Celtic and Hearts B Teams in Lowland League?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

5 minutes ago, A Believer said:

9 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Plus getting a variety of coaching methods and tactical styles is surely going to be good for them, no?
Or are the puir wee dimwits' brains going to be overwhelmed by their "host" manager telling them to push up, when their "home" coach likes them to sit? 

Fair point about learning variations of styles and tactics; but I don't think part time coaches have player by player physical and nutritional development plans they review every week.

Just as well they will get them from their home club then. Phew! Disaster averted.

[FairWeatherFan]

7 minutes ago, A Believer said:

2. Didn't say they didn't, the words were consistency and quality. So you think a Utd loanee would benefit from coaching from a part time coach over a full time one?

Don't most coaches go on the same courses these days? Full-time and part-time doesn't necessarily reflect a coach's qualifications or experience.

4 minutes ago, A Believer said:

9 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Plus getting a variety of coaching methods and tactical styles is surely going to be good for them, no?
Or are the puir wee dimwits' brains going to be overwhelmed by their "host" manager telling them to push up, when their "home" coach likes them to sit? 

Fair point about learning variations of styles and tactics; but I don't think part time coaches have player by player physical and nutritional development plans they review every week.

Wouldn't the player physical and nutritional side of things not be more in the realms of a "sports scientist".  Something a loaned player would still have access to while going out on loan.

[oneteaminglasgow]

12 minutes ago, A Believer said:

1. Shows what you know
2. Didn't say they didn't, the words were consistency and quality. So you think a Utd loanee would benefit from coaching from a part time coach over a full time one?

Depends who the coach is. For example, I would think that learning under Stewart Petrie would be far more beneficial to a player that learning under Lee Miller and David McCracken would have been.

Being full time doesn’t automatically make you a good coach/manager. For further examples, see Lennon, Neil or Caldwell, Gary. 

[Gordon EF]

22 hours ago, A Believer said:

Great stuff Regretfully some won't let factual trend analysis get in the way of good old fashioned deep-seated opinion based on anecdote.

Let's take any footballing sentiment out of this. As a piece of data analysis, the 20-year comparison between Scotland and Croatia is chronically poor. For a start, B teams have only been in the Croatian league system for around 5 years. So anything Croatia did previously is absolutely not any kind of argument for B teams. All it shows is that a country of 4 million people were perfectly able to consistently produce top class players completely without B teams.

[Gordon EF]

19 hours ago, Che Dail said:

And interestingly, like Scotland, the Netherlands were slow to implement a functioning football pyramid.  Why change anything? they might have asked.  They were the doing things right, so it seemed,  one of the best in the world... but Belgium have overtaken them, masters of innovation and change.  Germany started completely afresh after they were thrashed by England in 2001 - They responded to failure.  

Implementation of change (or not adapting) has an effect further down the line, a generation away, the 'Hidden side of everything' if you believe the likes of Steven Levitt / Freakonomics. 

Responding to failure and innovation are clearly good, when the ideas are good. Absolutely nobody is arguing against that. Just being reactionary is not good. The argument isn't whether change is good or bad. 

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Responding to failure and innovation are clearly good, when the ideas are good. Absolutely nobody is arguing against that. Just being reactionary is not good. The argument isn't whether change is good or bad. 

Stepping away from Croatia to the Czech Republic, because somebody else referenced them previously, pointing out that no player who featured v Scotland ever played for a B Team.  And that may well be the case.  But they mostly came through Club Academies, of which 'B' teams is a fundamental part of their player pathway.  

So compare Schick (who can score) against Dykes (who could not) and assess the gulf in quality.  Schick made his 1st team debut for Sparta Prague age 18.  He'd been in the Sparta Academy since age 11.  Presumably he bypassed the B team, such was his level of readiness.  Beforehand he will have played u15s, u16s, u17s in a competitive environment - no doubt tested in training against their own u20s and u21s... B team players.  This, in their own club academy and part of the same player pathway. 

