Placheta/Springett/Forshaw

[Thirsty Lizard 3,169]

3 hours ago, repman said:

I generally agree that you shouldn't throw players in before they're ready but I think there's plenty of evidence from the past 5/6 years here that throwing lads into the fire can be a good thing and they'll reward you greatly in return. Jamal Lewis was maybe 4 games into his senior career when he scored against Chelsea. Aarons made his league debut away at Ipswich when there was massive pressure on Farke, that same game Godfrey came on to play CB over Zimmermann. Omobamidele stepped in to the side with 8 games to go and thrived. Even last year Gibbs came into the side and looked good in that early spell. Jon Rowe had barely any minutes to his name before this season but he got the slightest chance and he took it completely.

Maybe the current young lads on the bench won't work out as well as those listed (there's plenty of examples of them too over the years). What you can guarantee though is they'll give it their all whatever chance they get, and who knows they might even do something special in that time.

 

I'm really not sure it's a fair comparison though - the ones you mentioned were an outstanding crop of young talent. Lewis, Aarons, Godfrey and Omobamidele have all gone on to play Premier League football and the last 3 are still at Premier League clubs.

Wagner has already been burned by pitching in young players - probably before they're ready. Kamara looked out of his depth in his couple of sub appearances last season - Wagner was panned for bringing on Springett after 60 minutes when we were 2-0 up at home to Leeds earlier this season - and Fisher was hooked at half time home to Sheffield Wednesday (I think Fisher has looked very promising btw, but not sure he's quite ready yet). 

[repman 635]

5 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I'm really not sure it's a fair comparison though - the ones you mentioned were an outstanding crop of young talent. Lewis, Aarons, Godfrey and Omobamidele have all gone on to play Premier League football and the last 3 are still at Premier League clubs.

Wagner has already been burned by pitching in young players - probably before they're ready. Kamara looked out of his depth in his couple of sub appearances last season - Wagner was panned for bringing on Springett after 60 minutes when we were 2-0 up at home to Leeds earlier this season - and Fisher was hooked at half time home to Sheffield Wednesday (I think Fisher has looked very promising btw, but not sure he's quite ready yet). 

I don't disagree that they're the better players but even the ones you mention I don't think harmed the team in any way. Kamara played 39 minutes across 3 games, 2 we lost 1-0 and the other was a 0-0 draw. He may have looked out of his depth but that's really not much of a sample size to go off, he touched the ball a combined 19 times in those games.

Fisher came off vs Sheff Wed but I don't really remember him being that bad, when he's played he's looked fine to me, not as good as Stacey but that's hardly a criticism for a lad who was playing in non league last season.

Springett is one where people I think have made their mind up already, if I remember rightly the criticism with the Leeds game was that he came on for Onel, who had their full back on strings for most of the game and once he went off we were worse for it. 

There's been an attitude amongst fans that when a young player comes in they have to produce the goods immediately, if not then they aren't good enough and shouldn't get any more opportunities. We went through this with Idah time and time again. The reality is that they're probably going to be somewhere in the middle. It's a risk but one that's worth taking, and one that this club has to due to the financial situation. Look at Kamara, 3 very brief appearances here but then with a good 5/10 games under his belt he was suddenly one of the star players for the best side in league one. The talent is there, you just have to challenge them.

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,169]

31 minutes ago, repman said:

I don't disagree that they're the better players but even the ones you mention I don't think harmed the team in any way. Kamara played 39 minutes across 3 games, 2 we lost 1-0 and the other was a 0-0 draw. He may have looked out of his depth but that's really not much of a sample size to go off, he touched the ball a combined 19 times in those games.

Fisher came off vs Sheff Wed but I don't really remember him being that bad, when he's played he's looked fine to me, not as good as Stacey but that's hardly a criticism for a lad who was playing in non league last season.

Springett is one where people I think have made their mind up already, if I remember rightly the criticism with the Leeds game was that he came on for Onel, who had their full back on strings for most of the game and once he went off we were worse for it. 

