Transfer window slams shut

[Kernow Yellow]

Having just watched the highlights on Yellows Player, I'm a bit disappointed at the views being expressed by some that "Marsh isn't up to it" on the basis of him missing that chance.

To be fair, Dan, I suspect that people are drawing their opinions from having been at the match and seen him play half an hour, and indeed having seen him play in previous matches too (I saw him play from the start at Plymouth in the JPT and at Truro pre-season as well as Saturday, for example, and others will have seen him against Southend and Accrington(?) too), rather than on the basis of watching that one shot on Yellow Player.

I actually thought that Saturday was the best I've seen him play, but that isn't saying an awful lot. And while it may be great for Ty's career to play from the start more often, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be in OUFC's best interests at the moment. I certainly hope he develops and becomes a key player for Us - we're going to need a few of the Dev Squad to do that if we're going to be successful this season, and he's obviously nearer the first team than most.

[Mooro]

But given that the fans and Chairman all clearly believe in the Development Squad principle and support the idea of blooding young talent, it's incredible that Wilder is so reluctant to do so. No-one would have criticised him for starting Ty Marsh at the weekend. If Marsh had risen to the challenge and performed well, Wilder could have taken the plaudits - and if it hadn't come off, he'd have been able to look the Chairman in the eye and say that he was trying to give the Development Squad their chance.

As it is though, the reticence to play the youngsters except when absolutely forced to do so must knock their confidence. I agree that Marsh looks some way off where we need him to be - but it's the old chicken-and-egg argument about improving and experience, and Wilder should have learnt by now that he needs to stop using injured or out-of-position senior pros when there are young lads desperate for a chance to prove themselves.

Do you believe that? I would say the nature of football fans is that, when push comes to shove, many will not give a monkeys about future development if giving starts to the youngsters coincides with dropped points.

There is a lot of talk about confidence, but the thing is that we don't know anything about the character of the various youngsters involved. A few people have suggested that not being picked to start games will be damaging, whereas I would venture that for a number of them, O'dowda included, just being on the bench with the chance of getting on occasionally is a pretty positive thing. For me, any negative impact would come from over-exposure rather than under-exposure at this stage.

I think Chris Wilder has an interesting, but difficult, challenge on his hands with the makeup of the squad he has this season, which we will only really be able to judge him on at the end of the season.

[Kairdiff Exile]

Mooro, on a seperate thread, people were discussing the decline of Aaron Woodley - someone who, like Ty Marsh, promised an awful lot but who, as may well happen with Marsh at the current rate, faded away. In Woodley's case, that was through a lack of opportunity (the club's fault) and perhaps also a lack of motivation (the player's fault). As you say, we don't know the character of the individuals at the club, but failure is often likely to be a combination of their own shortcomings and those of the management.

I take the point that starting a young player in a senior game can go either way - but like Godalming Yellow stated, giving them their chance to start from the off shows a level of faith in them and gives them a chance to be more than a bit-player. In the case of last Saturday, what message does it send out to Ty Marsh when two first-choice strikers are injured/ill and yet he still only gets half an hour off the bench? I would suggest it tells him that he'll never get a proper chance to prove himself - which to a young lad can be far more devastating than having a bad game.

Where I do agree with you is here:

I think Chris Wilder has an interesting, but difficult, challenge on his hands with the makeup of the squad he has this season, which we will only really be able to judge him on at the end of the season.

The question though is whether by the end of the season he will have satisfied the fans and the Chairman that he enthusiastically took up the chellenge of being given a Development Squad and successfully integrated those players into his plans. The current evidence suggests he has some way to go on that score.

[tomoufc]

I think the 5-1 drubbing at the hands of Oxford City has played on the managements' minds. Just like the first team the development squad need time to gel. The recent 2-2 draw against Southend seems a decent enough result. Perhaps we'll see more young players as the season progresses. I think Wilder's keen to introduce them in relatively low pressure circumstances to start with, which seems rather obviously sensible to me (although people have made a reasonable case for COD).

The problem is that we've got both first team left wingers out through injury (Rigg and Meads). A club our size can't reasonably be expected to have more than one first choice and one second choice player in each position. This is likely to a problem all season, given the thinness of the squad. But aren't nearly all other clubs in the league in a similar position? We're not blessed with the money of Fleetwood (an accident waiting to happen, if you ask me), or the fan base of Portsmouth. But we do have a number very good players with plenty of lower league experience, and three or four potentially outstanding players at this level. That should be enough to go up.