Those other players (not quite ready to step up) are retained at the club, and have value - as future 1st team players, for re-sell on to other clubs, and as (best v best) competition in-house for aspiring younger players (like Schick), ultimately helping with their development to superstardom and a £40m valuation.   

The point is: the B team is part of the whole picture of player development at each club, the transition between youth and pro-adult football.

Onto the Czech league structure: In recent years, from what I can gather, TWELVE Czech B teams were 'parachuted in' to their tier 3 of the football pyramid.  no mucking about - in they went, with little deference to 'football integrity' it seems.  But then on the face of it, there's an obvious pragmatism about this approach.

Re the national team: The Czech average WORLD ranking is 20th, and Scotland around 40th over a 20 year period.  

In their first team club squads (on wiki, flag counting), Sparta Prague has 74% Czech players and Slavia 57%.  Conversely, Celtic have just 44% Scots and Rangers only 33%.

Czech Republic and Croatia are evidently successful at player development.  The leaders know what they are doing and can point to clear evidence of success.  B teams are implemented in their league structures, and at their academies. 

So is it a good idea, or a bad idea?

Edited June 16, 2021 by Che Dail

[Gordon EF]

5 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Stepping away from Croatia to the Czech Republic, because somebody else referenced them previously, pointing out that no player who featured v Scotland ever played for a B Team.  And that may well be the case.  But they mostly came through Club Academies, of which 'B' teams is a fundamental part of their player pathway.  

So compare Schick (who can score) against Dykes (who could not) and assess the gulf in quality.  Schick made his 1st team debut for Sparta Prague age 18.  He'd been in the Sparta Academy since age 11.  Presumably he bypassed the B team, such was his level of readiness.  Beforehand he will have played u15s, u16s, u17s in a competitive environment - no doubt tested in training against their own u20s and u21s... B team players.  This, in their own club academy and part of the same player pathway. 

Those other players (not quite ready to step up) are retained at the club, and have value - as future 1st team players, for re-sell on to other clubs, and as (best v best) competition in-house for aspiring younger players (like Schick), ultimately helping with their development to superstardom and a £40m valuation.   

The point is: the B team is part of the whole picture of player development at each club, the transition between youth and pro-adult football.

Onto the Czech league structure: In recent years, from what I can gather, TWELVE Czech B teams were 'parachuted in' to their tier 3 of the football pyramid.  no mucking about - in they went, with little deference to 'football integrity' it seems.  But then on the face of it, there's an obvious pragmatism about this approach.

Re the national team: The Czech average WORLD ranking is 20th, and Scotland around 40th over a 20 year period.  

In their first team club squads (on wiki, flag counting), Slavia Prague has 57% Czech players and Sparta 44%.  Conversely, Celtic have just 33% Scots and Rangers only 33%.

Czech Republic and Croatia are evidently successful at player development.  The leaders know what they are doing and can point to clear evidence of success.  B teams are implemented in their league structures, and at their academies. 

So is it a good idea, or a bad idea?

Most of the arguments against and for B teams over the past few pages have been garbage, to be fair. Croatia getting beat by England has no bearing on the merits or otherwise of B teams and the fact that Patrick Schick is a good player and may have played with or against guys who played in a B team at some point also has absolutely f**k all to do with whether B teams are a good idea.

We all get it, some folk are pro B teams, some folk are anti them. Just cherry picking utterly ludicrous facts or arguments to suit what you want to be true is stupid and isn't advancing the argument or changing anyone's mind.

Scotland does not do a good enough job of producing football players and can do a lot better. That's undeniable. If we want to be better, significant changes are needed, that's also undeniable. The whole system of youth development needs restructured. If the evidence-based opinion is that B teams are a part of that, than I'd be willing to listen to that argument. But B teams on their own, without any of the other changes that need to be made, it's frankly delusional to think that's going to make much difference.

