY thing they are concerned with is providing the 1st team with more players.

 

If winning at all costs in the youth cup was the answer then we would have been playing Zelalem, Oduwa etc just to win this game - you want that ? You think it makes sense ?

 

Providing the first team with more players ?

They're not providing it with very many then are they? And the ones they do provide aren't good enough anyway.

[RANGERRAB 3,307]

No, it really shouldn't. The talking point should be that a 16 yr old has stepped up and had a fine game against, in some cases, players 3 yrs older than him and some already playing first team football. And unless I am mistaken a number of our U17's have played for the U20's this season, helping us to wins in games too.

 

I prefer we use our U17's and U20's to develop players to come into the 1st team squad. I wont be losing sleep over not winning the Youth Cup. But you go right ahead Rab.

 

As I've said countless times these games provide little indication whether a youngster will be good enough or not. It is only when they step out of their age group into the first team it becomes more apparent whether they're good enough or not.

 

As for not having to win games.........

Can you imagine what Jock Wallace would have thought about this?

[craig 5,199]

Providing the first team with more players ?

They're not providing it with very many then are they? And the ones they do provide aren't good enough anyway.

 

Mulholland only took over in January - you expect THAT quick of a turnaround ? I don't. It takes time as Sinclair had us recruiting a different type of player, as elfideldo will tell you...... Mulholland has a VERY different outlook on how football should be played and the type of players we should be looking to recruit at Academy level.

 

I believe that if we give Mulholland and his staff time we will see a marked turnaround in the production of quality players - remembering too, that it is not easy to recruit at Academy age until they hit U16 and U17 when the UEFA "90 minute" rule is an easier work around.

[craig 5,199]

As I've said countless times these games provide little indication whether a youngster will be good enough or not. It is only when they step out of their age group into the first team it becomes more apparent whether they're good enough or not.

 

As for not having to win games.........

Can you imagine what Jock Wallace would have thought about this?

 

So if these games provide little indication whether a youngster is good enough or not why were you suggesting that the scoreline is the big talking point ? Oh, I get it.... you prefer to win the Youth Cup and it doesn't matter whether the youngsters are developing or not - just win at all costs.....

 

No disrespect to Jock Wallace at all - but modern day football has moved on in terms of how youth is handled and what is expected. Not sure if they still do but Man Utd up until recently wouldn't let any of their youth teams play against anyone else until they were U15 - up until U14 they wanted to immerse them in the "Man Utd way" - so they were at ease playing the way Utd would expect them to play in the 1st team if they ever got there. They only brought competitive action in at U15 (I THINK it was U15 anyway).

 

I was speaking to a Man City Academy age group director a couple of years ago and he put it very succinctly to me..... "I can beat Man Utd 4-0 this weekend and be out of a job on Monday. Why ? Because beating Man Utd isn't my job. My job is to develop young talent and make them ready for the step up".

 

You are correct.... these games DO give little indication whether a youngster will be good enough or not.... and that actually proves MY point. The result doesn't matter if we cant tell whether they will be good enough or not. Recently Rangers have played a LOT of U17's in the U20 age group - partly because they had to and partly because the youngsters were deemed good enough. Whilst that doesn't tell you they will be good enough for the 1st team it DOES tell you that the coaching staff are confident enough that they can play at a higher level than their own age group. The Club don't play players "up" just for the sake of it - anyone playing "up" has been carefully considered for physical, technical and tactical attributes before being moved up.

[forlanssister 3,061]

Providing the first team with more players ?

They're not providing it with very many then are they? And the ones they do provide aren't good enough anyway.

 

Hence the Luddite mentality being binned....

[RANGERRAB 3,307]

Relying too much on a youth policy will see us slide further back to the mediocrity of the early 1980's.

Remember then? We were churning them out. We had the likes ofDave McPherson,, Kenny Black, Kenny Lyle,etc. How many made it to the level we want to see Rangers aspire to?

It was only when Graeme Souness arrived in 1986 we saw better quality players getting signed.

[craig 5,199]

Relying too much on a youth policy will see us slide further back to the mediocrity of the early 1980's.

Remember then? We were churning them out. We had the likes ofDave McPherson,, Kenny Black, Kenny Lyle,etc. How many made it to the level we want to see Rangers aspire to?

It was only when Graeme Souness arrived in 1986 we saw better quality players getting signed.

 

Yes, not too long after Souness arrived we also saw SDM arrive - and with it came the boom and bust, boom and bust and, ultimately bust.....

 

Nobody is saying that we are "relying too much" on a youth policy. But look at every other team in Scotland, including Celtic, and you will see that they look to bring youths through - as should we. But for the charlatans that were mismanaging us we could very well currently be watching Lewis McLeod pushing us towards the title.... but best not to have reliance on a youth policy huh ?

 

We aren't relying on a youth policy anyway - how many of our youths are currently playing in the senior team regularly ? And when is it that we collectively accept that we should be developing youth to augment the senior team and, hopefully, provide sell-on value once established ?