Has the academy production line broke down?

[McTom123 6]

If we cant find loan deals for them, I rather have them om the bench and get the feel from Boro a-squad atmosphere. It doesent prevent them from playing u-21 or u-football

 

I rather have our owns filling those spots than other teams youths. Why loan players that not gonna play? It does say something about the view of the own youths, atleast it does to me

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can see why the club take that path. Promotion, preferably automatic promotion, is absolutely the aim. Gibson expects it, given the money he's made available for transfers; and the fans expect it. Even though someone like Zucculini only has 30 minutes of football for Man City, he still has more experience of professional football and will, in theory, be more prepared to be dropped into the starting line-up or the last 20 minutes of a game than a talented youngster who has little to no experience of professional football.

 

The issue there is when is the right time to test these youngsters out? I don't think a promotion push is necessarily the right time, but as CT says, a battle to stay into the Premier League probably isn't either. I think sending them out on loan is probably the best option in the long run for now.

[Brunners 7,982]

If we cant find loan deals for them, I rather have them om the bench and get the feel from Boro a-squad atmosphere. It doesent prevent them from playing u-21 or u-football

 

I rather have our owns filling those spots than other teams youths. Why loan players that not gonna play? It does say something about the view of the own youths, atleast it does to me

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can see why the club take that path. Promotion, preferably automatic promotion, is absolutely the aim. Gibson expects it, given the money he's made available for transfers; and the fans expect it. Even though someone like Zucculini only has 30 minutes of football for Man City, he still has more experience of professional football and will, in theory, be more prepared to be dropped into the starting line-up or the last 20 minutes of a game than a talented youngster who has little to no experience of professional football.

 

The issue there is when is the right time to test these youngsters out? I don't think a promotion push is necessarily the right time, but as CT says, a battle to stay into the Premier League probably isn't either. I think sending them out on loan is probably the best option in the long run for now.

 

OK yeah pretty much nailed my opinion too here.

[ladyspite 385]

I can see benefits with loaning players, but some loans dont make sense to me, but I do trust Karanka but he is also new to the manager job so I think he plays things very safe at times, but I dont blame him for it I wouldent be all daring my first year(s) on a new job either.

[Brunners 7,982]

Do 125 games and 2 and a half seasons still qualify him as "new" to being a manager?

[ladyspite 385]

well if it doesent I will have to start to have more demands on him :) I still go easy on him as I feel he still have a lot to learn in many areas not only on the pitch but outside.

[LukeR 44]

So a load of salient points are written off just because some of us happen to support the manager's decisions?

 

Two sides to this coin.

 

So a load of salient points are written off just because fry happens to be playing?

Today's CB partnership surely dispels any questions about Karanka's reluctance to play youth. The simple fact of the matter is that we've got better players to choose from than our youngsters. Everyone on the pitch today was playing on merit. It's nothing to do with the manager shoving them in when a youngster would be better or equally equipped.

[ladyspite 385]

So a load of salient points are written off just because some of us happen to support the manager's decisions?

 

Two sides to this coin.

 

So a load of salient points are written off just because fry happens to be playing?

Today's CB partnership surely dispels any questions about Karanka's reluctance to play youth. The simple fact of the matter is that we've got better players to choose from than our youngsters. Everyone on the pitch today was playing on merit. It's nothing to do with the manager shoving them in when a youngster would be better or equally equipped.

 

I dont think anyone question that our first 11 and even some reserves are better than our youths. The question is if its better to loan players like Zuccilni and Stephens and kike sola instead of giving our own youth the chance?

 

I heard valic points on both sides. But I dont think anyone gona change their minds :)

[typicalbrough 17]

So if we have had Chapman, Fry or Maloney on the bench instead of Zucculini and Stephens we wouldent be joint second in the league? Do I understand you correct? Its all due to the big impact of Zuccilini and Stepehens we been this good...

 

I dont agree

 

They aren't going to play though so is it worth them sitting on the bench?