If we're all sure that serious changes need to be made, then let's look at what needs doing and put everything on the table.

Croatia and the Czech Republic have been producing better players than we have for years, long before B teams ever got into their leagues. They were obviously doing something right, apart from B teams, that we're not doing. Jumping ahead multiple steps to what seems like an easy and quick fix is not the way to do this.

If the biggest clubs in Scotland (not just the OF) start producing much better players, that get into their first teams and significantly improve the national team, great. If B teams are a critical part of that, then let's consider it. But all the evidence shows is that smaller countries can consistently produce good players without B teams and they can do it with B teams. So the only rational conclusion is that B teams are not the difference between Scotland and Croatia and so simply introducing B teams is not going to turn Scotland into Croatia.

[Che Dail]

13 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

 

We all get it, some folk are pro B teams, some folk are anti them. Just cherry picking utterly ludicrous facts or arguments to suit what you want to be true is stupid and isn't advancing the argument or changing anyone's mind.

 

How do you differentiate between a ludicrous fact and a sensible fact? 

And what's the criteria separating a 'stupid' argument, as opposed to simply having a different opinion to somebody else? 

This is about taking a wider view, and not just focusing on 'B Teams: BAD, or B Teams GOOD'.   All I'm saying is that I think we should try.

[Gordon EF]

29 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

How do you differentiate between a ludicrous fact and a sensible fact? 

And what's the criteria separating a 'stupid' argument, as opposed to simply having a different opinion to somebody else? 

This is about taking a wider view, and not just focusing on 'B Teams: BAD, or B Teams GOOD'.   All I'm saying is that I think we should try.

By developing the ability to think critically. For example, Croatia and Czech Republic both beginning with 'C' is a fact. But that's a ludicrous fact when you use it to try to determine why they're better football teams than Scotland. It's an ability most people have, to varying degrees.

Quote

And what's the criteria separating a 'stupid' argument, as opposed to simply having a different opinion to somebody else? 

 

Again, it's just a general ability to think critically. The argument that Croatia were better than Scotland when neither country had B teams in their leagues and therefore B teams are good is a stupid argument, because logically, it makes absolutely no sense. Having a different opinion is fine. Backing your opinion with a stupid argument is stupid. As I said, Croatia getting beaten by England and therefore B teams = bad is also stupid, even though it's made to back up the same opinion I hold.

Quote

This is about taking a wider view, and not just focusing on 'B Teams: BAD, or B Teams GOOD'.   All I'm saying is that I think we should try.

Well it's just objectively not. All we're talking about here is B teams. We all know you support them and are basically just taking the view 'give it a go'. That's fine. All I'm really finding to take issue with in your posts are the arguments you're using to support B teams. 'Just give it a go' is fine. Folk can agree with that or not. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Gordon EF

[Che Dail]

28 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

By developing the ability to think critically. For example, Croatia and Czech Republic both beginning with 'C' is a fact. But that's a ludicrous fact when you use it to try to determine why they're better football teams than Scotland. It's an ability most people have, to varying degrees.

Again, it's just a general ability to think critically. The argument that Croatia were better than Scotland when neither country had B teams in their leagues and therefore B teams are good is a stupid argument, because logically, it makes absolutely no sense. Having a different opinion is fine. Backing your opinion with a stupid argument is stupid. As I said, Croatia getting beaten by England and therefore B teams = bad is also stupid, even though it's made to back up the same opinion I hold.

Well it's just objectively not. All we're talking about here is B teams. We all know you support them and are basically just taking the view 'give it a go'. That's fine. All I'm really finding to take issue with in your posts are the arguments you're using to support B teams. 'Just give it a go' is fine. Folk can agree with that or not. 

Proceed with the trial because data, evidence and facts (from Europe) suggests it works.