There's been an attitude amongst fans that when a young player comes in they have to produce the goods immediately, if not then they aren't good enough and shouldn't get any more opportunities. We went through this with Idah time and time again. The reality is that they're probably going to be somewhere in the middle. It's a risk but one that's worth taking, and one that this club has to due to the financial situation. Look at Kamara, 3 very brief appearances here but then with a good 5/10 games under his belt he was suddenly one of the star players for the best side in league one. The talent is there, you just have to challenge them.

 

I sympathise with the general tenor of a lot of what you've said, but Wagner would have to be very brave/stupid to pitch in a youngster he doesn't really trust at this stage of the season when a place in the play-offs is on the line.

You say "the talent is there" but with respect that's inaccurate - the only thing you or I can sensibly say "is the talent may be there".

You're also substantially understating the Springett situation against Leeds. Springett came on in the 61st minute when we were 2-0 up. We lost 3-2! Of course nobody was saying it's was all Springett's fault, but equally nobody was saying that bringing him on was the right call. 

If Aboh were to start or come on as a sub on Saturday believe me I'll be bursting for him to succeed, but in the end we just have to trust Wagner and the coaching team's judgement on these things (whilst debating them to death on here 😀).

[Conrad 171]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I'm really not sure it's a fair comparison though - the ones you mentioned were an outstanding crop of young talent. Lewis, Aarons, Godfrey and Omobamidele have all gone on to play Premier League football and the last 3 are still at Premier League clubs.

Wagner has already been burned by pitching in young players - probably before they're ready. Kamara looked out of his depth in his couple of sub appearances last season - Wagner was panned for bringing on Springett after 60 minutes when we were 2-0 up at home to Leeds earlier this season - and Fisher was hooked at half time home to Sheffield Wednesday (I think Fisher has looked very promising btw, but not sure he's quite ready yet). 

To be fair, a lot of our players have looked out of their depth at times this season. Not just the younger ones.

[Kingston Yellow 220]

11 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Maybe he’s “stubbornly” not playing SVH because he’s no better than Placheta, Springsteen or Forshaw?

How would we know? He hasn’t played. 

[shefcanary 2,435]

5 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Er.........er............er...........

So Wagner's job now is to sub on any young player that you think might have an impact just so that you can collect evidence as to whether they are in fact good enough.

Just for clarity - does this only apply to games staged in Sheffield? The North perhaps?

And if it turns out that Wagner's view formed from seeing them every day in training is correct and that they aren't actually good enough and we lose, then that's okay?

Nah, just any young player who is a striker and on the bench when we take a striker off. We have plenty of evidence that when we sub a striker off and put on a midfielder we generally yield possession and territory to the opposition, invariably conceding a goal or two. Let's at least try something else to break that trend.

And it can be anywhere as well.

If Wagner has decided Aboh isn't good enough in training, why put him through the demotivating process of putting him on the bench for going on ten games now? 

Sure, you have a different view, you're entitled to it, as you are to be accepting of the loss of two points. Me, I want to see us getting 3 points more often. And I think we have more chance of that with a young striker on the pitch keeping the opposition defence busy.

[Nuff Said 5,149]

1 hour ago, Kingston Yellow said:

How would we know? He hasn’t played. 

*We* don’t know but we don’t train the squad, pick them or decide tactics.

[Nuff Said 5,149]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Nah, just any young player who is a striker and on the bench when we take a striker off. We have plenty of evidence that when we sub a striker off and put on a midfielder we generally yield possession and territory to the opposition, invariably conceding a goal or two. Let's at least try something else to break that trend.

And it can be anywhere as well.

If Wagner has decided Aboh isn't good enough in training, why put him through the demotivating process of putting him on the bench for going on ten games now? 

Sure, you have a different view, you're entitled to it, as you are to be accepting of the loss of two points. Me, I want to see us getting 3 points more often. And I think we have more chance of that with a young striker on the pitch keeping the opposition defence busy.

