Old Firm Colts in L2

[AlbionMan]

On 23 December 2016 at 14:39, Cowden Cowboy said:

Well I think many club fans aren't so parochial that they don't want the International side and Scottish football as a whole to prosper as well.  That has spin off benefits for all our clubs.  There hasn't been any proposal made as yet.  If something was proposed that benefitted Scottish football overall then it would be considered.  However if the idea of Old Firm colts is seen as a key factor in a grand plan I think most folks would struggle to accept it will actually produce the desired benefits plus it would also be seen as damaging to many other clubs - albeit there is no proposal to consider at the moment.  So cant see how this will ever fly - maybe just being floated to see if there is any traction. 

There's very little chance of it coming to pass. It's the Daily Record pandering to the lowest common denominator, the followers of the two cheeks, in a poor attempt to sell a few more papers.

[1320Lichtie]

f**k the colts

[BFTD]

2 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

f**k the colts

I hope that isn't the kind of experience the SFA are hoping to give them.

[cowdenbeath]

15 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

f**k the colts

A lot of coaches from the past seem to have got into to trouble for that!

[Loonytoons]

Celtic under 20's turned over 3-0 by Dunfermline today, I believe.

[JakeSAFC]

f**k the colts

Aye f**k yer Cumbernauld Colts.

[Sao Paulo]

Lower league supporters are the main antagonists of proposals like this. At least in number. And we typically make two arguments. One is that there is already a system for the loaning-out of players requiring experience in the heat of genuinely competitive games. The other argument isn't so much an argument as it is a statement: 'This would be an insult to the dignity of the small senior clubs!'. That's the basic message, whatever language is used.

I've no sympathy for either argument. I've always held that colt or 'B' sides in the basement leagues would be a good thing. And a good thing for both basement sides and for the game in Scotland generally. Why?

One: a superabundance of promising young players have their potential cut down or, alternatively, see it expire altogether as a direct consequence of inexperience; they get a fairly sheltered loan in their late teens or early twenties and they're lucky if they last a year in full-time football thereafter. This can't be cured by Celtic and Rangers loaning their entire academies out. There is too much quality in the championship - the only-full time league outside the SPL - to let in most academy players right away. And the other leagues don't incubate progress very well. Part-time competition just doesn't challenge a full-time youth player enough*. It's better than the reserves, certainly, but not by much. Even if mass loan-outs were an answer, that reality would be massively unfair to Celtic, Rangers and the other loaning clubs. Loan deals invariably remove from the loaning club some 'policy control' of the in-game experiences of their players. Consider how well Man Utd, Arsenal and Barcelona do by having their second-strings play in the image of their first team. Absolutely essential to the principal investor (loaning club) should be a return on their money. Loaning out a striker who'll be played all over the place by his surrogate club probably won't be a terrifically valuable experience. We've all done well by a loan or drop-out from an SPL club at some point. I don't think it's a terrible thing for lower league clubs to reciprocate here.

Two: the overall quality of the game would be driven-up by this. More young lads getting more experience more of the time means yet more players in the senior game, meaning the floor of quality is raised. I know, I know. It’s a disgustingly common-sense, right-wing, free-market approach. But it is, whether you like it or not, correct. All clubs will probably be getting better players for their wage-bills before long. Say, five to ten years.

Three: a concurrent increase in quality at the top. We’re not necessarily talking better examples of players, here. Just more players of good quality (in number). Although, it’s probable that, with a properly integrated youth-league, we’d see quality at the upper extreme become more extreme (i.e. Scotland would have more exceptional individuals).

Four: the national team. It’ll be lucky to qualify for anything this decade. Allowing the big teams to bring-on more good quality players and get them playing together from early-on can only benefit the national team.

Five: gate receipts. I expect they'd increase (£) and I'd be very surprised if they didn't. We wouldn't be talking about gigantic increases, of course. But something's better than nothing.

Six: stopping the asinine behaviour of SFA visionaries and pseudosage ex-pros. Look at what’s been done to change the supposedly dire non-competitiveness of football for young players outside or on the fringes SPL first team squads. First, the reserve league was binned. A fine idea. But with nothing of worth to replace it and a continuing reluctance on the part of Celtic, Rangers et al to part with youngsters en masse. The U20 league mirrors the flaws of the reserve league and goes further in excluding the older young players. So what’s been proposed recently? Bringing back the bloody reserves! Let’s nip that in the bud here and stop the game in Scotland being in thrall to cyclic executive fatuity.

If we could see past vulgar pride for a moment, we could do something half decent here. Modest gains. Common-sense rules: no 'colts' at 30 years old getting played...!

*I hear it being thought: 'Aye, but if they're coming into league two they're gonnae be playin' part-time teams...!'. That's right, obviously. But consider what attitude teams bring to games with Celtic and Rangers proper. And, indeed, to games against any opponent with a massive advantage (and the colts would have one in their fitness). Our mobs will play the games more vigorously, like cup-ties, to bridge the gap. Moreover, if the colts are out their as a unit, their parent clubs have full discretion over their experience. Which is, as above, very important.