But naw, you just keep saying everything is stupid.  Cruyff, Guardiola, Gerrard, Kennedy, Croatia, Spain, Holland, Czech Republic, Rangers, Celtic, Slavia Prague, Sparta Prague, Dinamo Zagreb, Ajax, Barcelona, Juventus: ALL STOOPID.

Nice one, you should try out on Question Time - go tell them they're all just stupid.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Che Dail

[Gordon EF]

4 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Proceed with the trial because data, evidence and facts (from Europe) suggests it works.

But naw, you just keep saying everything is stupid.  Cruyff, Guardiola, Gerrard, Kennedy, Croatia, Spain, Holland, Czech Republic, Rangers, Celtic, Slavia Prague, Sparta Prague, Dinamo Zagreb, Ajax, Barcelona, Juventus: ALL STOOPID.

Nice one, you should try out on Question Time - go tell them they're all just stupid.

Where is this evidence, data and facts then? Show us the evidence that players who get B team experience are better than they would otherwise have been? You've been asked to provide it before and didn't. If it exists, surely it's not hard to find. "Croatia have B teams and they're gid" isn't evidence.

I'm not saying all these people are stupid. I'm not even saying you're stupid. I'm saying your arguments are. And, for about the hundredth time, most of these clubs (and, by extension, the people who represent them) advocate for B teams from a position of self-interest, not from a position of helping their countries produce better players. How are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

[FairWeatherFan]

9 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Proceed with the trial because data, evidence and facts (from Europe) suggests it works.

But naw, you just keep saying everything is stupid.  Cruyff, Guardiola, Gerrard, Kennedy, Croatia, Spain, Holland, Czech Republic, Rangers, Celtic, Slavia Prague, Sparta Prague, Dinamo Zagreb, Ajax, Barcelona, Juventus: ALL STOOPID.

Nice one, you should try out on Question Time - go tell them they're all just stupid.

See with most of them. Ajax, Juventus, Dinamo Zagreb etc  it's not about national youth development. It's about super clubs trying to compete and gain an advantage in the £100m+ transfer era. It's also so new over there that the data is just that 'B' teams exist not that they've been greatly beneficial to the clubs let alone the national team.

Almost all of them also operate in more open league systems than Scotland.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

See with most of them. Ajax, Juventus, Dinamo Zagreb etc  it's not about national youth development. It's about super clubs trying to compete and gain an advantage in the £100m+ transfer era. It's also so new over there that the data is just that 'B' teams exist not that they've been greatly beneficial to the clubs let alone the national team.

Almost all of them also operate in more open league systems than Scotland.

I'd be willing to entertain the idea of B teams in the league structure (you start from the bottom but can be promoted as high as you like) but only if it is part of a genuine effort to improve payer development in Scotland and it would have to come with some fairly strict criteria. Like, no over-age players in the B teams at all, a minimum number of players in B Team squads and first teams have to be eligible to play for the Scottish national team. Each club with a B team have to spend a minimum % of turnover on youth development. Clubs also have to re-apply for the right to have a B team every 5 years. If they can't show how B Teams are leading to better youth development and players getting chances in their first teams, they get binned.

[Che Dail]

24 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Where is this evidence, data and facts then? Show us the evidence that players who get B team experience are better than they would otherwise have been? You've been asked to provide it before and didn't. If it exists, surely it's not hard to find. "Croatia have B teams and they're gid" isn't evidence.

I'm not saying all these people are stupid. I'm not even saying you're stupid. I'm saying your arguments are. And, for about the hundredth time, most of these clubs (and, by extension, the people who represent them) advocate for B teams from a position of self-interest, not from a position of helping their countries produce better players. How are you finding this so difficult to grasp?

Holy shit.  

Successful youth football academies in Europe have adult B Teams: FACT. 

The national teams of Croatia and Czech Republic are consistently better than Scotland: FACT

The top Croatian and Czech 1st team clubs have more home-grown players than we do: FACT

That's all the evidence we need to justify following their lead and learning from them.  B Teams are part of their overall structure, the player pathway at each club, and overall, they work. 

