Academy Signs Glenn Middleton

[rbr 1,247]

plus as Rangers get better , its only going to get harder and harder for any young player to breakthrough 

[Frankie 8,145]

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

True but my point is that Hearts have allowed the chance for the best players to break through,  whereas Rangers at the moment have not because the squad is huge.

 

McCrorie is an example of a player who only broke through this season by pure luck (2 senior injuries at centre back), but we now know deserved to be ahead of those senior players in the first place. You only find that out when the youth player has been given the chance to test himself at that level.

 

The other point is that by setting up like that you attract the best young players, because they will want to go where they have a chance of breaking through. Will the next James MacArthur chose Rangers over Hamilton/Hearts if given the choice? Very doubtful.

The problem we have compared to those other teams is that our fans demand and expect constant success.  As such, whilst you want to have as many young players as possible, their natural inconsistencies or proneness to injury or general inexperience, means it's difficult for a club like Rangers to base their side wholly on youth.  Yes, whether by luck or judgement, the very best young players will make it but the vast majority will not.

 

That's not to say they won't make eventually or that our decision-making is perfect in giving (or not giving) them a chance, just that other factors are at play and they don't usually align enough to improve our development record.

 

Ultimately though playing for Rangers remains a huge draw and young players shouldn't be afraid to take what may seem like a step back to make a step forward in the longer term.  It might not work out first time but continue to work hard then you might get the chance to come back.

[DMAA 3,603]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

The problem we have compared to those other teams is that our fans demand and expect constant success.  As such, whilst you want to have as many young players as possible, their natural inconsistencies or proneness to injury or general inexperience, means it's difficult for a club like Rangers to base their side wholly on youth.  Yes, whether by luck or judgement, the very best young players will make it but the vast majority will not.

 

That's not to say they won't make eventually or that our decision-making is perfect in giving (or not giving) them a chance, just that other factors are at play and they don't usually align enough to improve our development record.

 

Ultimately though playing for Rangers remains a huge draw and young players shouldn't be afraid to take what may seem like a step back to make a step forward in the longer term.  It might not work out first time but continue to work hard then you might get the chance to come back.

My primary point is really on the size of the squad. I don't think that goal of constant success is furthered by having so many average players in the squad. And I think there's evidence that it would be furthered by having a thinner squad which would allow a young player to come through now and again. Both by allowing our young players to go to the next level like McCrorie has and also by saving wages which would allow higher wages to be offered to first team regulars. The quality over quantity argument.

 

So to give examples I mean;

• Having 1 senior goalie instead of 2, on the off chance Wes gets injured will Alnwick really be so much better than Kelly/McCrorie as to justify his wages? I'd guess not
• Having 3 senior centre backs instead of 4, with Aidan Wilson making the bench when one of them is injured
• Having 4 senior centre mids instead of 7 (Barjonas making the bench when we have 2 injuries)
• Having 5 attacking midfielders instead of 6, with Atakayi/ Middleton/Burt competing to make the bench in the case of an injury or two
• Having 2 senior strikers instead of 5 (they are competing for one place at the moment), with Rudden/Dallas making the bench when one of them is injured

I don't mean it needs to be exactly like that I'm just explaining the principle. The principle being when injuries hit, the best players from the development squad have the huge incentive of competing with each other for a place on the Rangers bench.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by DMAA

[SlimJim 18]

41 minutes ago, DMAA said:

My primary point is really on the size of the squad. I don't think that goal of constant success is furthered by having so many average players in the squad. And I think there's evidence that it would be furthered by having a thinner squad which would allow a young player to come through now and again. Both by allowing our young players to go to the next level like McCrorie has and also by saving wages which would allow higher wages to be offered to first team regulars. The quality over quantity argument.

 

So to give examples I mean;

• Having 1 senior goalie instead of 2, on the off chance Wes gets injured will Alnwick really be so much better than Kelly/McCrorie as to justify his wages? I'd guess not
• Having 3 senior centre backs instead of 4, with Aidan Wilson making the bench when one of them is injured
• Having 4 senior centre mids instead of 7 (Barjonas making the bench when we have 2 injuries)
• Having 5 attacking midfielders instead of 6, with Atakayi/ Middleton/Burt competing to make the bench in the case of an injury or two
• Having 2 senior strikers instead of 5 (they are competing for one place at the moment), with Rudden/Dallas making the bench when one of them is injured

I don't mean it needs to be exactly like that I'm just explaining the principle. The principle being when injuries hit, the best players from the development squad have the huge incentive of competing with each other for a place on the Rangers bench.

