Rangers: Youth development and first team integration

[chilledbear 16]

BTW

 

Rangers have handed a trial to Birmingham City centre-back Tom Lang. He'll spend the week at Murray Park. Brave, good on the ball and strong

[pete 2,499]

BTW

 

Rangers have handed a trial to Birmingham City centre-back Tom Lang. He'll spend the week at Murray Park. Brave, good on the ball and strong

 

If he is under 45 get him signed.

[chilledbear 16]

If he is under 45 get him signed.

 

Scottish Under 17 last year.

 

What a change!

[Rousseau 10,812]

Scottish Under 17 last year.

 

What a change!

 

Whilst I'm delighted for us to be linked with players -- and younger, promising players at that! -- I am suspicious of why. Has he been told he's not going to get a game at Birmingham? If so, do we really want a reject from a struggling Championship side?

[ian1964 10,761]

Pressing matters for McCall but no rush for Rangers

 

HE IS the third man in the dugout this season, he is aiming for second posi- tion in the league and he wants to be the first name on Rangers' wanted list.

 

 

 

The coming days and weeks will be defining for Stuart McCall in more ways than one.

 

Having rescued Rangers' season and allayed fears that they could miss out on the Championship play-offs all together, he is now on the brink of ensuring his side will avoid the first knockout round at the end of the campaign by finishing second in the standings.

 

The improvement has been noticeable, the progression steady, as performances and results have picked up and Rangers have crossed more hurdles than they have stumbled at in recent weeks.

 

Having seen Dave King, Paul Murray and John Gilligan win the boardroom war, supporters now have their attentions fixed firmly on the team as the conclusion to the Championship campaign draws nearer.

 

If all goes to plan for McCall, the next half a dozen games will see him lead Rangers back to the Premiership and move him to the forefront of the board's thinking as they get set to appoint a permanent replacement for Ally McCoist this summer.

 

McCall has done his chances of extending his stay no harm since taking over from Kenny McDowall last month, and nine-in-a-row legend John Brown is pleased to see developments all round at Ibrox.

 

He said: "He's definitely improved things, the team looks far more energetic.

 

"He's blooding some of the younger ones, too, and the fact he's doing that proves the senior lads have really let themselves down.

 

"You can't be too critical of the previous management when you think of the circumstances surrounding the football club. If that runs through your club, there is a bad vibe.

 

"The new board and Dave King have given everyone such a lift. On their first day Dave, Paul Murray and John Gilligan went up to speak to the staff at Murray Park. The old board didn't show any interest.

 

"Stuart has the job until the end of the season and he'll be in a strong position if he gets Rangers promoted."

 

No matter who is given the task of leading Rangers next season, and no matter what league they are in, the immediate future will determine in what direction the club is heading in both the short and medium term.

 

If they can get to the play-off final and face the side that finishes eleventh in the top flight this term, their destiny will not be known until the end of next month.

 

That will give McCall or a new boss just weeks to prepare his squad for either a crack at the Premiership or another shot at the Championship title next time out.

 

With more than an entire team of players out of contract in just a couple of weeks, it will be a frantic summer at Ibrox as plans are made, deals are done and the foundations for the new campaign are laid.

 

There is a danger that Rangers could get left behind if they are not ready to hit the ground running, but Bomber insists there will be no need to push the panic button.

 

He said: "Having been involved on the scouting side, there are players you can pick up.

 

" Basically, you are matching up against Celtic and thinking how long it is going to take to compete and win against Celtic.

 

"If Stuart does eventually get the job, he has a good knowledge of players and who is available. You might not get the cream, but you can still do deals over the June period and bring in boys to assess during the pre-season.

 

"The budget will be probably be decent and mean he can get a level of player capable of competing against every team - with the exception of Celtic at the moment.

 

"I would think within a year or two years, they could really be looking to win the Premier League."

 

If Rangers are to aspire to return to their natural and accustomed level sooner rather than later, there is no margin for error for the board when it comes to making the necessary appointments.