1) do we really “invariably” concede a goal when subbing off a striker for a midfielder? Can’t be arsed to check stats, so happy to admit we do if the evidence backs that up.

2) People were criticising Wagner earlier in the season for two keepers on the bench. They didn’t seem to think picking a youngster as a sub would be demotivating and I agree. It’s better than not being in the match day squad surely?

3) We *all* want to see 3 points more often.

[If wed kept Howie.. 208]

23 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

But that comes back to the question - funded how? We’re in the Attanasio situation because we spent more money than we had, we really don’t want to make it worse.

 

Knapper’s role is long-term success. Gambling on a couple of loanees when - at the time - Wagner didn’t seem to be making us a serious promotion candidate would have been highly questionable. I can completely understand why his view was probably to batten down the hatches, carry on with what we’ve got, and then have root and branch changes once the season is over. 

presumably from the wages saved on Forshaw and Placheta? not really sure - just feels like our squad was stretched before January.. seems odd to lose 4 squad players and only bring in one (and apparently one that can't be played for some reason)

[Capt. Pants 4,262]

For me there's no way we would have started the season with the threadbare squad we have now. Yes injuries are playing  part but that was always going to be the case for any team in the league and you must have a few in reserve So why are we ending the season on that basis?

At the AGM follow  up interviews I thought I heard Attanasio say Knapper had submitted a list of requirements and they would then discuss the capital required. I doubt Knapper's requirements were to make the squad smaller?

Something has gone on behind the scenes it would seem as it appears a nonsensical approach. I'm really not convinced powder is being kept dry for a host of changes next season, but we shall see. If we don't get promoted, which we won't if Sargent is crocked, what with players likely to leave and/or out of contract, that's almost a whole new starting XI.

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

For me there's no way we would have started the season with the threadbare squad we have now. Yes injuries are playing  part but that was always going to be the case for any team in the league and you must have a few in reserve So why are we ending the season on that basis?

At the AGM follow  up interviews I thought I heard Attanasio say Knapper had submitted a list of requirements and they would then discuss the capital required. I doubt Knapper's requirements were to make the squad smaller?

Something has gone on behind the scenes it would seem as it appears a nonsensical approach. I'm really not convinced powder is being kept dry for a host of changes next season, but we shall see. If we don't get promoted, which we won't if Sargent is crocked, what with players likely to leave and/or out of contract, that's almost a whole new starting XI.

I think the squad how it is shaped now is much closer to what we've had in previous seasons. Going into the start of the season the squad had a lot of short term value but not much long term, especially when you consider the fact that the players with the most long term value will be the ones who have to be sold. 

Based off what he has done with his baseball team, Attanasio isn't going to want to dump money into the club year on year with no return. American sports teams are more prone to the boom and bust routine than football clubs, there's always a number of clubs who are going through various 'rebuilds'. This is something Attanasio has avoided doing with the Brewers over the past decade, save for the reset year they had when they brought someone new in to lead the team. 

With how results were going around the AGM, and the fact we chose not to sack Wagner then, it seems possible that the instruction for Knapper from Attanasio was to start a soft rebuild of sorts to make us competitive in a year or two instead of doubling down on the present. It's another area where Attanasio's experience with baseball comes in, the January window is in a way akin to the trade deadline. When you're on the outside looking in, as we were, you tend to stand still and not risk the future. If anything you might even be a seller and look to the next season. 

[Rottingdean canary 117]

Forshaw playing well for Plymouth tonight.  I can't remember him having such a good game for us.  Why?

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, Rottingdean canary said:

Forshaw playing well for Plymouth tonight.  I can't remember him having such a good game for us.  Why?

He’s injured more often than Sam Byram, that should say it all.

[Rottingdean canary 117]

 

27 minutes ago, repman said:

He’s injured more often than Sam Byram, that should say it all.

He's played fairly regularly for Plymouth and Byram has had close to a full season for Leeds.  Amazing really.  Were we just unlucky with them both?