Youth Teams Discussion.

[Pie Of The Month]

1-0 Johnston, lovely move and pass from Doak to set it up.

 

[Pie Of The Month]

This u21s team could be very fun to watch in the next year if they stick together. Lightning quick and skilful going forward, Hackmey and Barron look like a good partnership in the middle and we look a bit ropey at the back.

[GroundskeeperWillie]

While there's been a lot to encourage in this game, the u21s appear to be afflicted by many of the same issues the senior side has, some pretty ropy defending and a habit of sitting back and letting teams come on to us.

Doak, Lowry and Barron in particular have really looked the part, but I don't know if it's the tactics employed by Scot Gemmill or not, but with the talents we have up front, we've not done enough to exploit that.

I still find it amazing that after all this time, the SFA still believe Scot Gemmill is the right man to nurture the talent at u-21 level.  Never been convinced by his management and tactics, and tonight done nothing to prove otherwise.

[accies1874]

Every u21s game I go to seems to have Scotland hopelessly chasing the game without ever looking like scoring.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

We missed too many chances tonight. Doak played well but he had 3 great chances to score.

The penalty we gave away was sloppy. Trying to play out once too often.

On another night we are 3-0 up in half an hour. Obviously those things just don't happen under Gemill

[CM.]

Was at the game. Played some good stuff in the first half with Doak in particular looking very bright although he shouldve buried 1 or 2 chances when clean through. Managed to stay composed to set up the goal though. 

Quite passive in the 2nd half. Didn't ever really look like coming back after going behind.

Edited November 17, 2022 by CM.

[ropy]

I’ve always thought our best U21 players should play for the U21 team, look for success and participation in tournaments - get used to doing well at that level then bring that mind set into the full team.  Instead we tend to put any useful 19 year olds on the bench of the national team, opportunity lost.

I am not specifically talking about the current batch of talent. 

[albagubrath]

6 hours ago, ropy said:

I’ve always thought our best U21 players should play for the U21 team, look for success and participation in tournaments - get used to doing well at that level then bring that mind set into the full team.  Instead we tend to put any useful 19 year olds on the bench of the national team, opportunity lost.

I am not specifically talking about the current batch of talent. 

Our national team has been at best mediocre and more often shit for 25 years. It’s no surprise any half decent young player is fast tracked to play in the main squad. As (if) we improve the speed at which most players are progressed will slow, with only the most exceptional making the step up early.

[Bing.McCrosby]

5 hours ago, ropy said:

I’ve always thought our best U21 players should play for the U21 team, look for success and participation in tournaments - get used to doing well at that level then bring that mind set into the full team.  Instead we tend to put any useful 19 year olds on the bench of the national team, opportunity lost.

I am not specifically talking about the current batch of talent. 

Have you seen the coaching at u21 and u19 level, anyone good should be bypasing that mess. For their own good.

[ropy]

21 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Have you seen the coaching at u21 and u19 level, anyone good should be bypasing that mess. For their own good.

My thoughts were formed in earlier years before the current regimes.

[Gordopolis]

I’ve always thought our best U21 players should play for the U21 team, look for success and participation in tournaments - get used to doing well at that level then bring that mind set into the full team.  Instead we tend to put any useful 19 year olds on the bench of the national team, opportunity lost.
I am not specifically talking about the current batch of talent. 

I couldn't give a shit about the u21s. They exist to provide for the full team. If a player of 17-21 looks capable of benefitting the full squad then it's quite apt that they are promoted.

Of the ones who gave been fast-tracked in recent years (Tierney, Burke, Patterson, Ramsay, Hickey, Gilmour), none have been left to rot on the bench. Every single one of them has played and contributed significantly - Ramsay the slight exception as he's only had that one insignificant friendly run out, so it'd be next to impossible for him to have contributed anything of importance.

Would you rather we held everyone back until they were 22 (23 in some cases depending on birth date) before we dare cap them?

