Under 21s

[Myra Hawtree 140]

Lost tonight to Exeter for the second time.  Exeter!!!

[cambridgeshire canary 7,915]

In today's shocking news a team of adults playing in the third division of England managed to just about beat a team of non professional 16 to 21 year olds 1nill

Edited November 20, 2024 by cambridgeshire canary

[Feedthewolf 5,921]

31 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

In today's shocking news a team of adults playing in the third division of England managed to just about beat a team of non professional 16 to 21 year olds 1nill

What are you talking about, Cambridge? We were playing against Exeter's U21 side.

 

[crab man 180]

30 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

In today's shocking news a team of adults playing in the third division of England managed to just about beat a team of non professional 16 to 21 year olds 1nill

It was actually Exeter's under 21s! So much for our promising youth 😂

[Capt. Pants 5,151]

56 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

In today's shocking news a team of adults playing in the third division of England managed to just about beat a team of non professional 16 to 21 year olds 1nill

It was Exeter U21s. This defeat comes hot on the heels of losing to Bromley and is our 5th defeat in a row. 

[Nuff Said 6,041]

I seem to remember reading something a while ago that said games for academy sides were seen primarily as a training exercise and while positive results were nice, they were in no way the most important outcome. Was this just excuses from someone who ran an academy team that had a run of bad results or is there something in this?

[Channon’s Windmill 428]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I seem to remember reading something a while ago that said games for academy sides were seen primarily as a training exercise and while positive results were nice, they were in no way the most important outcome. Was this just excuses from someone who ran an academy team that had a run of bad results or is there something in this?

I can’t see how losing every week is good for a youngster’s development, but yes I read those comments too. 

[Capt. Pants 5,151]

We played Tomkinson, Warner and Springett so hardly an inexperienced side.

I can understand the U18s being a 'training exercise' but we ought to include a bit of game management for the older players?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,486]

U21s is about developing individuals, not a team. The development of select players will be put ahead of the team gaining results. Promising players will be played out of position to develop certain skills (wingers played at full back to improve defensive qualities, centrebacks in midfield to improve passing, strikers on the wing to improve take ons etc). 

Also, training schedules won't necessarily be changed around to account for games, so Tomkinson, Springett etc likely training with first team and then dropped into the U21s the day of the game.

More than half the players in any U21s team are never expected to play a first team game, many are signed just to make up numbers. Not much point worrying about the results of games as that isn't the primary focus of the academy. 

[Up and Away 120]

12 hours ago, Myra Hawtree said:

Lost tonight to Exeter for the second time.  Exeter!!!

The development squad is about developing players for the first team not a team or squad of players.  If one or two players a season makes it out of the development squad into the first team squad, then you are doing well.

The attrition rate in Academy football is huge. You start with around 20 players per age group and while you start combining age groups as the players get older -  U18 (2 years) and U21 (3 years) - you still have far more players than you will have spaces for in the first team squad. 

The other side of the same argument is that the club will know that quite a few of the players in the development squad are unlikely to make it at City. But they need a squad of players to field a team. There were a few who played last night who joined City after being released by other clubs aged 18. While not impossible, the odds are against these players making it to the first team, they are more likely squad fillers to give the best prospects someone to train and play with.

 

 

 

[Mason 47 2,016]

Attanasio suggested in one of his interviews that there's around 40 players at the club ring-fenced as first team or with actual first team potential. Whilst I'm sure he was likely generalising, I think it's a figure based roughly in reality.

We've around 26 in the current first-team group, 5-6 of those 'closer' development players then a smattering of potentials throughout the u18/u23 sets.

[......and Smith must score. 1,637]

14 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

What are you talking about, Cambridge? We were playing against Exeter's U21 side.

 

Poor ol' Cambridge.......click before you think doesn't usually end well 😀

[Up and Away 120]

12 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

Attanasio suggested in one of his interviews that there's around 40 players at the club ring-fenced as first team or with actual first team potential. Whilst I'm sure he was likely generalising, I think it's a figure based roughly in reality.

We've around 26 in the current first-team group, 5-6 of those 'closer' development players then a smattering of potentials throughout the u18/u23 sets.

Sounds about right.

First team squad is 28 plus two out on loan. Have not included JR.

U21s squad is 20 plus 3 on loan.

U18s squad is 23.

So first team squad of 30 plus another 10, potentially spread over five age groups, U17-U21 inclusive. Roughly two per year on average.

Edited November 21, 2024 by Up and Away

[Feedthewolf 5,921]

8 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Poor ol' Cambridge.......click before you think doesn't usually end well 😀

Ah, he's alright, it's his schtick... click before you think as an artform 😉

 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,147]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I seem to remember reading something a while ago that said games for academy sides were seen primarily as a training exercise and while positive results were nice, they were in no way the most important outcome. Was this just excuses from someone who ran an academy team that had a run of bad results or is there something in this?