If you enjoy a cake then ask for the ingredients - you don't ask him to leave out the vanilla next time because you don't like it, and you think the success of the cake does not rely on the inclusion of vanilla. You just accept the judgement of the baker - he knows how to bake a cake!

 

[Che Dail]

28 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

See with most of them. Ajax, Juventus, Dinamo Zagreb etc  it's not about national youth development. It's about super clubs trying to compete and gain an advantage in the £100m+ transfer era. It's also so new over there that the data is just that 'B' teams exist not that they've been greatly beneficial to the clubs let alone the national team.

Almost all of them also operate in more open league systems than Scotland.

Correct, and what's wrong with that? 

It's in their interests to develop better players.  Better players is the whole point.  The club wins, and so does the country.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Che Dail said:

Holy shit.  

Successful youth football academies in Europe have adult B Teams: FACT. 

The national teams of Croatia and Czech Republic are consistently better than Scotland: FACT

The top Croatian and Czech 1st team clubs have more home-grown players than we do: FACT

That's all the evidence we need to justify following their lead and learning from them.  B Teams are part of their overall structure, the player pathway at each club, and overall, they work. 

If you enjoy a cake then ask for the ingredients - you don't ask him to leave out the vanilla next time because you don't like it, and you think the success of the cake does not rely on the inclusion of vanilla. You just accept the judgement of the baker - he knows how to bake a cake!

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I'll take your baker analogy. Let's say I'm an average baker, producing average cakes and I want to learn from a baker who's much better than me. They way to do it is by studying and analysing what they do and understanding why they do what they do and how I can incorporate that into my baking. You don't just say "well they add vanilla so if I also add vanilla, surely I'll become a great baker too".

Over the past few posts, I've tried to be a bit more open to the whole B teams idea. If it comes as part of a wider re-organisation of youth development in Scotland and the argument can be made that B teams play a part, fine. 

 

[DiegoDiego]

Holy shit.  
Shite youth football academies in Europe have adult B Teams: FACT.
The national teams of Armenia and Azerbaijan are consistently worse than Scotland: FACT
The top Armenian and Azeri 1st team clubs have more home-grown players than we do: FACT
That's all the evidence we need to justify fucking up lower league football for the benefit of two clubs.

FTFY.

[FairWeatherFan]

6 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Correct, and what's wrong with that? 

It's in their interests to develop better players.  Better players is the whole point.  The club wins, and so does the country.

Except in the more recent examples of clubs that have introduced 'B' teams in to the professional leagues can you prove there's been an increase in player development?

And it has not just been a mechanism for some of the biggest clubs in a particular country to hoard young talent and take punts on other prospects, while they fill their 1st team with experienced talent?

[Che Dail]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I'll take your baker analogy. Let's say I'm an average baker, producing average cakes and I want to learn from a baker who's much better than me. They way to do it is by studying and analysing what they do and understanding why they do what they do and how I can incorporate that into my baking. You don't just say "well they add vanilla so if I also add vanilla, surely I'll become a great baker too".

Over the past few posts, I've tried to be a bit more open to the whole B teams idea. If it comes as part of a wider re-organisation of youth development in Scotland and the argument can be made that B teams play a part, fine. 

 

Naw, actually, the cake was spectacular: multi award winning, one of the best in Europe, and slices were sold for lots and lots of money.  And other bakers tried their best to copy it, some more successfully than others.

But yes, happy to disagree, and glad to hear you're trying to open up 

[Che Dail]

2 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

Holy shit.  
Shite youth football academies in Europe have adult B Teams: FACT.
The national teams of Armenia and Azerbaijan are consistently worse than Scotland: FACT
The top Armenian and Azeri 1st team clubs have more home-grown players than we do: FACT
That's all the evidence we need to justify fucking up lower league football for the benefit of two clubs.

FTFY.

Good one, I see what you did there  GENIUS.