Tyler Smith

[Booker4]

In recent years the only players to make it have got to be very special to make it. Promising players at under 23 level won't be given a chance unless they are very special because they have to be able to break into our first team and be able to contribute at the level our first team. The likes of Ben Whiteman might be good players but they'e not good enough at the age they break through. A Brooks, Harry Maguire, the two Kyles Jags and Lowton is the standard that most of the players have been at that have made it. Probably only Monty in this century has bucked the trend as someone who was essentially an average player but he had an exceptional attitude and work rate and that was probably the main reason he got a chance.

Regan Slater might go onto make it but presumably he has to excel on loan first before he'll be given a chance. I get why those that are fond of watching under 23 football think the Academy lads need to be given more of a chance and you can list some players who haven't done well here who have come in to take a place of an Academy lad but we've also seen some cracking signings that we couldn't get from our Academy at least not without persisting with mistakes and inconsistent performances, which is what you get from most youngsters.

Could we really have found a Fleck, a Leon or a Norwood etc etc from our Academy to go into out team, other than the exceptional few like Brooks? I trust Wilders judgement to be honest and I think letting youngsters go out on loan works well rather than just throwing them in at Championship level.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

Brookes was a fluke. He would have been at Chessy last season and even with the form he showed you could count one hand the number of starts he got last season.

You could if you had eleven fingers on each hand.

 

[Redhead]

I do Eddie....

 

[shorehamview]

What you have to consider with academy players is just how many of them are playing throughout the country. The percentage of these young kids that actually make it all the way to regular professional football in a first team squad is tiny. Something like 2 percent of kids taken on by clubs actually make it as professional footballers.
For us to have got the players through that we have, even if they are no longer playing for us, is probably around the average.

 

[Pinchy]

I seem to remember there was a certain amount of luck in the two Kyle's coming into the first team too. And wasn't KW originally a centre-half? I tipped Brooks as a great player the first time I saw him. I did the same with Lewis Reed. Of those young players mentioned I thought Sam Graham had the best chance of succeeding when I saw him alongside Semple on pure size. And Slater - who it seems has gone backwards.

And as for judgements - Brighton let Ollie go for £2.5 million and Man City let Brooks go. IT is nothing like as scientific as we think. (But generally I like to see the youngsters come through).

You got Little Louis wrong then, for sure. Brooks great? Certainly not yet and probably never.

 

[Redhead]

In recent years the only players to make it have got to be very special to make it. Promising players at under 23 level won't be given a chance unless they are very special because they have to be able to break into our first team and be able to contribute at the level our first team. The likes of Ben Whiteman might be good players but they'e not good enough at the age they break through. A Brooks, Harry Maguire, the two Kyles Jags and Lowton is the standard that most of the players have been at that have made it. Probably only Monty in this century has bucked the trend as someone who was essentially an average player but he had an exceptional attitude and work rate and that was probably the main reason he got a chance.

Regan Slater might go onto make it but presumably he has to excel on loan first before he'll be given a chance. I get why those that are fond of watching under 23 football think the Academy lads need to be given more of a chance and you can list some players who haven't done well here who have come in to take a place of an Academy lad but we've also seen some cracking signings that we couldn't get from our Academy at least not without persisting with mistakes and inconsistent performances, which is what you get from most youngsters.

Could we really have found a Fleck, a Leon or a Norwood etc etc from our Academy to go into out team, other than the exceptional few like Brooks? I trust Wilders judgement to be honest and I think letting youngsters go out on loan works well rather than just throwing them in at Championship level.

Honestly it is not about u23s watchers wanting to shoehorn young players in.

It is the constant club line that youngsters will be given the chance here more than other clubs. It simply is not the case.

I have always said young players need to be good enough. I will also stand by my view that if not given the opportunity we will never know.

Regan Slater can’t get in to the Carlisle side. Does that make him not good enough for us?

Every player in our first team came from an academy and got an opportunity somewhere. I would just like our own players get an opportunity with us before they leave.

 

[Pinchy]

Honestly it is not about u23s watchers wanting to shoehorn young players in.

It is the constant club line that youngsters will be given the chance here more than other clubs. It simply is not the case.

I have always said young players need to be good enough. I will also stand by my view that if not given the opportunity we will never know.

Regan Slater can’t get in to the Carlisle side. Does that make him not good enough for us?

