Kinniburgh Joins Queens

[Gazza_8 233]

Sorry but Walter is far more supportive of young players than your average fan.

 

Dailly, Weir and Ehiogu tell me differently. Yes, they may only have been a short fix (with the exception of Weir) but the league was lost when WS took over so where's the harm is blooding a few youngsters? What youngsters has WS given a fair chance to? WHat youngsters has WS given a good run in the team to? Hmmmmmm!

 

I entirely agree with the saying "if you're good enough you're old enough." Rooney, Scholes, Beckham, Fabregas etc etc Yes, these players may be world class but you need to start somewhere and you need a manager who'l give you a fair crack of the whip. Our youht players are arguably not as good or anywhere near as good as the players listed above but remember the standard of league we play in is dire compared to the EPL.

 

WS prefers the older more experienced players over the younger players. Remember Alan Hansens comment a few years ago about youth players? I'm sure Alex Ferguson and the Man Ure squad back in '99 would disagree.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Gazza_8

[calscot 0]

The young Man U team that won the league only had ONE teenager in it. The younger Neville brother (I can never remember which) was 19. The team was also half full of much older players like Smeichel and Cantona.

 

Basically you don't win with teenagers and Man U didn't either.

 

I think it's obvious that the answer is that that crop of youngsters was exceptional. Otherwise Man U would have done the same thing every year to win the league.

 

You only have to look at Hibs to see that it doesn't work. They've had a team of the most promising youngsters in the league that are now at bigger clubs but never once did they challenge for the league.

 

All the young Scott Browns, Kevin Thomsons, Gary Caldwells, Derek Riordans, Stephen Whittakers, Garry O'Connors, Stephen Fletchers etc, etc, don't win you much.

But if you think about it, if it was such a successful policy then why don't all Premiership teams play a load of very young players?

 

Walter Smith has recently played just as many players who were 25 or under as that Man U squad.

 

MacGregor

Broadfoot

Whittaker

Hutton

Webster

Bougherra

Smith

Burke

Davis

Edu

Clement

Thomson

Furman

Beasley

Adam

Lafferty

Naismith

Fleck

Aaron

Boyd

Lennon

Loy

 

And a few others that have left. That's some role call of over 22 players.

 

Playing youngsters is not an instant solution for success, you just have to look at the pelters that have been given to the likes of Broadfoot, Whittaker, Webster, Burke, Adam and Boyd to see that they do not guarantee success.

 

I think there is a strange, false impression that player who is not playing must be better than those who are and it counts double for youngsters.

 

Yes, if you're good enough, you're old enough, but who is qualified to say ANY of the youngsters are good enough to replace a first team regular?

 

Seems to me that Walter doesn't think they are good enough - yet.

Edited December 10, 2008 by calscot

[calscot 0]

I also want to point out that Fleck is probably one of the exceptional players that will make it to the Rangers team while still being a teenager.

 

The fact he was the youngest player EVER in a Scottish cup final shows Walter has no qualms about playing good youngsters. Maybe that also emphasizes how young the lad actually is.

 

I thought he'd start to come on as a sub this season and many will be point a finger at Walter because he hasn't. However, the fact is that he's been injured and is not yet back to full fitness.

 

The time to blood youngsters is also traditionally when you have the game won, and we don't seem to be wrapping them up that often.

 

The fact Aaron got a game when we were about 5-1 up, shows that youth will get a chance when the time is right.

 

Placing the weight of responsibility on teenagers to bring home the league in important games that need to be won, is in my opinion, a very risky and naive way to go.

[Gazza_8 233]

Cantona wasn't in the Man Ure squad who won the '99 CL, he was long gone!

 

Who has WS, in this stint in charge and his last, given chances to? All the names you mentioned in your previous post all had 1st team games experience with the exception of 1 or 2.

 

As for WS bringing on Aaron while we were sitting pretty on a 5-1 lead against a 10 man Hamilton, well, WS would've brought on me and there would've been no difference.