Of course the subjectivity of management decisions will play a part, as will luck, and the amount of support from the fans. That last part is the only thing we can influence, realistically. I don't get why some fans can't get behind the team and the manager (no finger pointing here). Why the frantic pessimism? Wilder will be gone by May if we're not promoted.

[GodalmingYellow]

A young player isn't going to lose confidence if they are played for 60 minutes and then taken off. They will get confidence at being asked to start a match, and confidence from the experience.

Surely this depends on the player himself, plus the result of the game and the performance. Players don't magically become more confident just by playing games.

And surely one of the skills of a good man manager is in keeping confidence high.

And part of keeping confidence high is possibly not starting the young players if they're not ready for it.

Out of interest - and this is just guesswork - how many of the current dev squad do we expect to still be playing pro football in 5 years? Personally I'd be surprised if it's more than 2.

I don't agree on your first reply. Pretty much any young player will gain confidence from being given an opportunity to start a first team match for the first time. Any that wouldn't must surely be doubtable as candidates for the development squad anyway. Young players do gain confidence from playing matches, because they become used to the higher standard of play and subsequently regard themselves as higher than the standard they previously played at. Provided they are not played too often (unless they are an exceptional talent) I can see no negative whatsoever in playing Ty from the start against Rochdale if that had happened.

I don't agree with your second reply either. Preventing a player from starting who has earned the right to be in the development squad is far more likely to knock said player's confidence. If the dev squad players are not ready for occasional starts in the first team, then they shouldn't be selected for the development squad. the whole point of the change in club policy is to enforce the footballing maturation of players the manager is unnecessarily anxious over selecting, whereas those same players represent potential new low cost talent.

[Mooro]

I don't agree with your second reply either. Preventing a player from starting who has earned the right to be in the development squad is far more likely to knock said player's confidence. If the dev squad players are not ready for occasional starts in the first team, then they shouldn't be selected for the development squad. the whole point of the change in club policy is to enforce the footballing maturation of players the manager is unnecessarily anxious over selecting, whereas those same players represent potential new low cost talent.

This is where I disagree with you. Over the last 10-15 years one of the major issues with youth development has been that nationally the scholarship period was cut from three years to two, meaning that the club has to make the decision about whether to offer them a pro deal or release them at age 18. With the financial limitations stemming from being in the Conference, and also the wage cap, it has largely been the case that one of the main decision criteria has been whether the player is likely to be able to play for the first team in that first season, as we haven't been able to afford to carry youngsters while they mature.

The point of the development squad is to get away from this and back to the old system and allow players longer to develop and mature, rather than having to let them go too early - in other words, the opposite of what you suggest. Players should be selected for the development squad if the management consider that they may, eventually, be ready for first team action, NOT just if they are ready to so right now.
It is not totally clear yet what criteria will be used to decide who gets a second (or third) year, but I would suggest that your idea of 'being ready for occasional starts' may be more relevant at that stage, rather than in their first year, (although even then the timescale might be by the end of the season, rather than on day one).

[Out of the gloom]

Plenty of discussion on this thread!

Thanks Mooro for clarifying your "safety net" point. Probably not the best two examples, given that Worley and Taylor were not judged ready for the first team when they were released from the club. There is, of course, a finite budget. A couple more first team ready players would mean a few less Development Squad members. Nonetheless the balance between the two, this season and in the future, is a valid point.

This balance is essentially my beef with the Williams loan (note, the loan not him). A loanee must be first team ready - regular starts not occasional substitute appearances. Otherwise, very happy with the squad Wilder has put together and, just as importantly, in good time. Now for the more challenging bit, coaxing the best from these players.

[SmileyMan]

Small point, but I wonder if the new Dev Squad policy makes OUFC more attractive to aspiring youngsters? After all, the message from the past five years has pretty much been "You'll never get in the first team if you do your apprenticeship at Oxford"

If there's a clear path from 14yo novice to league player for those with the ability, then that might bring in a few who could otherwise have looked elsewhere.

[Mooro]

Plenty of discussion on this thread!