[cowdenbeath]

1 hour ago, Loonytoons said:

Celtic under 20's turned over 3-0 by Dunfermline today, I believe.

It was yesterday correct score though. Pars had 5 first team squad in their side.

[Lichtie78]

Lower league supporters are the main antagonists of proposals like this. At least in number. And we typically make two arguments. One is that there is already a system for the loaning-out of players requiring experience in the heat of genuinely competitive games. The other argument isn't so much an argument as it is a statement: 'This would be an insult to the dignity of the small senior clubs!'. That's the basic message, whatever language is used.
I've no sympathy for either argument. I've always held that colt or 'B' sides in the basement leagues would be a good thing. And a good thing for both basement sides and for the game in Scotland generally. Why?
One: a superabundance of promising young players have their potential cut down or, alternatively, see it expire altogether as a direct consequence of inexperience; they get a fairly sheltered loan in their late teens or early twenties and they're lucky if they last a year in full-time football thereafter. This can't be cured by Celtic and Rangers loaning their entire academies out. There is too much quality in the championship - the only-full time league outside the SPL -

Stopped reading at 'SPL'.

[Sao Paulo]

11 minutes ago, Lichtie78 said:

Stopped reading at 'SPL'.

Close as ul get 2 it m8. WATP.

[etc...].

[BinoBalls]

São Paulo - I don't want to quote you and take up space, was a good read but I fear much of it comes down to opinions or assumptions, for example the assumption that having the U20s play various part time "men's" teams will improve their abilities more than playing other U20 teams. 

I think that's highly debatable and it's not fair to make a mess of the competition for the rest of us based on something so tenuous. 

I believe relentlessly focussing on our technique and our facilities are far more likely to bear fruit for the national team than changing who the U20s play every week. Again that's just my opinion, the difference is lots of other clubs don't have to feel shat on in order to accommodate it. 

[terracingtam]

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

São Paulo - I don't want to quote you and take up space, was a good read but I fear much of it comes down to opinions or assumptions, for example the assumption that having the U20s play various part time "men's" teams will improve their abilities more than playing other U20 teams. 

I think that's highly debatable and it's not fair to make a mess of the competition for the rest of us based on something so tenuous. 

I believe relentlessly focussing on our technique and our facilities are far more likely to bear fruit for the national team than changing who the U20s play every week. Again that's just my opinion, the difference is lots of other clubs don't have to feel shat on in order to accommodate it. 

I cant see what difference it would make to Rangers or Celtic having colt teams in lower leagues. They will still have hundreds of young players on their books, continue to impress the SFA with their youth teams but still will bring in ageing players from around the globe and sign any other good young players that other Clubs have brought on. Its the old firm way and won't change. 

[Sao Paulo]

1 hour ago, BinoBalls said:

São Paulo - I don't want to quote you and take up space, was a good read but I fear much of it comes down to opinions or assumptions, for example the assumption that having the U20s play various part time "men's" teams will improve their abilities more than playing other U20 teams. 

I think that's highly debatable and it's not fair to make a mess of the competition for the rest of us based on something so tenuous. 

I believe relentlessly focussing on our technique and our facilities are far more likely to bear fruit for the national team than changing who the U20s play every week. Again that's just my opinion, the difference is lots of other clubs don't have to feel shat on in order to accommodate it. 

Cheers. I don't think there are assumptions in what I say. There are opinions of course. By definition that's true. Look at the replication of this idea in Spain. The idea that it stifles or interferes with 'pure' competition is unfounded. Ever watch Scotland U-21s or the U-19s, by the way? I defy anyone to tell me that they don't pick up a glaring, positive difference in the performances of those players who're playing for their club week-in week-out. Not in U-20 or reserve leagues. I used to seethe when I saw our U-21 side have its starting XI chock full of reserves and on-paper stars. We'd always get beat or draw against a diddy team.

I'm sure someone will argue: the young guys who're playing every week are playing because they're good...! Not just because they've been lucky enough to get a game. Look, I don't doubt they're good. But when I look at the guys who've got a good season or two behind them on/before they're 20, I see that they do much better on average. And I see the others lag behind or disappear. Charlie Adam would be an outstanding example of the former sort. Often an agent or an interested parent will tell a player to go where he'll get a proper, regular game ahead of the mere chance of it. Our Craig Bryson would be an example. Playing in among a very competitive first division - as it then was - at 18. If he hung about at Motherwell until he was 20, 21... Which he could've done... Are you going to tell me he'd be commanding half-a-mil', playing with Derby and have been capped already? Two, three seasons of real football is a lot. We've got a lad Ross Perry with us just now. Barely a full season behind him at 26 and it shows. Not his fault so much; the injuries haven't been kind. But that's likewise the product of inexperience - that's what happens when the good years are dry.

I follow you re technique based coaching. That's long been a telling difference between the products of our youth academies and those in Europe and elsewhere. As for facilities, there's nothing needs done there. It's the argument that can always be made ('not enough was spent'). We've got so many artificial surfaces and cheaply available kick-abouts in Scotland. We're spoiled. If you look at how many people play at whatever level in this country, small as it is, versus others... And look how much is actually spent by the state and clubs themselves... You can't seriously conclude that it's money that's holding us back re young players.