 

Youth players need to learn their trade when the chips are down as well as when we're coasting against a 10 man side.

[Gribz 791]

Youth players need to learn their trade when the chips are down as well as when we're coasting against a 10 man side.

 

Agreed, if anything they will be desperate to impress when we are in a bad run, they will see this as there chance of keeping there place. As you said earlier play them in situations when the league was over rather than sign 35 year olds.

 

Aaron wouldnt have gotten on IMO if we werent 5-1 up against 10 man Hamilton. Why not bring him on the previous week against Hearts!!

 

Fleck got pitched in once in a cup final against Queen of the South - if it was Hearts or Celtic we were playing then he wouldnt have been on the bench

[calscot 0]

Cantona wasn't in the Man Ure squad who won the '99 CL, he was long gone!

 

Ok, Cantonal was gone in 99... sorry.

 

So, I did the usual google and here's the 99 team and ages as of 15 June 1999:

 

Peter Schmeichel 35

 

Gary Neville 24

Philip Neville 22

 

Andy Cole 27

Dwight Yorke 27

 

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer 26

Teddy Sheringham 33

 

David Beckham 24

Ryan Giggs 25

 

Nicky Butt 24

Roy Keane 27

 

Paul Scholes 24

Henning Berg 29

 

Dennis Irwin 33

Ronny Johnsen 30

 

Jesper Blomqvist 25

 

------------------

Average age: 27

------------------

 

 

The ages were obviously all a year younger at the start of the season.

 

Doesn't exactly look like a bunch of kids to me and is probably around the same average as the current gers squad.

[calscot 0]

Youth players need to learn their trade when the chips are down as well as when we're coasting against a 10 man side.

 

I think you have an unorthodox view which opposes the most popular wisdom.

 

Who is right is anyone's guess but I point again to Hibs as an example where even playing what are pretty much the best kids in the country doesn't make you a great team. Their biggest criticism was actually consistency, which is a generally considered trait of most youngsters.

 

You don't generally rely on a team of kids to win the league. Hanson was right, even if there was an exception (that was less exceptional than most people remember).

 

I think all this ageism is a bit strange, I'd rather Walter usually picked his best team for the game regardless of age. I think he does that, but his idea of his best team obviously differs with many fans. But then, how many fans agree on which is the best team?

[calscot 0]

Agreed, if anything they will be desperate to impress when we are in a bad run, they will see this as there chance of keeping there place.

 

This equally applies to all players regardless of age. Desperate to impress rarely turns into consistently good performances, and can usually result in the opposite with a resulting drop in confidence. You can easily argue either way.

 

As you said earlier play them in situations when the league was over rather than sign 35 year olds.

 

There is a place for over 30's in any squad, just look at the Man U one I posted. As a club which has lesser finances these days than the big five countries, we cannot disregard older players that will do a good job. Even the likes of Man U have had plenty of 35 year olds.

 

But anyway you must supporting a different Rangers from me if you think the team is full of 35 year olds.

 

The only really old player I can think of is Weir, and to me he's doing a pretty good job.

 

The only others I can think of around 30 getting a game are Darcheville, Novo, Ferguson, Mendes, Papac and the odd game for McCulloch.

 

I personally don't have an age issue with any of them.

 

Aaron wouldnt have gotten on IMO if we werent 5-1 up against 10 man Hamilton. Why not bring him on the previous week against Hearts!!

 

Because it was a hard game and we played a strong, experienced squad. There is no evidence whatsoever that Aaron would have made the slightest difference to the result. You can only even talk about the bad result on hindsight.

 

I think bringing Aaron on in such a game at this stage of his career would have been naive in the extreme.

 

Fleck got pitched in once in a cup final against Queen of the South - if it was Hearts or Celtic we were playing then he wouldnt have been on the bench

 

He most definitely would have been on the bench IMO. Whether he got a game is a different story.

 

You just don't seem to get that most managers DON'T play inexperienced youngsters in big, important games that could be lost.

 

It's so obvious to me why that is, but for some reason you seem to be struggling.

