Dean Campbell

[manc_don]

I see he's signed a new deal keeping him at the club until 2021 

[Ten Caat]

Need to start getting him on for 15-20 minutes regularly with a view to starting him against the Livis and St Mirrens before the January break. With a bit of luck he could be getting a regular start in place of Ball or Gleeson by Easter.

[RicoS321]

Need to start getting him on for 15-20 minutes regularly with a view to starting him against the Livis and St Mirrens before the January break. With a bit of luck he could be getting a regular start in place of Ball or Gleeson by Easter.

 

I think McInnes will persist with the Gleeson and Ball combo for a while like. I'd have Campbell out on loan with McInnes' record of playing youngsters. Six months at a good championship club. Playing should be the order of the day for these lads. Specifically playing against mannies.

[Ramperbamper]

I think McInnes will persist with the Gleeson and Ball combo for a while like. I'd have Campbell out on loan with McInnes' record of playing youngsters. Six months at a good championship club. Playing should be the order of the day for these lads. Specifically playing against mannies.

 

The age old argument I guess around the manager and backroom team knowing what's best for the lad in terms of his development, and your average Joe basing their opinion on guesswork.

 

From what I've seen, Campbell looks technically good but maybe does need a spell on loan to bulk up a bit.

 

 

[RicoS321]

The age old argument I guess around the manager and backroom team knowing what's best for the lad in terms of his development, and your average Joe basing their opinion on guesswork.

 

From what I've seen, Campbell looks technically good but maybe does need a spell on loan to bulk up a bit.

 

Absolutely, he's not quite there yet.

 

The overwhelming evidence shows that McInnes is very cautious in his approach - to the extreme. I don't think anyone would deny that, or suggest that it isn't an issue. To be honest, it's basic logic. Was Wright better spending 6 months on loan, or playing 22 minutes in 6 months? What mitigations could there be for this, and how does it benefit the player? Nobody is basing their opinion on guesswork they're basing it on limited, but accurate and useful, knowledge garnered watching the team and players' performances every week. From which, it is possible to articulate some pretty good questions that need answering. Did McInnes make a mistake in not sending Wright on loan? Did he do it to teach him a lesson because he was a young upstart (and, if so, did it work?)? Was he protecting the player in some way? Was there an unexpected upsurge in the performance of other squad players that meant it simply wasn't possible for Wright to get 15-20 minutes regularly? If so, why wasn't this visible on the pitch? "Average Joe" is asking pretty valid questions of a manager who has a responsibility to our young players, are we supposed to accept everything that happens without question? I'm not suggesting that McInnes hasn't got answers, I'm saying that we're not party to them so it's definitely worth discussing on a message board. The most obvious thing for me is that we don't appear to have a strategy with regard to youth development, nor an obligation or a set of targets. McInnes needs time to decide his preferred 11 this season, but come November we should have a good idea and we should start to see more minutes for guys like Campbell. In previous years we've fucked about with yer Maynards, Parkers and Monakanas well into the January window to the detriment of youth progress. There should be a strategy and a set of targets at club level to ensure that this occurs.

[Ramperbamper]

Absolutely, he's not quite there yet.

 

The overwhelming evidence shows that McInnes is very cautious in his approach - to the extreme. I don't think anyone would deny that, or suggest that it isn't an issue. To be honest, it's basic logic. Was Wright better spending 6 months on loan, or playing 22 minutes in 6 months? What mitigations could there be for this, and how does it benefit the player? Nobody is basing their opinion on guesswork they're basing it on limited, but accurate and useful, knowledge garnered watching the team and players' performances every week. From which, it is possible to articulate some pretty good questions that need answering. Did McInnes make a mistake in not sending Wright on loan? Did he do it to teach him a lesson because he was a young upstart (and, if so, did it work?)? Was he protecting the player in some way? Was there an unexpected upsurge in the performance of other squad players that meant it simply wasn't possible for Wright to get 15-20 minutes regularly? If so, why wasn't this visible on the pitch? "Average Joe" is asking pretty valid questions of a manager who has a responsibility to our young players, are we supposed to accept everything that happens without question? I'm not suggesting that McInnes hasn't got answers, I'm saying that we're not party to them so it's definitely worth discussing on a message board. The most obvious thing for me is that we don't appear to have a strategy with regard to youth development, nor an obligation or a set of targets. McInnes needs time to decide his preferred 11 this season, but come November we should have a good idea and we should start to see more minutes for guys like Campbell. In previous years we've fucked about with yer Maynards, Parkers and Monakanas well into the January window to the detriment of youth progress. There should be a strategy and a set of targets at club level to ensure that this occurs.

