Summer transfer window

[manc_don]

Reynolds expected to sign a new two year contract this week, according to the Daily Record 

 

WTF ?!? This to try and maximize his fee or actually stay that long...

[rocket_scientist]

Our youth players aren't good enough.

 

And by all accounts our current crop is shite.

 

The manager sees this every day so I'm glad he's brought in someone more experienced for the time being at least.

 

You start by expressing a firm opinion then you admit you're not qualified to say.

 

Who do you mean by "all accounts" and why do you trust their judgement so absolutely?

 

You obviously have faith in the manager too. Did it ever occur to you that if the "current crop is shite" then this is poor management in itself? Who can justify paying wages and wasting time on wasters?

[RicoS321]

Constantly hearing folk moaning about youth not getting a chance. Our youth players aren't good enough. When they are they'll get their chance. See Wright, Scott.  Leaving the fate of your season in the hands of the kids is fine - if they're not shite. And by all accounts our current crop is shite. The manager sees this every day so I'm glad he's brought in someone more experienced for the time being at least.

 

Are you suggesting that Scott Wright wasn't good enough at all last season right up until the final game where he scored a hat-trick? He should have had more game time last season in my opinion, he didn't just become good overnight or in pre-season.

 

At any one point in time, we should have at least one player who is deemed good enough to make the step up, or at least be tried out. I think that's a reasonable statement to make? Ideally, we'd have two and anything more than that is probably unlikely or a stroke of luck. Given Wright's performances to date, I think we can remove him from the youth development equation and put him in the first team player category. This season, our one or two youth teamers are probably Harvie and Ross.

 

It's a question of position, trust in the player and trust in those around him. For example, last season there were numerous occasions where we were a couple of goals (at least) up with more than 30 minutes to go. Those instances should be classed as opportunities to develop our youngsters and not to give game time to squad members, (unless returning from injury) who should be used to give us something different when trying to hold onto a lead or return from deficit - they've had their opportunity and are in the squad on merit. If we're explicit in this, players won't take exception at not getting on. By not playing a youngster in those minutes, we're saying that either:

 

Our other ten players are not good enough to carry a teammate through a game who is in the learning process

 

or

 

Our youth player is so shite that we could lose/draw the game from a comfortable lead by bringing them on

 

The first is largely rhetorical. If we're good enough to have got to a comfortable position, we should be good far enough ahead to maintain that. If a player is being substituted anyway, then there is either a fitness issue or an issue of form or tactical position. If it's fitness, then you're effectively comparing a 70% (for example) fit player is better than a 100% fit youngster, so the margin is significantly less so less risky. Similarly if the player is having a bad game, you're comparing the player in poor form with an unknown youngster. If it's tactical, then that suggests that the lead is not comfortable or that you think you can blast in a few more. If the lead is not comfortable, then you don't take on the youth player, if it is you perhaps sacrifice the extra goals in return for player development (I'd argue this happens already but with Stockley, Storey, Maynard etc in place of a youngster).

 

The second is obvious. If the youngster is good enough to make the bench then they should be good enough to get on the pitch without causing serious damage. If not, they shouldn't be there and we begin to ask serious questions about our youth setup.

 

There is the further issue of position of course. Central defence, midfield and goalkeeper are obvious positions that could cause stress on a team if you dick about too much with them during the game, or put a weak player in there. The front line, wide players and fullbacks (and possibly one of the centre mids) are all lower risk areas of the park, where a good outfield ten should be able to support a developing youngster without issue. Where a youngster is in one of those positions, then they should be given more game time. If a developing player is a centre half then you either give them game time in a wide area or instead, or wait until the game is further beyond the opposition before making the switch. A goalkeeper is for emergencies only (although Rogers would be fine I'm certain)!

 

First team youth development is all about risk. The risk is that a player is brought onto the pitch that upsets the flow so much that they cost us points. That is really the only risk. The upside is that a player will get fitter, stronger and more familiar with the game at the top level. McInnes is very risk averse. I think the club needs an over-riding strategy and some targets in place that McInnes should be persuaded to meet in order to combat this risk averse approach. If we took the approach above, where we set a target for each game that if we reach then any minutes beyond that point are designated "development minutes". McInnes is then measured by the number of minutes given to youth players within those minutes (if he doesn't feel it is appropriate to bring on a youngster then that's not an issue as he's the manager) and tasked with maximising those minutes available. For example, if we're playing Kilmarnock, we might designate our development point as 3 goals up with 30 minutes to go, 2 goals with 20 etc. If we reach 60 minutes with a three goal lead, then everyone in the squad knows that this is a development point where the manager is obliged to give a youngster an opportunity and they know their roles therein. If McInnes feels we're lucky to be 3 up and shaky at the back, then he has over-ride.

