Kids today! Are they really?

[jon1959]

Re: Kids today! Are they really?

When it became clear over last summer, that the "kids" would be playing a much bigger role in the side going forward than in the past, most welcomed it as a good thing.
Even if 2 of them make it at this level in the long run, that is still 2 players we don't need to sign, meaning we have more money to spend on the players we do need to.

At the time I remember there being many words of caution, saying that they would likely be inconsistent, have good games and then bad games, and would unlikely be in the side week in week out as they continue their football education. Patience is what is required.

Fast forward a few months all that goes out the window. you don't have to look very hard and you can read various comments like "hasn't got it" ,"league one at best" etc etc about the youngsters.
Its a real pity we didn't make time to bring through youth in our more successful sides, as it has to be a lot easier to get upto speed when the team is playing well.

Good post.

We need patience for the younger players (and accept some mistakes), and a bit more consistency when it comes to instant judgement and opinions from pundits and posters.

This has been a shocker of a season for many reasons, but if we come out of it with a large group of academy players established in the first team squad, a changed playing style (again patience needed) based on more possession and technical skills, and our place in the Championship maintained, I will be content. Transition, but not melt-down.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Kids today! Are they really?

Agreed and a great analogy with the red squirrel

That was brilliant!

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: Kids today! Are they really?

the footballing equivalent (for us) of the return of the red squirrel south of Yorkshire for nature enthusiast's!

I love that!
What a great analogy.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Re: Kids today! Are they really?

When it became clear over last summer, that the "kids" would be playing a much bigger role in the side going forward than in the past, most welcomed it as a good thing.
Even if 2 of them make it at this level in the long run, that is still 2 players we don't need to sign, meaning we have more money to spend on the players we do need to.

At the time I remember there being many words of caution, saying that they would likely be inconsistent, have good games and then bad games, and would unlikely be in the side week in week out as they continue their football education. Patience is what is required.

Fast forward a few months all that goes out the window. you don't have to look very hard and you can read various comments like "hasn't got it" ,"league one at best" etc etc about the youngsters.
Its a real pity we didn't make time to bring through youth in our more successful sides, as it has to be a lot easier to get upto speed when the team is playing well.

This was the reason for my OP though to be fair and why I'm interested in the level of protection you're advocating. I'm not saying it's wrong. I think I'm more concerned it's misplaced. It's why I wanted thoughts about age and development. The distinction between players in their teens to young men in their early twenties.

To be cold-blooded for a moment, don't we pay to see people at the best in their profession? Does it really matter what age a player is if they make mistakes or aren't doing the basics of what we expect from people being paid very well to perform in a sporting arena?

So what if younger players are criticised? Why protect a certain group and not another? Aren't all players equal when they get selected for the starting eleven and pull on the shirt? We make allowances, sure, but excuses? Isn't that double standards and selective?