 

Things are constantly questioned as they should be, but often its just a case that people don't like the answers or don't want to think that the way they initially think may be wrong.

 

McInnes said in January that he saw Wright being important for the remainder of the season (which is why he wasn't loaned out), then said at a fans Q&A that he wanted more from Wright, and that he didn't do himself justice, which suggests an issue with his attitude and/or performance in training. 

 

Of course things should be questioned, but if they're disagreeing with McInnes' assertion above then I'd question what they're basing it on if not guesswork. If a young player isn't doing it in training, should they be played regardless just to tick a box? Rather than having a pre-defined aversion to playing youth, could it be that McInnes wants players to earn a place in the team and be able to match the standards of the rest of the squad during the week?

 

McInnes absolutely has a responsibility to the youth, but that also covers their wider development rather than just playing them in the first team.

[RicoS321]

Things are constantly questioned as they should be, but often its just a case that people don't like the answers or don't want to think that the way they initially think may be wrong.

 

McInnes said in January that he saw Wright being important for the remainder of the season (which is why he wasn't loaned out), then said at a fans Q&A that he wanted more from Wright, and that he didn't do himself justice, which suggests an issue with his attitude and/or performance in training. 

 

Of course things should be questioned, but if they're disagreeing with McInnes' assertion above then I'd question what they're basing it on if not guesswork. If a young player isn't doing it in training, should they be played regardless just to tick a box? Rather than having a pre-defined aversion to playing youth, could it be that McInnes wants players to earn a place in the team and be able to match the standards of the rest of the squad during the week?

 

McInnes absolutely has a responsibility to the youth, but that also covers their wider development rather than just playing them in the first team.

 

Okay, I accept that. I think that the issue is, then, that he probably holds the youth players to a higher standard than other players. When Christie went on a run of pap form he wasn't replaced, neither McGinn. At some point, what transpires on the pitch must be a function of what is happening in training and so they must have shown some drop in form in training too. Attitude is one thing, but again I expect younger players are held to a higher standard, maybe correctly so for their futures development. Again, I think the biggest issue for most is then 10-15 minutes that yer Maynards get just because their more senior when they are demonstrably pish.

[Ramperbamper]

Okay, I accept that. I think that the issue is, then, that he probably holds the youth players to a higher standard than other players. When Christie went on a run of pap form he wasn't replaced, neither McGinn. At some point, what transpires on the pitch must be a function of what is happening in training and so they must have shown some drop in form in training too. Attitude is one thing, but again I expect younger players are held to a higher standard, maybe correctly so for their futures development. Again, I think the biggest issue for most is then 10-15 minutes that yer Maynards get just because their more senior when they are demonstrably pish.

 

I've always thought McGinn, Christie (and Hayes prior) were perhaps persisted with more than others because they've got previous for producing a moment of magic from nowhere, even when they weren't playing especially well.

 

Was there a ready made striker in the youths to perform the same sort of role which he expected Maynard or Parker to fufill? Shankland got his chance in the season we had Parker, and last season may likely have been too early for Anderson, and I wasn't hugely convinced by any of the other young attacking players from what I saw in the youths. I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but it goes without saying that McInnes thought Maynard/Parker etc would be able to contribute when they were signed, albeit with the benefit of hindsight that didn't happen. Both players were shipped out or confined to the bench when it became apparent that they weren't producing - in fact I'm pretty sure McLennan took the place of Maynard on the bench towards the end of the last season.

