Youth Teams Discussion.

[Pie Of The Month]

It makes sense at Man City to have all the youth teams playing the same system, you have a style of play and you sign players to fit that system. It probably even works at national level for countries like Belgium because they have an abundance of talent in various positions.

We play our system because it suits the players we have right now and it's a way of getting Tierney and Robertson into the same team, what's the point in forcing the u17s to play Clarke's current system when by the time they are even near the first team we're potentially changing it to suit the players who are there at that point? If for argument's sake we have 2 stand out wingers in a youth team do we force them to play wing back because Clarke plays like that when a few years down the line them breaking into the first team could be the very reason Clarke or the manager at the time decides to change to play with wingers instead? 

[Old Bing]

55 minutes ago, Pie Of The Month said:

It makes sense at Man City to have all the youth teams playing the same system, you have a style of play and you sign players to fit that system. It probably even works at national level for countries like Belgium because they have an abundance of talent in various positions.

We play our system because it suits the players we have right now and it's a way of getting Tierney and Robertson into the same team, what's the point in forcing the u17s to play Clarke's current system when by the time they are even near the first team we're potentially changing it to suit the players who are there at that point? If for argument's sake we have 2 stand out wingers in a youth team do we force them to play wing back because Clarke plays like that when a few years down the line them breaking into the first team could be the very reason Clarke or the manager at the time decides to change to play with wingers instead? 

Yeah I suppose that makes sense, depending on the players if its possible even at u21 level it would be beneficial i think.

At least playing in a similar style would be helpful, rather than the kick and rush guff our youth teams play.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

It makes sense at Man City to have all the youth teams playing the same system, you have a style of play and you sign players to fit that system. It probably even works at national level for countries like Belgium because they have an abundance of talent in various positions.

We play our system because it suits the players we have right now and it's a way of getting Tierney and Robertson into the same team, what's the point in forcing the u17s to play Clarke's current system when by the time they are even near the first team we're potentially changing it to suit the players who are there at that point? If for argument's sake we have 2 stand out wingers in a youth team do we force them to play wing back because Clarke plays like that when a few years down the line them breaking into the first team could be the very reason Clarke or the manager at the time decides to change to play with wingers instead? 

Hard agree with this. If anything we should be coaching against the current national team set-up, because as you say it's designed to accommodate our two left backs, plus  cover our relative weaknesses up front and in central defence. We should be working on improving those weak positions rather than trying to create replacements for what we have, because it's a long time since we developed good players in those positions. It's even worse when you consider neither Adams nor Dykes came through Scottish youth football, Grant Hanley was only in Scotland for a couple of years over the age of 13 and Liam Cooper never played here.

 

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

In an intriguing interview with Corriere dello Sport, Carlo Ancelotti explained: "I don't believe in ideologies like Guardiolismo, Sarrismo... I believe in the identity of the team."

Rather than be wedded to a style of play that requires certain players to ensure its success, the Italian pragmatically builds his tactics around the talents of his individuals.

"A clever coach is one who adapts the game to the characteristics of his players. He would be an idiot if, with a forward like Vinicius, who has a motorcycle under his feet, he did not bet on the counter-attack. Another example: if I have Cristiano [Ronaldo], I look for a way to get the ball to him often, I don't ask him to go back."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c722wppjdxqo

[Chripper]

 

Credit where credit is due, though. Scot Gemmill is implementing a back three in the u21 European championship qualification:

We played with a back three away to Spain. Spain scored the winner seven minutes from full time. We played it against Hungary at home, we won 3-1. We played Belgium at home and beat them 2-0 then away to Hungary and it ended 0-0.

Scotland are currently 2nd in a group featuring Spain and Belgium. Spain only ahead by three points.

So yes, if proof is required that three at the back works and should be the universal template. It's there.

The penny seems to have dropped with Scot Gemmil.

Three at the back should be the template for all Scottish national age-groups.

That day in Portugal in '93 was when it became abundantly clear that our days of producting top class centerbacks was over and that a tactical change was needed.

Thanks to Craig Brown and then Steve Clarke.

Enjoy it while it lasts because if history tells us anything it tells us that the next manager will rip up a successful blueprint and revert to a 22 year old failed system.