 

It's a structured and logical approach to development that appears to be missing from our setup. Young players need minutes if they are to make the step up. I think McInnes proved last season with Wright that he was too cautious with introducing him, and had to manage the expectations of the other squad members who felt they should get first opportunity. There was no mechanism in place by which he could throw Wright on ahead of well paid, eager squad members without facing some sort of unhappiness. Or perhaps he does have this in place, but has such a high threshold for when he deems a game to be "safe", it's just never happened. Either way, I think it's an issue. Currently there is very little mechanism for throwing on Frank Ross without upsetting Maynard (I ken, they're different positions) for example. It's not acceptable to say a youth player isn't good enough, you have to say why they're so bad that we'd lose a 2-3 goal lead by bringing them on, because we have a duty to them to develop them.

 

[rocket_scientist]

^

@Rico

 

I disagree with managers having imposed development minutes put upon them, much as I understand your arguments and agree with the majority of your post. A good manager should be doing this anyway.

 

The real issue of dispute is that you and I consider McInnes weak at player development (I liked your "risk averse") whereas he - or his sources, the "all accounts" people from whom he gets his utter conviction that our "current crop is shite" - disagrees that it's a manager failing.

 

He can't even compute that a shite crop IS a manager failing!

[Madbadteacher]

^

 

 

He can't even compute that a shite crop IS a manager failing!

 

Now is that a failing of him managing the youths directly, failure in his choices of youth coaches or failure in his choices of those recruiting youths?

Serious question, how directly is McInnes involved with the youth set-up, does he even pick the scouts/coaches or is that management above him?

 

I'm not making excuses for him here, I genuinely don't know the set up, but if it is a "shite crop" where does the buck stop? Or are all kids these days fat, lazy, video game-obsessed, instant-gratification (I-want-it-all-now) cunts?

[rocket_scientist]

Now is that a failing of him managing the youths directly, failure in his choices of youth coaches or failure in his choices of those recruiting youths?

Serious question, how directly is McInnes involved with the youth set-up, does he even pick the scouts/coaches or is that management above him?

 

I'm not making excuses for him here, I genuinely don't know the set up, but if it is a "shite crop" where does the buck stop? Or are all kids these days fat, lazy, video game-obsessed, instant-gratification (I-want-it-all-now) cunts?

 

Good question.

 

One man is in charge. He is the chairman. He has put McInnes in charge of "the football side of the business" and unless the chairman is a spastic, or otherwise NOT working in the best interests of the club, he puts the scouts and youth team coach etc. under the umbrella of McInnes's responsibility.

 

IF the "current crop is shite" - as the boy's "all accounts" would have him believe, personally I wouldn't know because we never see them on the park, apart from Wright and he looks amazing - then the guy in charge of football is recruiting badly or not training them properly.

 

Or maybe they're not shite and McInnes doesn't have the balls to play them, keeping fucking journeymen happy?

[Elgindon]

Or maybe its as simple as this is as good as it gets,ie the limits of McInnes abilities as a Manager.Decent finishes in the league and cups,decent wheeling and dealing in transfers and loans,but not so hot,or knowledgeable enough in youth development.There have been times,even the last few years,where with the temperament of some players in the team,eg Reynolds,McGinn,MacLean,Consi? its sometimes felt(to me)we havnt been too far away from a loss of confidence,and McInnes hasnt been confident enough to play youngsters.Maybe thats too sympathetic?

  Another thing could be the standard of recent signings has been rising out of synch with the youngsters we are recruiting

  It has been frustrating not seeing more youngsters getting thrown on during a meaningless game,or meaningless spell in a game though,if only for us to judge that they are in fact shite after all,but there does seem to be a national dearth of talent at the moment,whether thats cyclacle,too many distractions for youngsters these days,or just softer,less confident kids than a generation ago?