Every player in our first team came from an academy and got an opportunity somewhere. I would just like our own players get an opportunity with us before they leave.

All of them? When? Where? You want us to select a weakened team in order to givyoungjonnyjakeandjasonarun? Bollocks to that.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

Honestly it is not about u23s watchers wanting to shoehorn young players in.

It is the constant club line that youngsters will be given the chance here more than other clubs. It simply is not the case.

I have always said young players need to be good enough. I will also stand by my view that if not given the opportunity we will never know.

Regan Slater can’t get in to the Carlisle side. Does that make him not good enough for us?

Every player in our first team came from an academy and got an opportunity somewhere. I would just like our own players get an opportunity with us before they leave.

But your previous post compares young kids with experienced pros.
We signed O'Connell and Wright along with Wilson and got 100 points, whilst Semple was unfortunate to have a bad injury.
Lavery played 27 games in that season whilst Smith was miles away from the first team.
Lafferty played in 37 games that season. When we signed him RND was attached to a non-league club.
Other U23 watchers say none of them were near the first-team. We were pushing for the play-offs to get in the Premier League. Which of the U23s should Wilder have played?

 

[EddieColquhoun]

Regan Slater can’t get in to the Carlisle side. Does that make him not good enough for us?

It would suggest that at the moment he isn't a top Championship player (which Norwood and Fleck are).

 

[Willie Carlin]

You might have to wait a bit, due to Tory cut backs they are only doing emergency really silly duplicate threads.



But don't worry if Corbyn and Abbott get in they have promised another 10 million thread Police paid for by a windfall tax on Money given in birthday cards.

That’s yet another good Corbyn policy then!!

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

We cannot put Academy Kids in the First Team unless they are good enough.
We should not put any transfer window signings in the First Team unless they are good enough.
Some of our transfer window signings have been gems. Some haven't. If we had a better transfer window signing strategy and didn't sign some players who are not good enough .... there would be a) no one in the First Team who isn't good enough & b) more chance, space, opportunity for the Academy Lads to show whether they're good enough for the First Team.
I'm not saying that's achievable. I am saying it's logical.
Don't buy players, who aren't good enough for the First Team, and who block the pathway for Academy Kids.
I count myself as an "Academy Watcher". Pinchy has excused me in the past from the Bladey Boy Banders. I do have some sympathy with Redhead.

It just feels to me, as a passionate Academy Watcher, that the route to the First Team is blocked by some signings who themselves prove not to be good enough. I'm not a mug though. I understand signings have a risk & a reward. In my water though, I'd simply like us to make fewer signings....

 

[Redhead]

As much as I would love to see a clearer pathway for youth I have and will always say “ they must be good enough”
I agree with the Mighty Phil that without question some of our recent signings must also be good enough and come up way short of what our youth players are capable of.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

We cannot put Academy Kids in the First Team unless they are good enough.
We should not put any transfer window signings in the First Team unless they are good enough.
Some of our transfer window signings have been gems. Some haven't. If we had a better transfer window signing strategy and didn't sign some players who are not good enough .... there would be a) no one in the First Team who isn't good enough & b) more chance, space, opportunity for the Academy Lads to show whether they're good enough for the First Team.
I'm not saying that's achievable. I am saying it's logical.
Don't buy players, who aren't good enough for the First Team, and who block the pathway for Academy Kids.
I count myself as an "Academy Watcher". Pinchy has excused me in the past from the Bladey Boy Banders. I do have some sympathy with Redhead.

It just feels to me, as a passionate Academy Watcher, that the route to the First Team is blocked by some signings who themselves prove not to be good enough. I'm not a mug though. I understand signings have a risk & a reward. In my water though, I'd simply like us to make fewer signings....

August 2016 we were bottom of League One. Wilder has probably made a profit on transfers and we are 3rd in the Championship. Every manager makes bad signings but at least Wilder seems to quickly recognise his mistake and get rid.
In his first friendlies he played (Sharp!!), Long, Semple, Reed and Calvert-Lewin. He has since given debuts to Eastwood and Slater and RND and Parkhouse have been on the bench.
If we don't win a game, Wilder gets criticised on here for his selections (Lunny, Leon, Stevens). When we were chasing a play-off place a huge prize was at stake. Players don't get picked on sentiment.
Of our last 5 successes from the academy, the Kyles, Lowton and DCL all went out on loan. Maguire was a beast of an 18 year old!!
The young lads and their families have to be patient.