 

"As well as a new boss, the Light Blues must invest in off-field personnel and rebuild every area of the club, from top to bottom, after years of turmoil at Ibrox.

 

Brown quit his job at Murray Park in the aftermath of Charles Green's arrival and would be open to a return to the game and the club he loves.

 

He said: "I left Rangers three years ago because of what I found out. I didn't want to be a part of that.

 

"I gave up a scouting job. I went to Dundee and, because I was still commenting about Rangers, that had an effect.

 

"It probably went against hardcore Dundee fans and the board. Ultimately, it probably cost me my job there.

 

"Everybody knows I am a Rangers man and would do anything for the club. If there is anything I could do to help, then I would love to be back at the club. But I am not putting any pressure on anyone there."

 

lJohn Brown was promoting Rangers First - the UK's leading fan ownership group which currently has more than 13,400 members and owns more than two million shares. RF has been backed by former Light Blues stars such as Richard Gough, Jorg Albertz and Nacho Novo.

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/pressing-matters-for-mccall-but-no-rush-for-rangers-204336n.123932723

[chilledbear 16]

Whilst I'm delighted for us to be linked with players -- and younger, promising players at that! -- I am suspicious of why. Has he been told he's not going to get a game at Birmingham? If so, do we really want a reject from a struggling Championship side?

 

No harm in giving him a trial.

 

I'm more interested in who is involved bringing the trialists to Rangers.

[calscot 0]

Huh ? Who is talking about making this a policy ? The discussion here was about bleeding youngsters in, not having a policy of no under 25's. Either you have missed the point calscot or I am simply confused.

 

I forgot to reply with quote:

 

I think the best approach is to focus on under 25's, with the odd player over that age to add experience.

 

My post is very relevant to that and it seems to be the way all these discussions go, so possibly pre-empting it a bit.

 

Yes, we need to bleed youngsters in, I've always agreed with that. And when the senior players are not performing, they should get more of a chance as inexperience plus massive motivation is better than loads of experience and a can't be bothered attitude.

 

What I don't agree with is flooding teams with youngsters as that is potentially really bad for the game as my previous post explains.

 

A balance for me would be a couple of youngsters between 17 and 20, a few in their early 20's who have a lot of talent to be developed, a few in their late twenties, pretty much at their peak, and a couple of classy players in their early 30's that have been in our team for several seasons and are almost a fixture of the club.

 

I don't advocate bringing in new 30 plus year olds unless they are very special like say Gascoigne (although we now talking about an equivalent at our much lower standing).

 

I would prefer to rotate the youngsters to stop burnout meaning about 6 or so a season are given a decent chance and gain experience, and depending on how well they are coping, possibly replace them for the bigger games where a level head is necessary.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I said we should have a balance and I did not say we should exclusively sign only < 25 year olds. Your points about ageism and players retiring at 25 were just complete and utter nonsense.

 

The fact is for a while our average age in the team was almost 29 and that's just madness. With our ageing squad and a lack of money I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree that we should be focusing on players in their early to mid 20's. Certainly ones we are spending transfer fees on. Ones we can develop and sell for a profit. Over the past 10 years we have very rarely made a profit on anyone and that's the type of financial mismanagement that got us in this mess.

 

What you are saying about a balance of players of various ages makes a lot more sense than your bizarre rant in the previous post. Given the age of our squad though, there's no escaping we will have a large amount of > 25 players in the squad.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[calscot 0]

I said we should have a balance and I did not say we should exclusively sign only < 25 year olds.

 

Not exclusively no, and I didn't say you said that, but you did say "the odd player over that age". So I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It comes across kind of like the Tims defending their sectarianism as their team wasn't exclusively Catholic.

 

Your points about ageism and players retiring at 25 were just complete and utter nonsense.

 

You're not abusive at all, are you? As I've said before, I'm pretty respectful until someone comes in with derogatory remarks which you always seem to do, then the kid gloves come off.