[1320Lichtie]

So many artificial surfaces!?? Where? There's one in Arbroath that's now basically just sand, town of 25k people. f**k all else in Angus but Forfar and Montroses grounds. There's fucking plenty of under 21 Scottish players getting first team football at a much higher level than L2.

[Lichtie78]

Re Sao Paulo's comment about a colts team having an advantage over L2 teams because they'll be fitter, I'm not sure that's true at all. For example, Josh Skelly signed on loan for us last January but never made an impact until he came back on loan this season, and part of that was because he was nowhere near the physical level required to play senior football. It's all well and good that players like Ryan McCord and Steven Doris won't beat many u20s players at the bleep test etc, but when it comes to applying their fitness to an actual game, they're much better at it than most u20s will be.

[JoseMarooniho]

A hoped for raising of the 'floor of quality' and a speculative something's better than nothing increase in gates. Nah.
No be better getting a reserve league and developing/introducing young players into respective big team first teams?

[Sao Paulo]

20 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

So many artificial surfaces!?? Where? There's one in Arbroath that's now basically just sand, town of 25k people. f**k all else in Angus but Forfar and Montroses grounds. There's fucking plenty of under 21 Scottish players getting first team football at a much higher level than L2.

For argument's sake, let's say there are no artificial surfaces in Scotland whatever. It would really be for you then, as an antagonist, to explain why they're necessary to produce a good national team or generally lift the standard of player produced by Scotland. After all, artificial pitches were virtually unheard of until the nineties. There were a few laid in England in the eighties, though they were quickly ripped up. It can't plausibly be argued that artificial surfaces, or a lack of them, are a serious obstacle to producing good footballers. Unless, of course, you want to argue that good footballer didn't exist prior to the nineties.

But let's be honest now, you knew all this before you typed your post. You just wanted to create the impression that I was wrong on a factual point. As it happens, while you're obviously right about Arbroath itself, and I'm unable to speak for Angus more broadly, it's an obvious nonsense to talk about the bereftness of that area (Angus). How many people are we talking about as a proportion of the population... 2%? Take Cumbernauld, which something less than half the population of Angus. Fifteen years ago there were perhaps two artificial surfaces (sand) here. There are now at least six eleven aside astro-grass pitches in Cumbernauld. And perhaps double the number of (separate) five aside pitches. The same up-scaling story is true across the central belt. I have the examples before my mind as a consequence of working all over it.

To your second point about plenty of U-21 internationals getting first team football at a higher level than league two I say: of course. Happily, in the current setup, under Scott Gemmill, the trend of keeping done-nothings in the squad has been almost entirely reversed. Billy Stark began it, IMO. The problem's more acute with the U-19s. That's why I said "used to watch the U-21s". But even if it wasn't the case... The principle of more (fierce) experience, earlier on holds good. It's far better than letting guys learn at a pace predetermined by the daft league structure. The more flexibility clubs have to get players experience, the better. That's all that's being argued.

[1320Lichtie]

I think you've put your points across well even if I disagree with them but I do think there's a huge lack of facilities, especially affordable ones that kids can play on all the time, in Scotland compared to other countries and I do think it makes a big difference.

The hassle we used to have when I played for a youth club when it came to the winter.... Used to just spend winter doing laps of a dark football pitch.

[Sao Paulo]

20 hours ago, Lichtie78 said:

Re Sao Paulo's comment about a colts team having an advantage over L2 teams because they'll be fitter, I'm not sure that's true at all. For example, Josh Skelly signed on loan for us last January but never made an impact until he came back on loan this season, and part of that was because he was nowhere near the physical level required to play senior football. It's all well and good that players like Ryan McCord and Steven Doris won't beat many u20s players at the bleep test etc, but when it comes to applying their fitness to an actual game, they're much better at it than most u20s will be.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes, Lichtie78. I don't claim that full-time fitness is an absolute advantage. If I handed in my notice and trained full-time, I'm positive I'd still be absolutely underwhelming division two. Reason being because I'd be up against experienced and otherwise more skilful players. And yes: that could be skill as manifest technically or, as with Skelly, because of his physical shortcomings.

The difference here is this: Arbroath and Clyde will be playing SPL colt sides. Their colts will have a certain level of quality. That quality, plus the full-time fitness will, particularly around winter time when the calendar gets backed-up, and toward the end of the season, manifest itself as an advantage. Even in the second-half of most games, in fact.

Aye: Bobby Linn, Steven Doris, Peter MacDonald, Gavin Swankie et al will have bags more quality than many of the 17-20 year olds at Rangers, Celtic etc. I wouldn't dispute that.

[Brazilianlex]

Celtics first foray into the Jan transfer market is to spend £3 million on a 19 year old foreigner.

And Stewart Regan thinks we should shut down all the academies and give the money to Celtic and the other "big" clubs to rear the next generation of Scottishh internationalists.

you couldnt make it up. What a bunch of corrupt fuckwits.