  But you have to keep the thing going in the chance the next manager is a youth development genius

[RicoS321]

I think so Elgin, that's why I mention targets. I've always said that we'd benefit immensely from someone above the manager (not necessarily being critical of McInnes, who's knowledge seems to have been the sole architect of our current football setup). Not only in terms of continuity, so that when he leaves we're not totally fucked (we all got that feeling - again - when the Sunderland job was on the go, we really have no succession plan), but also in terms of accountability. If we put a plan in place for our youth development above McInnes, then he would be accountable to the director - let's say Craigy Broon for a laugh (I ken...) - for the promotion of youth to the first team. He might not like that, but currently he's failing.

 

The entire cost of the youth team for his tenure is currently manifest in one player (Wright). That is staggering. We're not asking for world beaters here either, but we haven't been able to even offset the cost of a first-teamer with a good solid pro in the guise of a Considine or Jack or whatever. I'm assuming it's costed separately at management reporting level, in which case somebody must have that figure (the cost of our youth setup) sticking out on one of their spreadsheets. If it's something McInnes struggles with, then he should be accountable to someone at the club for that.

[Slim]

I can see it from both sides.

 

His number one responsibility is to earn as much points as possible from each match we play, so he feels he has to play the strongest team possible at all times as long as we have something to play for. If we were still mid-table cloggers, this probably wouldn't be so much of an issue.

 

On the other hand, he's spent the last couple of seasons filling the squad with absolute dross (Jeffrey Monakana, Josh Parker, Alan Tate, Wes Burns, etc) on loan that he then feels duty bound to give them match time ahead of our own young players. Scott Wright has been knocking on the door for a couple of seasons. If he's going to bring in someone on loan that keeps him out of the matchday squad, at least put him on loan to a Championship team for a season to get some competitive first team football under his belt.

 

 

[Tyrant]

You start by expressing a firm opinion then you admit you're not qualified to say.

 

Who do you mean by "all accounts" and why do you trust their judgement so absolutely?

 

You obviously have faith in the manager too. Did it ever occur to you that if the "current crop is shite" then this is poor management in itself? Who can justify paying wages and wasting time on wasters?

 

 

I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. 

 

The accounts of people who regularly watch the players play at development level. I didn't admit that I wasn't qualified to say but yes I do trust the one who's most qualified to say. Of course player development is part of the manager's job but again a polished turd is still a turd. Maybe the scouting networks needs an overhaul?

 

I can't pin-point the moment that Scott Wright became good enough. But a meaningless game against Partick was certainly a good time to throw him in.

 

 

[manc_don]

http://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-three-club-battle-sign-leeds-outcast-free-agent/

 

[ayrshire_don74]

thats a clickbait site is it not ?

[manc_don]

thats a clickbait site is it not ?

 

ah right, that would explain it. Hadn't seen the site before.

[huggishunter]

is that one of the trialist's playing tonight for the under 20's ?

[KennyFuckinPowers]

I'm fairly certain that was the guy doing the rounds on Twitter ( mainly transfer rumour feeds ) that we were after. Not sure we'd give him a trial though, as he appears to have decent enough pedigree.

[Ten Caat]

Diagouraga was supposed to be joining sevco prior to him actually signing for Leeds. Can't remember what exactly happened (probably another case of sevco wanting to pay the transfer fee up at a fiver a week) but the orcs weren't at all happy at his sudden about turn.

 

Hoping this is a load of poop, he would be an entirely uninspiring addition who I just can't see ever playing unless we had a severe injury list, maybe at best he would get 20 minute cameos when McInnes puts us into game management mode.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Contract extension talks to take place with O'Connor very shortly, according to some down-market papers this morning.

 

Good news if true.

[BigAl]

Contract extension talks to take place with O'Connor very shortly, according to some down-market papers this morning.

 

Good news if true.

 

Agree Bobby, wouldn't be unhappy with that.

[manc_don]

Certainly deserves it on his performances so far.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Fans behind both goals at Pittodrie may have to be on their guard for a couple of years more with the P&J reporting that we're entering into talks about a contract extension with Kenny McLean.

[TheDeeDon]

Fans behind both goals at Pittodrie may have to be on their guard for a couple of years more with the P&J reporting that we're entering into talks about a contract extension with Kenny McLean.

 

Fuck, that'll cheer up Donsdaft.