I think it stands up to consider all of them a glorified training exercise to develop individual players. 

[Michael Starr 583]

They always say it's never about the result at youth level, but I call BS on that. We should have a driven mentality to win every game at any level regardless.

[shefcanary 3,074]

1 hour ago, Up and Away said:

Sounds about right.

First team squad is 28 plus two out on loan. Have not included JR.

U21s squad is 20 plus 3 on loan.

U18s squad is 23.

So first team squad of 30 plus another 10, potentially spread over five age groups, U17-U21 inclusive. Roughly two per year on average.

This is my analysis based on the Club's web-site, double checked back to FTW's analysis, that I used to monitor where we were in the last transfer window:

There are also 8 out on loan - so 61 in total. I think a few of you are under-estimating just how many we have in the building. On top of this, there are also another 10 - 20 in the U18 squad too that are not in the list above as not on contracts beyond their 18th (yep some of the very young ones above are contracted for two to three years, so not here just to make up the numbers). 

[Up and Away 120]

20 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This is my analysis based on the Club's web-site, double checked back to FTW's analysis, that I used to monitor where we were in the last transfer window:

There are also 8 out on loan - so 61 in total. I think a few of you are under-estimating just how many we have in the building. On top of this, there are also another 10 - 20 in the U18 squad too that are not in the list above as not on contracts beyond their 18th (yep some of the very young ones above are contracted for two to three years, so not here just to make up the numbers). 

Thanks for sharing. So your 61 includes U18s who have already signed pro deals.  It appears to be quite common for the better scholars to get pro deals once they turn 17.

It will be interesting to track how many progress from the development squad to the first team over time, and then how many get regular game time.  AFAIAA, it is only Mair, Fisher, Hills, Gibbs, Warner and Forsyth in the current first team squad who came through the development squad.  Fisher was 19 when he joined from Bromley and Gibbs a similar age when he signed. Not a lot of minutes across them this season, so far.

I have not counted Gunn albeit you could argue that one. Also missing would be the summer sales, which distorts the figures somewhat. . 

[Channon’s Windmill 428]

6 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

U21s is about developing individuals, not a team. The development of select players will be put ahead of the team gaining results. Promising players will be played out of position to develop certain skills (wingers played at full back to improve defensive qualities, centrebacks in midfield to improve passing, strikers on the wing to improve take ons etc). 

Also, training schedules won't necessarily be changed around to account for games, so Tomkinson, Springett etc likely training with first team and then dropped into the U21s the day of the game.

More than half the players in any U21s team are never expected to play a first team game, many are signed just to make up numbers. Not much point worrying about the results of games as that isn't the primary focus of the academy. N

6 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

U21s is about developing individuals, not a team. The development of select players will be put ahead of the team gaining results. Promising players will be played out of position to develop certain skills (wingers played at full back to improve defensive qualities, centrebacks in midfield to improve passing, strikers on the wing to improve take ons etc). 

Also, training schedules won't necessarily be changed around to account for games, so Tomkinson, Springett etc likely training with first team and then dropped into the U21s the day of the game.

More than half the players in any U21s team are never expected to play a first team game, many are signed just to make up numbers. Not much point worrying about the results of games as that isn't the primary focus of the academy. 

Not questioning your not right as I do know you have a real insight on this type of thing, but surely most of our u-21 opponents are doing similar, so to lose weekly can’t be a great president to set? I know I’m going to get shot down with this but surely we should be developing a winning mentality?

[FenwayFrank 2,718]

Aren't our better U21's in the first team squad or out on loan ?

Edited November 21, 2024 by FenwayFrank

[Mason 47 2,016]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

This is my analysis based on the Club's web-site, double checked back to FTW's analysis, that I used to monitor where we were in the last transfer window:

There are also 8 out on loan - so 61 in total. I think a few of you are under-estimating just how many we have in the building. On top of this, there are also another 10 - 20 in the U18 squad too that are not in the list above as not on contracts beyond their 18th (yep some of the very young ones above are contracted for two to three years, so not here just to make up the numbers). 

When we're talking about the Attanasio 40, it's a ballpark of players who the club feel either are, or have genuine potential to be, in the first team squad. 

Your analysis helps to underline that there are currently 20-25 players on our books with pretty much 0% chance of ever playing for us. That's the game, unfortunately. 

[Feedthewolf 5,921]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

This is my analysis based on the Club's web-site, double checked back to FTW's analysis, that I used to monitor where we were in the last transfer window:

There are also 8 out on loan - so 61 in total. I think a few of you are under-estimating just how many we have in the building. On top of this, there are also another 10 - 20 in the U18 squad too that are not in the list above as not on contracts beyond their 18th (yep some of the very young ones above are contracted for two to three years, so not here just to make up the numbers). 

