Barclays U 21 Premier League half term report

[Doctoroncall]

An interesting read on the reasons why it was set up like it is now and that the clubs have a dilemma of whether to loan youngsters out for first team action but lower standard of football or keep them in the U21 team learning at the club...

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/features/westleys-barclays-under-21-premier-league-half-term-report.html

 

Premier League’s Head of Professional Development Terry Westley discusses the Barclays Under-21 Premier League

 

 

Use of ProZone and Technical Match officials have helped improve quality of football

 

 

Westley believes more Barclays U21 Premier League matches need to be played in stadiums

Edited 19 March, 2013 by Doctoroncall

[Doctoroncall]

Saints aren't doing very well in the second phase...

 

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/barclays-u21-premier-league-tables.html?paramYouthStage=ELITE

[John Boy Saint]

Seems a good set up and whilst Saints aren't doing the best in the Elite group, they earned the right to be there from the first phase. League 1 & 2 have some interesting teams in it.

Whilst aiming for the Elite league from the off is the obvious objective, when you look at Final Stage where Elite position 2 & 3 play each other in the Semi Final, and the Winner of the Elite League faces the winner of the game between the winners of leagues 1 & 2 in the Semi (nasty Banana skin there) you wonder if there was any merit of not worrying about the first phase to extend your chances of winning outright through the final phase. A bit like Saints staying in the old Southern league (because the expense of travelling North every other week would have bankrupted them) and being a massive fish in a small pond as a result, beating top teams when they met in various competitions.

With the above in mind, In reality it is good that we are playing the game in the spirit it was intended to achieve the aims set out in the first place. Man City and Chelsea don't look too clever though, not a surprise though with the cheque book recruitment they employ.

[Doctoroncall]

As you say JBS, it's the taking part at the elite level that counts more at this stage.

[Saint Charlie]

The U18 success is more important than the U21 IMO.

 

Currently for example we have 2 or 3 of our best U21s out on loan because that is best for them but obviously weakens the U21 team. U18 level shows the talent emerging, probably nobody aside from JWP, Stephens, Chambers (maybe Targett) in the 21s will ever make it in the first team. When you see Hoskins who is 20 I think go out on loan to L1 and struggle to get in their team then it shows how tough it is - earlier in the season people were calling for him to be given a chance in our team. Likewise Isgrove who has been around for ages but shows no sign of being good enough at the level we need.

[wild-saint]

indeed its not too important to win it but more about developing players that have a chance of breaking into the first team. Although the better the team the more likely it is that a number will make it.

[Andre]

We're doing well enough for my liking. Good read as well, good to see youth and reserve (or 'development') football is cared about.

[Saint86]

Let me get this straight, instead of theo, oxlade, bale, shaw etc getting competitive first team football in league 1 or the championship, we should make them play reserve football?

 

I can see, in priciple what he is saying, that getting the best of the youth to play against the best of the piers - this should in theory increase the standard of teh best youth players.

 

But the fact remains that the best youth players need to be stretching themselves against a level above, rather than topping out at u18/u21 level. Look at the progress oxlade made in a half season in League 1 - he got sold, had a summer break, and then played against lyon in the champions league for arsenal. Since then he hasn't quite made it. He has had a brief run in the team from subs bench and has been playing u21 matches. Progress stalled imho. Bale was the same, improved massively in his time playing regular competitive football - went to spurs and stagnated for a good few years, before finally getting a run of games and 2 seasons later look where he is - makes you wonder what he'd be like if he had played full time during that spell. Walcott is similar story although he obviously didn't play as long in our first team.

 

I think shaw is another example.... he is getting better and better with every game, the idea of him playing at u18/u21 level is bloody ridiculous. Also, I would certainly rather have our youth setup than wet spams, good once, but not so special anymore, and in fairness, where they had the batch or Rio, Lampard (both great) and carrick (I would not take him in our team) they don't have a recent player to compare to shearer or le tissier, let alone bale.... then they have cole to compare to oxlade or walcott... then who have they got for shaw, bridge etc..

 

I think we know what we are doing, look at the U18's - generally to young to loan out - they are sailing!

 

They get to U21 and its time to step up, get some first team experience for a couple of months or break through to the first team. Then they can get some easier matches for the U21 to build on what they've learnt and test themselves against their own level and build their confidence. Thats my view anyway. Plus I am anti anything that praises that scumbag disease of a club called west ham - spent all their money on a financially doped championship club, gets a brand new stadium inside orient's catchment (against the rules) then preaches financial fair play and handicaps our club because they ran their own business poorly and spent all their money. Man up, we did it and we took our medicine, I never once called for financial fair play because it stagnates the leagues, and because we are set up to do it properly - rather than the spammers overpaid journeyman approach!!