 

I’d agree apart from goalkeeper. I think this will probably happen under Murty, once surpluss players in first team and youth are moved on.

[pete 2,499]

10 hours ago, Blueger said:

thanks for listening to my rants and moans folks, I am just a bitter parent, feel free to ignore me

firstly I think it depends on his age. I would not like to send a 17-18 year old out on loan.

Secondly it may be that Rangers see the need to keep him at Ibrox in case they need to fill in as Aiden Wilson and jordon Baronjas have done. The development squad are now playing class development teams from all over the world which I would prefer to see my son do than play for Berwick Rangers against Cowdenbeath with all due respect to them.

[Gaffer 1,665]

15 hours ago, DMAA said:

My primary point is really on the size of the squad. I don't think that goal of constant success is furthered by having so many average players in the squad. And I think there's evidence that it would be furthered by having a thinner squad which would allow a young player to come through now and again. Both by allowing our young players to go to the next level like McCrorie has and also by saving wages which would allow higher wages to be offered to first team regulars. The quality over quantity argument.

 

So to give examples I mean;

• Having 1 senior goalie instead of 2, on the off chance Wes gets injured will Alnwick really be so much better than Kelly/McCrorie as to justify his wages? I'd guess not
• Having 3 senior centre backs instead of 4, with Aidan Wilson making the bench when one of them is injured
• Having 4 senior centre mids instead of 7 (Barjonas making the bench when we have 2 injuries)
• Having 5 attacking midfielders instead of 6, with Atakayi/ Middleton/Burt competing to make the bench in the case of an injury or two
• Having 2 senior strikers instead of 5 (they are competing for one place at the moment), with Rudden/Dallas making the bench when one of them is injured

I don't mean it needs to be exactly like that I'm just explaining the principle. The principle being when injuries hit, the best players from the development squad have the huge incentive of competing with each other for a place on the Rangers bench.

 

I agree with your point, providing the younger players are good enough.  I think we have some (3-4) players who are good enough to step up, but not many others will make it.  Until we get a better quality in the youth team, we need to keep strength in depth within the squad.

[Frankie 8,145]

15 hours ago, DMAA said:

My primary point is really on the size of the squad. I don't think that goal of constant success is furthered by having so many average players in the squad. And I think there's evidence that it would be furthered by having a thinner squad which would allow a young player to come through now and again. Both by allowing our young players to go to the next level like McCrorie has and also by saving wages which would allow higher wages to be offered to first team regulars. The quality over quantity argument.

 

So to give examples I mean;

• Having 1 senior goalie instead of 2, on the off chance Wes gets injured will Alnwick really be so much better than Kelly/McCrorie as to justify his wages? I'd guess not
• Having 3 senior centre backs instead of 4, with Aidan Wilson making the bench when one of them is injured
• Having 4 senior centre mids instead of 7 (Barjonas making the bench when we have 2 injuries)
• Having 5 attacking midfielders instead of 6, with Atakayi/ Middleton/Burt competing to make the bench in the case of an injury or two
• Having 2 senior strikers instead of 5 (they are competing for one place at the moment), with Rudden/Dallas making the bench when one of them is injured

I don't mean it needs to be exactly like that I'm just explaining the principle. The principle being when injuries hit, the best players from the development squad have the huge incentive of competing with each other for a place on the Rangers bench.

 

That's a good post and one I agree with.

 

In many ways, I think the current squad size is an exception to the rule.  We have around 30 right not but usually 22-24 is a good number and I'm certain we'll reduce back to that in the summer and hopefully some of the younger lads will be part of that more efficient number. 

[DMAA 3,603]

Aberdeen are very good at prioritising quality over quantity. Their squad is very thin comparatively and it’s what’s allowed them to compete with us this season and last. Our transfer and wage money has been spread out much thinner than theirs, allowing them to have a very strong starting 11 for their budget. Wright and McKenna have both broken through at least partially as a result. 

[MacK1950 2,231]

We are still in transition from the previous calamity of Caxinho so the expanded pool will do no harm as it will allow proper assessment of that and the progress of the development squad and below.

Aligned with the future of Murtry the longer? summer window will be interesting.

 

[JohnMc 2,463]

 I've no idea who the young player being discussed in this thread is, literally no clue. 

 

Football is a brutal business, particularly for youngsters.