Some tiny points of order: Brad Hills signed a new contract to 2027 (with an option to 2028), so he shouldn't be in italics. Adian Manning is out of contract in 2025, so he should be in italics. Emmanuel Adegboyega should probably be on there, as he's 21 years old and currently playing SPL football. Also Lewis Shipley isn't on there, but I'm guessing that omission is deliberate? He's out of contract next summer and highly unlikely to be retained.

[chicken 3,138]

9 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

U21s is about developing individuals, not a team. The development of select players will be put ahead of the team gaining results. Promising players will be played out of position to develop certain skills (wingers played at full back to improve defensive qualities, centrebacks in midfield to improve passing, strikers on the wing to improve take ons etc). 

Also, training schedules won't necessarily be changed around to account for games, so Tomkinson, Springett etc likely training with first team and then dropped into the U21s the day of the game.

More than half the players in any U21s team are never expected to play a first team game, many are signed just to make up numbers. Not much point worrying about the results of games as that isn't the primary focus of the academy. 

Just to add that it's also about getting minutes into legs of 1st team players who a) may be working their way back from injury, b) not be getting many minutes and need some match time to keep sharp.

It replaced the old reserve system to encourage teams to develop youngsters. It's turned into a bit of a false economy for the reasons given as all it really means is players are kept on for a year or two longer on low paid contracts (comparatively) only to find themselves without a club at an older age and potentially need to be looking for a new profession.

[Myra Hawtree 140]

I get all the above arguments but I still find it rather embarrassing that we are beaten by what would be assumed to be lesser opposition, who do not have the facilities that our youngsters have.  Also, a bit demoralising for the players to lose so many games.

[Google Bot 3,995]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

So Schwartau couldn't be classed as homegrown if he stayed with us for the duration then? 

[NewNestCarrow 306]

10 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

U21s is about developing individuals, not a team. The development of select players will be put ahead of the team gaining results. Promising players will be played out of position to develop certain skills (wingers played at full back to improve defensive qualities, centrebacks in midfield to improve passing, strikers on the wing to improve take ons etc). 

Also, training schedules won't necessarily be changed around to account for games, so Tomkinson, Springett etc likely training with first team and then dropped into the U21s the day of the game.

More than half the players in any U21s team are never expected to play a first team game, many are signed just to make up numbers. Not much point worrying about the results of games as that isn't the primary focus of the academy. 

It is pretty clear that Tomkinson has been dropped from the first team squad. He was not part of the squad numbers announcement,  his profile is back on the U21 section of the club website, he has only seen matchday action with the U21s and is seldom seen training with the senior group.

[Yonderlyeller 67]

Not taking sides here as genuinely see both points of view, but there is a bit of me which asks does it really matter one way or the other? Would anyone remember the outcome of a season of Combination football back in the day? Or was it even then just keeping the supporting hand in at the same time as seeing how recovering injured players were doing in the Reserves? 

Was though last season struck by stumbling into a meeting of young players who had been coached for a few weeks at a non-League club by a former Prem Club youth player who was wrapping the course up in the clubhouse - he had realised early on he wasn't going to make it, but soldiered on, learned what he could, then played in obscure leagues, mostly abroad, coached in a range of settings and finished by reccommending them to give it their best shot and if they fall short to try and do what he is doing, not be bitter, but have a go at making a decent living from the game he loves. He seemed very comfortable in his own skin.

There is nothing wrong with not having a first team future, all the lads in the U21s are doing what plenty of others would love a crack at and free spirits can always find a future, seeking it doesn't need to have a binary success/failure outcome.

[Robert N. LiM 6,435]

Fab post @Yonderlyeller - very wise.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 1,041]

On 20/11/2024 at 22:17, Capt. Pants said:

It was Exeter U21s. This defeat comes hot on the heels of losing to Bromley and is our 5th defeat in a row. 

Alan Neilson out 😉

 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 1,041]

13 hours ago, Yonderlyeller said:

does it really matter one way or the other? 

There is nothing wrong with not having a first team future

Absolutely on an individual basis, and actually if you have a professional contract from 18 to 21 then you are a professional footballer, that is a fact, whether you play a senior game or not. You are paid a full-time wage to play football. A lot of them will go and coach in Australia or go and do a scholarship in the USA to get a free degree and a magic ticket (green card).

However, if none of them have a first team future with us, or moving for a small fee somewhere else, then yeah that's a worry, as its many millions of pounds expended with no value added? We do need a return on investment overall.

Edited November 22, 2024 by JonnyJonnyRowe