[Chripper]

On 28/05/2024 at 06:56, Bing.McCrosby said:

What are you going on about, wether Clarke can or cannot implement that its very obviously what should be happening. And thats his point.

And if Clarke isn't pushing for that then its a mistake.

If the performance director doesn't want to do this hes clueless.

The guys right, and your being as usual obtuse.

Thanks for that.

Yeah. You'd think Steve Clarke would have enough clout by now to make sure that there was a universal blueprint.

It's working.

And for that guy being obtuse. This place has always had that type of person. A decade on, different people, but the same attitude.

The types of people who would argue till they're blue in the face that white is black.

[Chripper]

20 hours ago, GordonS said:

Hard agree with this. If anything we should be coaching against the current national team set-up,

Coach against a set-up that's got us to two out of three tournaments?

Yes. The current formation is designed to cover up our defensive deficiencies. That's the point.

We spent 22 years ignoring our defensive deficiencies and qualified for nothing.

I prefer now.

Edited May 29 by SlayerX

[Butters Scotch]

26 minutes ago, SlayerX said:

Coach against a set-up that's got us to two out of three tournaments?

Yes. The current formation is designed to cover up our defensive deficiencies. That's the point.

We spent 22 years ignoring our defensive deficiencies and qualified for nothing.

I prefer now.

You're missing the point completely and we've qualified a lot more when playing a 4 at the back than a 3 but I guess that doesn't fit your agenda here.

So are you just suggesting Scotland to play 3 at the back or every team on the planet to do this also? 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

This is a pretty academic discussion.  

Ultimately, it depends on what the purpose of the u17 to u21 sides are.  As at a basic level, there should be some sort of consistent philosophy throughout all age groups, but that can be as cultural as it is any other aspect.

The players with the most caps at u21 level are almost always 'the-best-but-not-good-enough'.  The exceptions like Christian Dailly and James Milner very much prove the full.

As such, the players who do bounce through (players like Gilmour, Hickey(!), Tierney, Robertson) might benefit from developing an understanding of how the full team play, whilst at u21.

Probably less important at u17 and u19, but I can't see any good reason for playing in a different manner unless the SFA Development Plan (insert alternative name) very much acknowledges that 3atb/5atb is intended as a temporary solution and will change in the future.

I can see a good reason for playing differently at u17/u19 if all the pro-youth sides, and full clubs sides play 4atb.  Why complicate it?

And back to the original point - it seems somewhat academic as I'd reckon our poor performances at u21 are down to poor management, more than lack of a coherent and consistent formation. 

[Old Bing]

59 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

This is a pretty academic discussion.  

Ultimately, it depends on what the purpose of the u17 to u21 sides are.  As at a basic level, there should be some sort of consistent philosophy throughout all age groups, but that can be as cultural as it is any other aspect.

The players with the most caps at u21 level are almost always 'the-best-but-not-good-enough'.  The exceptions like Christian Dailly and James Milner very much prove the full.

As such, the players who do bounce through (players like Gilmour, Hickey(!), Tierney, Robertson) might benefit from developing an understanding of how the full team play, whilst at u21.

Probably less important at u17 and u19, but I can't see any good reason for playing in a different manner unless the SFA Development Plan (insert alternative name) very much acknowledges that 3atb/5atb is intended as a temporary solution and will change in the future.

I can see a good reason for playing differently at u17/u19 if all the pro-youth sides, and full clubs sides play 4atb.  Why complicate it?

And back to the original point - it seems somewhat academic as I'd reckon our poor performances at u21 are down to poor management, more than lack of a coherent and consistent formation. 

On the last paragraph I think everyone can surely agree. Bar the sfa.

[Old Bing]

1 hour ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

On the last paragraph I think everyone can surely agree. Bar the sfa.

Bar @Jives Miguelits seems who disagrees and must think Scott Gemmill and Billy Stark are doing a good job 

Care to explain what you think their doing well?

Edited May 29 by Bing.McCrosby

[Ewanandmoreagain]

On 27/05/2024 at 23:48, craigkillie said:

Good for him, presumably his role allowed him to do that. Steve Clarke is not responsible for youth football within the SFA, that is the role of the performance director.