 

But then you're Rangers team would have Sebo, Gow, Namouchi, Lovenkrands, Fleck, Aaron, Furman, Hemdani, Buffel etc which I personally think would have no chance in hell of winning anything.

 

You seem to be under the impression that if you don't get a game for Rangers, then you must be great.

[Gazza_8 233]

I agree that playing too many youth players in the team can have a negative effect on them as players and the team as a whole. I also agree that you need some experience players in there to motivate and keep the youht players right. Weir is a prime example of this!

 

I keep going back to Aaron as an example but we have absolutely no one better to play on the left wing so what was Smiths problem and reason for not playing him? His ignorance to play tried and tested players who aren't upto playing in the Rangers 1st team (Adam) is bliss. These young players are seeing Adam play shite whenever he's in the team so what must they be thinking?

 

I then read the other day that Adam was on the list of players WS is looking to offload in January. Why play him if that's the case? Maybe to put him in the shop window? Well, if that is Smiths plan no one will want to buy him as his performances have been well below average.

 

Calscot, I have to disagree with you about managers not wanting to play "inexperienced youngsters in big, important games that could be lost". Davie Moyes brought on Rooney against Arsenal while the game was 1-1. Rooney popped up and scored the winner with a stunning goal.

 

If you don't give them their chance then they'll leave for pastures new and improve themselves at their new club ie McCormack.

[Gribz 791]

This equally applies to all players regardless of age. Desperate to impress rarely turns into consistently good performances, and can usually result in the opposite with a resulting drop in confidence. You can easily argue either way.

 

It does, but we are talking about youngsters being given a chance coming in from the blue so they wonthave anything to lose.

 

There is a place for over 30's in any squad, just look at the Man U one I posted. As a club which has lesser finances these days than the big five countries, we cannot disregard older players that will do a good job. Even the likes of Man U have had plenty of 35 year olds.

You could argue the other way. There is a place for a 17 year old if he is good enough.

And whilst Man Utds 35 yr olds are/were world class ours are players who are nowhere near that standard, so its pretty hard to compare. If Ryan Giggs came to Rangers tomorrow Id welcome him with open arms. If Dailly plays this weekend il not be happy.

 

But anyway you must supporting a different Rangers from me if you think the team is full of 35 year olds.

I wish i was supporting a different rangers to you, and it certainly looks that way as i cant quite recall where i said our team was full of 35 year olds.

 

Because it was a hard game and we played a strong, experienced squad. There is no evidence whatsoever that Aaron would have made the slightest difference to the result. You can only even talk about the bad result on hindsight.

 

But we brought on the inconsistant and unfinished article in Burke!! Thats not hindsight! I think most bears would agree there would be evidence that Burke would offer nothing to the game! Why not try young Aaron?

 

I think bringing Aaron on in such a game at this stage of his career would have been naive in the extreme.

Then you are naive then. Are you saying Bringing on Burke was a better option? What Rangers HAVE you been watching??!!!

 

He most definitely would have been on the bench IMO. Whether he got a game is a different story.

So look at the difference - he plays against QotS but wouldnt get a game otherwise - what happened to if your good enough your old enough!

 

You just don't seem to get that most managers DON'T play inexperienced youngsters in big, important games that could be lost.

Try telling that to Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger - they certainly arent afraid to pitch in a youngster at any time, yet they are the most successful managers in there clubs history. Davie Moyes at Everton isnt afraid to do this either.

 

But then you're Rangers team would have Sebo, Gow, Namouchi, Lovenkrands, Fleck, Aaron, Furman, Hemdani, Buffel etc which I personally think would have no chance in hell of winning anything.

Your excellent at mind reading are you!!! In your opinion would they have won more than the current team full of average run of the mill players who have won 1 title in the last 4/5 years!!! Mix in talent with the other good players and we would be a little more succesful than we have been in the last 5 years IMO.

 

You seem to be under the impression that if you don't get a game for Rangers, then you must be great

Just a silly silly comment and an argument just for the sake of it again.