 

I get the point you're making and see where you're coming from, I just think there's a lot more to the "blooding youngsters" debate than we generally hear.

[RicoS321]

I've always thought McGinn, Christie (and Hayes prior) were perhaps persisted with more than others because they've got previous for producing a moment of magic from nowhere, even when they weren't playing especially well.

 

Actually, they don't. Not statistically anyway. It was/is very, very rare for either McGinn or Christie to be having a poor game and then suddenly produce a moment of magic. The number of games where McGinn especially was given a full 90 minutes (or even 20 minutes beyond what he should have) to try and produce the moment of magic with nothing forthcoming was very significant. I wish I'd taken some notes on it, because it's something I took issue with for a long time. People kept saying "McGinn can produce something from nowhere" but actually the evidence rarely backed that up. When McGinn is having a poor game, it's very obvious and it doesn't usually get better. Unlike Rooney, it was rare that you'd ever come away from a game saying "McGinn did nothing the whole game but then got that goal out of nowhere". A couple of games from memory - he got a free kick against St Johnstone despite being pap and another game against County. I think that the number of times we came away from a game saying that McGinn was poor and remained poor until subbed or the end of the game was in the overwhelming majority to the extent that a decision could have been made earlier to remove him from play. This isn't a criticism of McGinn, he plays in a position that is all or nothing (see GMS) in terms of impact and sometimes you just can't get the better of your opponent. He always works hard, but you can very much tell when he just doesn't fancy going beyond a player. It's those times where McInnes' caution comes in to play in my opinion. A McGinn that isn't at the races is not always better than Wright/Ross/whoever with something to prove.

 

 

Was there a ready made striker in the youths to perform the same sort of role which he expected Maynard or Parker to fufill? Shankland got his chance in the season we had Parker, and last season may likely have been too early for Anderson, and I wasn't hugely convinced by any of the other young attacking players from what I saw in the youths. I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but it goes without saying that McInnes thought Maynard/Parker etc would be able to contribute when they were signed, albeit with the benefit of hindsight that didn't happen. Both players were shipped out or confined to the bench when it became apparent that they weren't producing - in fact I'm pretty sure McLennan took the place of Maynard on the bench towards the end of the last season.

 

McInnes is a better manager than that. We don't need to do a like for like swap. Wright could easily have come in playing high up the park alongside another front man, with a slight change in formation to accomodate. Maynard on day one proved that he wasn't capable and that any minutes that he was getting were not warranted. Same with Parker, same with Monakana over Smith and so on. A youth player doesn't have to come on in exactly their preferred position, they need minutes on the park.

 

I get the point you're making and see where you're coming from, I just think there's a lot more to the "blooding youngsters" debate than we generally hear.

 

I agree. I don't think that McInnes is doing a ridiculously bad job, I just think he could improve in a couple of key areas. I think that a club strategy on youth development, that was transparent (i.e. the fans could see it), would force his hand a little and help remove some of the percieved risk that he clearly feels is there. I'm not expecting Campbell (Anderson etc) to get 20 starts a season, but I am expecting him to get 15-20 minutes or so at regular intervals in the season. A policy of introducing youth earlier in games when 2 goals up (with obvious over-ride from the manager) or some such would be useful - too often we see a Ball or Forrester or other senior player introduced to keep them happy/give them game time when they shouldn't need or don't warrant that. There are plenty of occasions when a young player could have been thrown in when we were coasting (Wright didn't feature since January, which is just nonsense) but wasn't. Questioning player attitude is fine, but not questioning the effect on a player's attitude caused by sitting on a bench every week without hope of appearing isn't, and I don't think we've got that balance correct.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Actually, they don't. Not statistically anyway. It was/is very, very rare for either McGinn or Christie to be having a poor game and then suddenly produce a moment of magic.