 

However, I'm not surprised you are struggling to make sense of it as you're views tend to be very entrenched. Try a bit of objectivity and applying lateral thinking, and if you're right you will be able to tell me why it's nonsense, which you have failed to do. You're being a bit like John Cleese in the Argument Sketch here.

 

The fact is for a while our average age in the team was almost 29 and that's just madness.

 

I'm not sure often how often that is true as I recall debunking it before, but it was much less two seasons ago and no-one was happy. I can see how that is undesirable but madness is a bit strong. And by "average" do you mean the "mean", the "median" or the "mode". The mean can be overly skewed by outliers like Davy Weir, Jig and the odd 16 year old so you probably need to do a more rigorous statistical analysis. Just replacing a 40 year old Weir with an 18 year old would bring our mean age down by 2 years. Doesn't mean the team would be improved and I think a lot of players developed playing next to him.

 

But then I'm more interested in how the team is in the points league rather than winning the average age table. It's an indicator that there is a lack of balance but not something to artificially mess with as a priority. For me as the mainstream age range of players is about 18 to 34, I think the average should be somewhere in the middle at about 26, but as I say it shouldn't be the main aim or hard and fast rule. A winning formula is a lot more complex than that.

 

I agree we have too many older pros who are not giving us much, but then you're ignoring where we've been for the last few years and picking up the best young talent that will ensure successive promotions has not been something that is easy to do. When you're dumpster diving for free stuff, you go for the best quality you can find in a load of unwanted crap, and can hardly do much choosing. Trouble is the best quality stuff for free is usually by it's sell by date.

 

With our ageing squad and a lack of money I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree that we should be focusing on players in their early to mid 20's.

 

You're logic doesn't quite follow - a lack of money means we can't afford the best players in their early to mid 20's and expecting a high proportion of our youngsters to automatically be able to be part of what needs to be the best team in the country is more than a bit hopeful - you just have to look at the likes of Hutton and Crawford. Maybe in the long term we can do this, but we're still dumpster diving at the moment.

 

Certainly ones we are spending transfer fees on.

 

Isn't that what we've been doing - eg Templeton?

 

What you are saying about a balance of players of various ages makes a lot more sense than your bizarre rant in the previous post.

 

Didn't you go on about subtle abuse? I think you should read it again without the "I disagree with you as a rule" mentality, and it might become a bit less bizarre. It's about taking things to their natural conclusion without which you can't judge the sustainability of your proposals.

Edited April 23, 2015 by calscot

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

This is tiresome but I don't want to let you have the last word

 

1. Yes, that is what I said. Many sides adopt this approach, notably Porto. The average age of their squad is 25 and they have only one outfield player in his 30's - Quaresma who is a top player.

 

2. You're the one who started the insults. Talking about ageism in football is complete and utter nonsense though. It's a bizarre thing to say and it has absolutely no relevance. Any sport is focused on young fit people anyway so your point makes no sense whatsoever and I'm embarrassed I'm even dignifying it with a response.

 

3. I think the entire universe is in agreement our squad is far too old and worthless. For two seasons, despite part-time opposition, only two youngsters regularly featured - Macleod and Aird. Yes in the third division we were playing youngsters but this was because it was all we had. As soon as Ally got his own players in, things changed drastically. I don't think our signing policy should even be up for discussion because it is so unequivocally shambolic. The second highest budget in Scottish football and we signed 31 year old Kevin Kyle. However, If you think the average age should be 26 then that's not far from what I'm suggesting with players mainly in their early to mid 20's and a few over that age.

 

4. My logic does follow. It's very simple and a fundamental part of football. Buying a player with raw potential is going to be cheaper than buying the finished article. Case in point Cristiano Ronaldo costing Man Utd £12m and Real Madrid £80m. Again, why do I need to explain this? Nobody is saying we can afford the best players. I don't have a clue what you're on about.

 

5. One player who has struggled to get regular games and has been a poor signing? What relevance does this have?