 

[Baw Heid]

This is a debate that has been going on for years. My interest is in the current group who are expected to get game time in competitive football. There is nothing in this system that says a lad can only go on loan once and so the ones who do not get game time should be moved to places where they will play. From the current group Ti Smith plays and scores but he may need to move up a grade and Callum Semple is a regular in a Scottish Championship side and as an English lad in Scotland he gets stick from the opposing supporters and earning support from the home fans. Having watched our Academy teams and listening to the coaches, at this time the boys who are still here are expected to play for United or earn some revenue from moving on with sell on clauses in place. For me it works and the reputation we gain in this work will encourage gems like Brooks to trust us. There is no doubt all these lads want to play for United but the loan system also shows that there is life away from The Lane as well

 

[Balham]

August 2016 we were bottom of League One. Wilder has probably made a profit on transfers and we are 3rd in the Championship. Every manager makes bad signings but at least Wilder seems to quickly recognise his mistake and get rid.

WIlder's transfer balance is always going to be positive given we sold Brooks for £11.5m in the summer. Until then, though, I'd guess he was slightly in the red (below figures are estimates based on comments at the time, I'm proudly NITK!)

2016/17: +£3.5m
In -£1.2m [Clarke £150k, O'Connell £200k, Moore £400k, Lafferty £50k, Carruthers £200k, O'Shea £26k, Hanson £150k]
Out £4.7m [Adams £2m, Calvert-Lewin £1.7m, Ramsdale £1m]
NB others: -£350k Hammond payoff

2017/18: -£4.1m
In -£4.3m [Stearman £600k, Lundstram £700k, Baldock £400k, Leonard £700k, Evans £750k, Holmes £400k, Evans £50k, Heneghan £350k, Thomas £300k, Donaldson £50k)
Out: £200k? [Whiteman £200k]
NB others: -£200k Brayford payoff; £100k Hanson payoff]

2018/19: +£9m
In -£5m [Egan £3m, Norwood £2m
Out £14m [Evans £1m, Leonard £1.5m, Brooks £11.5m]

*excludes loan fees

 

[B14Nco]

I’m in no way arguing just nearly popping my view forward...

Isnt this more of an issue with the division we’re in and our current stature? You just can’t blood kids that ‘might’ be good enough.

We literally can’t carry any player in this division... everyone of our players need to be playing at 100% forbit to work...

We all know what it’s like if you lose 2 games... the managers clueless... etc etc. So giving a young lad a chance is risky and therefore they’ve really gotta stand out.

I generally think ALL academy players come through because of one of three reasons.

1) General ability but a lotta luck...(Majority) e.g. injuries to senior pros at the right time a bit of form/ luck when they get the opportunity etc etc...

2) They’re stand out... As soon as players step up to the first teams they’ll know.

3) Your stature in your respective division means you’ve basically got players loads better than the opposition you’re playing...

...and I don’t see our approach being any different to anyone else’s?

 

[EddieColquhoun]

WIlder's transfer balance is always going to be positive given we sold Brooks for £11.5m in the summer.................

..........and if we'd not scored 4 goals we'd have lost to Villa!

My point was, it's a bit harsh to criticise Wilder's transfers when he's took us from the bottom of League One to 3rd in the Championship whilst making a profit.

(And you've missed Louis Reed!)

 

[Fanny magnet]

One thing about wilders dealings is that the more money you give him the higher quality the signing

Assuming Egan Carrys is on his recent form

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

..........and if we'd not scored 4 goals we'd have lost to Villa!

My point was, it's a bit harsh to criticise Wilder's transfers when he's took us from the bottom of League One to 3rd in the Championship whilst making a profit.

(And you've missed Louis Reed!)