 

Surely that isn't in any way statistical and purely based on opinion?

 

Regarding the player attitude thing, it's probably only fair to assume that Wright's attitude in training hadn't improved - that being the case, why would you then play him to see if that attitude had changed in a game situation? You wouldn't. You have to prove you are worthy of picking, be it in terms of attitude or form.

 

The use of youth - or lack of it - has been frustrating over McInnes's time, but it's a hard thing for supporters to gauge.  We're not seeing how these guys are faring in training against experienced first team players, maybe this is something the reserve league will help with rather than the u20s nonsense.

[RicoS321]

Surely that isn't in any way statistical and purely based on opinion?

 

No, I'd say it's observable fact, I'm just lacking the stats to hand to back it up! If you were to take the stats of games where McGinn has played 90 minutes or his last twenty minutes of a game in which he has been subbed I think you would see that he rarely has an effect (in terms of goals or assists - things that can be directly measured) before being removed or the game ending (but, yes, it's my opinion without that statistical backup! Hopefully someone will be determined to prove me wrong and put the effort in!). I've made a point of watching for it over the last couple of seasons as I was tired of people saying "Aye, but he can produce something from nothing". My argument is that he can, but rarely does. The number of times he's produced a moment of magic are in the significant minority compared to the number of times he's done nothing and then been subbed or the game has ended. Rooney regularly had a pish game but still scored. When McGinn is on it he's immense and it's obvious, and he always does something productive. When he's not on it, he tracks back well and is an asset to the team - this isn't a criticism of McGinn.

 

Regarding the player attitude thing, it's probably only fair to assume that Wright's attitude in training hadn't improved - that being the case, why would you then play him to see if that attitude had changed in a game situation? You wouldn't. You have to prove you are worthy of picking, be it in terms of attitude or form.

 

I disagree. Does one preceed the other? Wright plays well in training but sees more senior players coming in from elsewhere and getting a game ahead of him (see Maynard, Tansey, Forrester etc) by default. Default being the important thing here, McInnes' default evidentially, is to play the senior player everytime (there may be merit in that). Fine for the first 11, but when it creeps into the bench and squad in general then that adversley affects the youngster who's itching to get on. He feels alienated, unlikely to feature, and it affects his training. Throw him into a game when we're a couple of goals ahead and give him his opportunity. Give him the carrot to do better in training, but with the caveat of: if there's no improvement then you're benched. Understand that he's a young loon and act accordingly. Not saying I'm right, just saying that there's more than one way and that attitudes are effected by circumstance. The circumstance being that there are a lot of pap players that McInnes has signed who have automatically been given - through obligation/experiment - game time that should have been allocated to youth. The signs are good so far this season though with both Ross and Wright given time over Forrester.

 

The use of youth - or lack of it - has been frustrating over McInnes's time, but it's a hard thing for supporters to gauge.  We're not seeing how these guys are faring in training against experienced first team players, maybe this is something the reserve league will help with rather than the u20s nonsense.

 

Absolutely. However, it's not hard for us to gauge just how shite some of his signings have been and it's here that most fans have the issue. We don't want to see another 20 minutes of Forrester (for example - possibly harsh at this early stage!), we want to see our own youth in these marginal minutes.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Wright plays well in training but sees more senior players coming in from elsewhere and getting a game ahead of him (see Maynard, Tansey, Forrester etc) by default.

 

But that's the point. According to the manager he wasn't.  He got into the team, got a couple of starts, got on in the cup final. Started matches the next season, was mostly hoop and then he dropped out of it and not seen again because of his attitude.

 

I think your point is a fair one if we're talking about other youngsters (Anderson this season must be wondering why he's sitting out for Cosgrove/May), but not Wright. He's had a crack at it and by the sounds of it spat the dummy.  It is therefore down to him to prove it in training.  That's the way it works whether it's pro, junior or amateur.