 

With regards to loaning youngsters out you can't have a hard and fast rule.

 

There are benefits to lads going out on loan in that off the field it teaches them

to fend for themselves. For some it will be the first time in their lives that they've

had to cook and clean for themselves.

 

On the pitch its very different as well playing as you are now playing in competitive games where results and performances matter. Young Fewster struggled being away from home.

 

For all the benefits of going out on loan you also need a pathway into the first team. Being on the bench is a vital part of their education. It lets them know what is expected of first teamers, what the atmosphere of the dressing room is and what is and isn't acceptable in that environment.

 

The other benefit is that you get to know what it feels like, you experience first team

environment and it lets you aclimatise which helps reduce nervs when you are called up.

 

I don't think you can say you should always do one or the other you take it on individuals and what you have in the first team squad. As a quick example I think Cooke would benefit from going out on loan but that Chapman would benefit from being around the first team. Imagine having had the option to put him on today.

 

I think loans of Stephens, Blackman, Zucilini weren't needed as we have players as good as them in the youths. For both the short term and long term development of the club it would have in my opinion been better to use our own players.

 

With regard to when we blood them then we have a problem. I get the argument that promotion is the be all and end all this season. I don't think it's a case of you can't do both but that aside when is a good time?

 

For the foreseeable future we are either going to be going for promotion or battling relegation how long do we say it's not the right time for?

 

(Cliche alert) At the end of the day it's a philosophical decision look at Spurs challenging for the premier league and playing youngsters.

[Brunners 7,982]

How many of those Spurs youngsters are in the first team straight away without time playing elsewhere first?

[Humpty 3,261]

Great article Powlay. I've expressed my disappointment at our lack of use of the academy. It's a gold mine and we refuse to use it unless it's forced up on us. I hope the development of Fry might open Karanka's eyes to it's possibilities.

[Brunners 7,982]

Great article Powlay. I've expressed my disappointment at our lack of use of the academy. It's a gold mine and we refuse to use it unless it's forced up on us. I hope the development of Fry might open Karanka's eyes to it's possibilities.

 

Again, why risk our promotion chances by playing untested youth players?

[GwenStuani 4]

Great article Powlay. I've expressed my disappointment at our lack of use of the academy. It's a gold mine and we refuse to use it unless it's forced up on us. I hope the development of Fry might open Karanka's eyes to it's possibilities.

 

Again, why risk our promotion chances by playing untested youth players?

 

Again, why risk our promotion chances by playing other teams untested youth players?

[Brunners 7,982]

Great article Powlay. I've expressed my disappointment at our lack of use of the academy. It's a gold mine and we refuse to use it unless it's forced up on us. I hope the development of Fry might open Karanka's eyes to it's possibilities.

 

Again, why risk our promotion chances by playing untested youth players?

 

Again, why risk our promotion chances by playing other teams untested youth players?

 

We don't play them, which is half the point. And those that we brought in are ALL tested with at least 1 season in leagues against adults. (Usually. Not always, Velkjovic I think was an anomaly).

[GwenStuani 4]

So a load of salient points are written off just because some of us happen to support the manager's decisions?

 

Two sides to this coin.

 

So a load of salient points are written off just because fry happens to be playing?

Today's CB partnership surely dispels any questions about Karanka's reluctance to play youth. The simple fact of the matter is that we've got better players to choose from than our youngsters. Everyone on the pitch today was playing on merit. It's nothing to do with the manager shoving them in when a youngster would be better or equally equipped.

 

Players who have been played CB since January in order

 

Ayala,

Gibbo,

Amoribietta,

Kalas,

 

Please tell me how this does not somehow suggest he was a last resort. He was last resort on the premise kalas performances have dropped and baptise, Ayala, friend and gibbo have been out for period of suspension and injury.

[Brunners 7,982]

Personally I'm of the opinion an untested youth SHOULD be last resort.