Surely if the manager of the full team put in a polite request it could be complied with 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

8 hours ago, SlayerX said:

 

Credit where credit is due, though. Scot Gemmill is implementing a back three in the u21 European championship qualification:

We played with a back three away to Spain. Spain scored the winner seven minutes from full time. We played it against Hungary at home, we won 3-1. We played Belgium at home and beat them 2-0 then away to Hungary and it ended 0-0.

Scotland are currently 2nd in a group featuring Spain and Belgium. Spain only ahead by three points.

So yes, if proof is required that three at the back works and should be the universal template. It's there.

The penny seems to have dropped with Scot Gemmil.

Three at the back should be the template for all Scottish national age-groups.

That day in Portugal in '93 was when it became abundantly clear that our days of producting top class centerbacks was over and that a tactical change was needed.

Thanks to Craig Brown and then Steve Clarke.

Enjoy it while it lasts because if history tells us anything it tells us that the next manager will rip up a successful blueprint and revert to a 22 year old failed system.

Back to Portugal 93 did things not go downhill after Levein went off injured ?

[Butters Scotch]

2 hours ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

Back to Portugal 93 did things not go downhill after Levein went off injured ?

2 nil down at half time and we conceded three goals after he went off. 

The whole Portugal 93 thing is just a random game and date plucked out of thin air by Oscar Wilde. We've typically had teams that contained a few excellent players that's complimented with some average ones.

The striker department is a much bigger concern than the CB's over the last 30 years IMO, we've never had a Haaland, Lewandowski, Bale, Keane, Suker type player that can carry teams 

 

[BirdieMinusOne]

Doig's pulled out of the U-21 Squad with Jack Milne called up to replace.

 

No rumour of any injury so it might be he's gone back to Italy cause the rumoured Roma transfer is happening 

[albagubrath]

34 minutes ago, BirdieMinusOne said:

Doig's pulled out of the U-21 Squad with Jack Milne called up to replace.

 

No rumour of any injury so it might be he's gone back to Italy cause the rumoured Roma transfer is happening 

That would be exciting if it came off for him - replacing a 20+ cap Italian international would be a real boost for his confidence. Abraham and Smalling are both at Roma so a bit of support there if he needs it, but he's obviously a few years in playing in Italy now so I doubt he does.

[Butters Scotch]

2 hours ago, albagubrath said:

That would be exciting if it came off for him - replacing a 20+ cap Italian international would be a real boost for his confidence. Abraham and Smalling are both at Roma so a bit of support there if he needs it, but he's obviously a few years in playing in Italy now so I doubt he does.

On the face of it it would be an exciting move but Spinazzola is a classy player and I don't think Doig will get a lot of gametime there maybe apart from the europa league and cup matches. 

[albagubrath]

On 31/05/2024 at 16:05, Butters Scotch said:

On the face of it it would be an exciting move but Spinazzola is a classy player and I don't think Doig will get a lot of gametime there maybe apart from the europa league and cup matches. 

I would agree, but Spinazzola is leaving (I believe). Doig is being suggested as his replacement in the literal sense.

[Chripper]

On 29/05/2024 at 19:20, Ewanandmoreagain said:

Back to Portugal 93 did things not go downhill after Levein went off injured ?

I think it was 2-0 when Levein went off.

The common consensus was that it was just an aging defence.

The headline at the time was."The night a team died".

The only one out of Jim McInally, Dave McPherson, Stewart McKimmie and Richard Gough whose Scotland career carried on after that match was McKimmie.

Gough's Scotland career would have carried on if he didn't bad mouth Roxburgh.

Cadete was absolutely elecric in that game for Portugal. A lightening quick striker on the shoulder of McPherson and Levein... it was never going to end well.

That mauling was the catalyst of Craig Brown thinking outside the box and devising the three at the back template. A template that brought us qualification to Euro 96 and France 98 and we should've qualified for the Euros in 2000. We battered England in the playoffs. Especially the second leg at Wembley.

Edited June 3 by SlayerX

[MarkoRaj]

Seems quite obvious to me that Fiorini isn't going to make it at a decent level. 22 and played 5 times for Charlton last year.

He shouldn't be playing ahead of Lennon Miller imo who is a much better prospect