And George Long.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

EddieColquhoun I hear you. I'm a Wilder fan. I won't criticise the cumulative, overall result of his transfer dealings. We were low in League One. We're now high in The Championship. I was addressing a specific point. If we hadn't signed so many players who proved to be not good enough, there wouldn't be such a queue in front of our own Academy players. That's just Maths, not a criticism.
The best transfer outcome is to only sign players who are good enough for the First Team week in week out. I know that is a difficult/impossible strategy to get right. But, striving for that shouldn't be taken as criticism.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

EddieColquhoun I hear you. I'm a Wilder fan. I won't criticise the cumulative, overall result of his transfer dealings. We were low in League One. We're now high in The Championship. I was addressing a specific point. If we hadn't signed so many players who proved to be not good enough, there wouldn't be such a queue in front of our own Academy players. That's just Maths, not a criticism.
The best transfer outcome is to only sign players who are good enough for the First Team week in week out. I know that is a difficult/impossible strategy to get right. But, striving for that shouldn't be taken as criticism.

I get your point Phil, but the players signed deemed not good enough have been shipped out quickly.
I listed 9 from our academy that Wilder has played or had in the squad and also forget to put Brooks on that list (and Graham, Hallam and Doherty have featured in friendlies). Sharp is in the team, some have left and some are out on loan. I'm happy to trust Wilder's judgement that the remaining youngsters are not ready yet for a top Championship team.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

EddieColquhoun oh yes, I agree with you mate. No quibble here. Don't sign not good enough "Academy Blockers". If you do, ship 'em out sharpish. Make sure you do keep an eye on the best of the Academy, first team training, shirts & bench for friendlies & "minor cups", etc. That's the main bit of the strategy I prefer & we're not bad at it....

 

[WalkelyFan]

There is never a good time to play youngsters in league games. If your team is winning - then you can't change a winning team. If they are losing - then you need all the experience you can get. So I was told by a leading pro. So when I asked the obvious question he said generally speaking they get a go when a player is injured - and they have impressed at junior level. Then there are standout players (Giggs was who he quoted) . But moving on when released is generally the best way!

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

This is a debate that has been going on for years. My interest is in the current group who are expected to get game time in competitive football. There is nothing in this system that says a lad can only go on loan once and so the ones who do not get game time should be moved to places where they will play. From the current group Ti Smith plays and scores but he may need to move up a grade and Callum Semple is a regular in a Scottish Championship side and as an English lad in Scotland he gets stick from the opposing supporters and earning support from the home fans. Having watched our Academy teams and listening to the coaches, at this time the boys who are still here are expected to play for United or earn some revenue from moving on with sell on clauses in place. For me it works and the reputation we gain in this work will encourage gems like Brooks to trust us. There is no doubt all these lads want to play for United but the loan system also shows that there is life away from The Lane as well

I'm very interested in Baw Heid points made here on loans for Academy Lads.

Becoming First Team established, head turning players like Brooks. If a Premier League Club come with an 8 figure bid. Realistically - he's gone.

Much watched prospects, maybe with an England Youth Cap "virtue signal" like Ramsdale or Calvert-Lewin. If a Premier League Club come with a 7 figure bid. Realistically - he's gone.

But, now we're in The Championship, maybe we can afford a longer term view on Academy Loan Outs. If they're good enough. Loan them out. Keep them out. See what occurs. Maybe adjust their level downwards for a second loan if they're not getting enough game time (Slater at Carlisle, Gilmour at Tranmere).
Maybe adjust their level upwards for a second loan if they're playing a lot & doing well (Semple at Queen of the South, Smith at Barrow).
But, maybe look to have them out for "two seasons", until they're 23, or similar. Our Championship status gives us a bit more money & space to see if the Academy lads develop, come again, etc.
Sell on Clauses are good of course if (say) we sold Tyler to a League Two side & he really pushed on.
As are buy back clauses, "he's yours for £500k, but we can have him back for £2m any time we want".

I think the worry is - loan someone like Slater out, he gets little game time, that is translated as "he's not good enough" - & he's gone.

I know as a Club, we're more intelligent than that. But, I would like us to have a long term loan strategy for the best of our Academy crop.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

But, maybe look to have them out for "two seasons", until they're 23, or similar.

Similar in age to Thomas and Heneghan.
If they are not good enough for the first-team, there is a danger that they too could become academy blockers!

 

[Redhead]

Similar in age to Thomas and Heneghan.
If they are not good enough for the first-team, there is a danger that they too could become academy blockers!

Semple is 5 years younger than Heneghan and Heneghan was bought as a player CW said was not the finished article. On that basis Semple is far from being an academy blocker.
I see you mention quite a few players ‘ involved’ with the first team but genuinely Parkhouse, Doherty and others have been no more than a token gesture.