[ropy]

The thinking is that a strong U21 team qualifying for and going deep into tournaments would generate a group who are used to doing well, no inferiority complex, some that hadn’t stood out at age 19 might develop faster playing alongside the ‘stars’ from their age group. The aim would be to generate regular waves of ready made talent into the first team.

Or we could just keep doing it the way we always have.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, ropy said:

The thinking is that a strong U21 team qualifying for and going deep into tournaments would generate a group who are used to doing well, no inferiority complex, some that hadn’t stood out at age 19 might develop faster playing alongside the ‘stars’ from their age group. The aim would be to generate regular waves of ready made talent into the first team.

Or we could just keep doing it the way we always have.

I understand what your saying and agree to an extent. But the first team is more important than anything, so if there is a player who can improve the team or squad then they have to be in it.

Going back to what you/ I said earlier, i appreciate you weren't talking specifically about the current set up. But unless they improve the management and coaching at that level there's no way any kind of confidence is going to be achievable.

[Gordopolis]

The thinking is that a strong U21 team qualifying for and going deep into tournaments would generate a group who are used to doing well, no inferiority complex, some that hadn’t stood out at age 19 might develop faster playing alongside the ‘stars’ from their age group. The aim would be to generate regular waves of ready made talent into the first team.
Or we could just keep doing it the way we always have.

I understand and appreciate the theory and would love it if we had the luxury of doing that. Fact is we just don't.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Gordopolis said:

Just now, ropy said:

The thinking is that a strong U21 team qualifying for and going deep into tournaments would generate a group who are used to doing well, no inferiority complex, some that hadn’t stood out at age 19 might develop faster playing alongside the ‘stars’ from their age group. The aim would be to generate regular waves of ready made talent into the first team.
Or we could just keep doing it the way we always have.

I understand and appreciate the theory and would love it if we had the luxury of doing that. Fact is we just don't.

Calm doon mate

Its a reasonable thought out well presented point.

There is alot to be said of successful u21 teams who have done well and transferred alot of that team into the national team. And then continued that success on the main stage. I suppose its probably more realistic for bigger nations.

A good start for us would be one of these days actually looking at whos in charge of these teams and what their capabilities are. And also maybe getting the younger teams playing in a similar style and formation. Rather than what we have, bizzare team selections and decent players watching the ball fly over their heads.

 

[ropy]

13 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

27 minutes ago, ropy said:

The thinking is that a strong U21 team qualifying for and going deep into tournaments would generate a group who are used to doing well, no inferiority complex, some that hadn’t stood out at age 19 might develop faster playing alongside the ‘stars’ from their age group. The aim would be to generate regular waves of ready made talent into the first team.
Or we could just keep doing it the way we always have.

I understand and appreciate the theory and would love it if we had the luxury of doing that. Fact is we just don't.

I understand what you are saying but could trying something different improve things? 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, ropy said:

I understand what you are saying but could trying something different improve things? 

For me, not at the moment no. Not with the structure we have. And we just don't have the talent pool.

If you look at the bigger European nations like Spain, Germany, France, Italy. They all currently have players who could play for their u19s and u21s playing for the main team. Purely for the reason that their good enough to be doing that.

[ropy]

My initial thoughts were from when the German coach had the boys flying high and they pulled out Pearson to be part of the squad for the play off against the Netherlands back in the day.  The young boys lost.

I think Pearson got some game time and my case is slightly undermined by the fact that McFadden and Fletcher probably qualified for the ‘unders’ team but were running the show for the full team.

As I say it is not a product of the current regime.

[craigkillie]

So we should have weakened our senior squad for a match that could have directly got us to a major tournament so that our youth team could build some experience that might eventually help us to qualify for a major tournament at some point down the line?

[Gordopolis]

I understand what you are saying but could trying something different improve things? 

Definitely, something needs to change. As others have said though, the pertinent change would be to overhaul the coaching at that level. It's so dysfunctional, and stands out like a sore thumb, stuck between the performance schools which appear to be delivering a better standard of player and the full squad which has improved significantly in the last few years.