Thanks Mooro for clarifying your "safety net" point. Probably not the best two examples, given that Worley and Taylor were not judged ready for the first team when they were released from the club. There is, of course, a finite budget. A couple more first team ready players would mean a few less Development Squad members. Nonetheless the balance between the two, this season and in the future, is a valid point.

This balance is essentially my beef with the Williams loan (note, the loan not him). A loanee must be first team ready - regular starts not occasional substitute appearances. Otherwise, very happy with the squad Wilder has put together and, just as importantly, in good time. Now for the more challenging bit, coaxing the best from these players.

Ok, bad examples (though putting aside his background, Taylor might now fit the bill). The key thing would be for them to have enough experience to go straight into the side when needed, but be cheap to have in the squad without restricting the budget. As you say, it seems the Williams loan doesn't seem meet this criteria. In truth, while all the talk is of forwards and wingers, positions where we do have Devvers on the fringes, my main concern is what happens if two of Wright, Mullins or Raynes are out for any period of time. It is one thing throwing in an offensive youngster to see if he swims, doing the same for a defender can have more immediate consequences (not to mention that Sam Long is injured as well)

SmileyMan - I would hope that message is clear - in theory we should have a sizeable pool of talent to ourselves in Oxfordshire (and beyond in some directions). The new policy should signal that we mean business and youngsters can make it by joining the club on their doorstep. You can also add to that the U17s Education Academy side, which gives an opportunity to kids to come in for a year, use football as part of their studies with the potential to join the scholars at the end of their course (as Eddie Cavenagh & MArvin Ekpiteta have done), then the options are there....

[JoeyBeauchamp]

Given that we only have three (senior) centre halves, could be worth keeping Dubes' number close to hand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23961299

[Out of the gloom]

SmileyMan - I would hope that message is clear - in theory we should have a sizeable pool of talent to ourselves in Oxfordshire (and beyond in some directions). The new policy should signal that we mean business and youngsters can make it by joining the club on their doorstep. You can also add to that the U17s Education Academy side, which gives an opportunity to kids to come in for a year, use football as part of their studies with the potential to join the scholars at the end of their course (as Eddie Cavenagh & MArvin Ekpiteta have done), then the options are there....

Think you have confused Cavanagh (first year scholar) with Josh Hill (second year scholar) who came via U17s.
Source: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/oxfor ... th_scheme/

Also - if a little off topic from state of the squad post transfer deadline day - should acknowledge that the new youth setups are attracting a few players released from other clubs, even when they are not from this shire. Good business.

[Mooro]

SmileyMan - I would hope that message is clear - in theory we should have a sizeable pool of talent to ourselves in Oxfordshire (and beyond in some directions). The new policy should signal that we mean business and youngsters can make it by joining the club on their doorstep. You can also add to that the U17s Education Academy side, which gives an opportunity to kids to come in for a year, use football as part of their studies with the potential to join the scholars at the end of their course (as Eddie Cavenagh & MArvin Ekpiteta have done), then the options are there....

Think you have confused Cavanagh (first year scholar) with Josh Hill (second year scholar) who came via U17s.
Source: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/sport/oxfor ... th_scheme/

Also - if a little off topic from state of the squad post transfer deadline day - should acknowledge that the new youth setups are attracting a few players released from other clubs, even when they are not from this shire. Good business.

Indeed, I stand corrected. I thought Ekpiteta did as well, but he is not mentioned in that article so maybe not!

Re: your second point, we are well placed geographically to pick up youngsters from other clubs for the dev squad - watford, reading & cov so far (and not too far from Brum and the smoke for a number of other clubs, eg Lee from the Hammers). If we can be seen as getting these guys playing then others might follow, even though they are not 'ours' as such...

[Dr Bob]

Several weeks ago, well before the latest hoo-ha following Dyke's speech, John Sunyer wrote a great piece in the FT Saturday Life and Arts about the (ahem) top clubs buying up all these young potential stars of the future, touted as the next this, that or the other, for them never to be heard of again. It struck me then that clubs like ours should pay more attention to this market. Not sure if you need to be a subscriber to read this, but here goes:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2745b0b6-0501 ... z2e7vZONfW

[Paul Cooper]

Going slightly off topic, but interesting on Peterborough. I am suspecting that CW is not the right kind of manager to follow such a strategy, but if you get it right ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23972646