I do get it though. It is very very difficult to commit to young players when you are striving for promotion etc. I really do get it.

My point is that as a club we claim to give youth opportunities when in fact we don’t. Even when we do have a gem, Ramsdale, Brookes, DCL they are sold quick sharp.

What the mighty Phil is saying is that now we are higher up the pyramid the club should give players more time to mature and grow. Send them on loan for a couple of seasons instead of getting rid at 19\20 years old.

I honestly don’t know the answer and I know many don’t really care but Academies and home grown players will become more and more important to clubs over the next few years.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

Semple is 5 years younger than Heneghan and Heneghan was bought as a player CW said was not the finished article. On that basis Semple is far from being an academy blocker.

Nobody has said Semple is an academy blocker. If he is still here at 23 and not playing, forum users or parents of younger academy players may accuse him of this.

I see you mention quite a few players ‘ involved’ with the first team but genuinely Parkhouse, Doherty and others have been no more than a token gesture.

That's your opinion. You previously said that giving youth an opportunity was not on the agenda so I listed 13 academy players that have had an opportunity under Wilder.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Similar in age to Thomas and Heneghan.
If they are not good enough for the first-team, there is a danger that they too could become academy blockers!

No. Hang on. Academy players out on loan at lower league or Scottish clubs are not Academy Blockers. If you get the finances right, they might even be cost neutral.
But, the spirit of this exchange is friendly, so, yes, I agree if the "23 year old" was at SUFC, in the U23s, in the First Team Fringe, he would be an Academy Blocker.
I am as Redhead says, suggesting that our newly established Championship status may give us more time to allow the best Academy Lads to mature & grow out on loan.

 

[Pinchy]

Make sure you do keep an eye on the best of the Academy, first team training, shirts & bench for friendlies & "minor cups", etc. That's the main bit of the strategy I prefer & we're not bad at it....

Precisely. That’s how young players who excel at youth level should be ‘given an opportunity’. The very best will seize the chance, the vast majority will fall away. Football has no more guarantees than life itself. By all means, introduce the best youngsters in the manner you suggest, but even that must be earned by merit, not given as a matter of course.

The notion, however, that no player should be released without being given an opportunity, smacks of entitlement. There is none.

The aim of a professional football club is to win as many matches, points and ultimately prizes as it can. This may disappoint the family and friends of Academy kids, but our club is far and away the overriding priority, not their offspring or mate. Harsh? Not really, but true in any event.

In games that matter, there can be no question of any givimarun experiment to see if a lad might be good enough. That qualitative assessment is made day in; day out in training and in age appropriate, competitive football. It’s not the X-Factor. It’s not (let’s see if) Sheffield’s Got Talent.

I suspect you acknowledge the above reality. There’s a hint that one or two others don’t quite get it.

 

[Redhead]

Precisely. That’s how young players who excel at youth level should be ‘given an opportunity’. The very best will seize the chance, the vast majority will fall away. Football has no more guarantees than life itself. By all means, introduce the best youngsters in the manner you suggest, but even that must be earned by merit, not given as a matter of course.

The notion, however, that no player should be released without being given an opportunity, smacks of entitlement. There is none.

The aim of a professional football club is to win as many matches, points and ultimately prizes as it can. This may disappoint the family and friends of Academy kids, but our club is far and away the overriding priority, not their offspring or mate. Harsh? Not really, but true in any event.

In games that matter, there can be no question of any givimarun experiment to see if a lad might be good enough. That qualitative assessment is made day in; day out in training and in age appropriate, competitive football. It’s not the X-Factor. It’s not (let’s see if) Sheffield’s Got Talent.

I suspect you acknowledge the above reality. There’s a hint that one or two others don’t quite get it.

Yep you are exactly right.

The point is how do we know if they are ultimately good enough without the competitive games you mention.....u23 football is not competitive.

Is that competitive games on loan to lower leagues? If you do well in the lower leagues does that mean you get the chance with your parent club?

Obviously you can’t just chuck them all in and hope for the best and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

I don’t know the answer ..... but my honest feeling is we have given players like Heneghan,Thomas even Cranie an opportunity and a healthy salary to prove their worth over some academy players we already have in the building. The number of games these players have played in would have helped develope our young players quicker. IMO.

But as my friend ‘Eddie’ pointed out, we are 3rd in the league so CW knows what he is doing. Which is hard to argue with.