Are The Youngsters Being Frozen Out?

[mambo3]

With our top youngest going to the likes of Plymouth and Boreham Wood, it's not a case of them being frozen out but more that they are clearly not good enough at this level.

You can't judge a player based on where they go on loan. You need to judge it based on watching them play.

Kuhl and Tanner are better players than Tshibola, who went to Hartlepool when he was good enough to be starting for us, came back without having improved much, went into the team and got sold for £5m. There's every reason to think that they'd succeed if we played them, particularly given that they've both looked more than capable when they've played.

To be honest those two have really been harmed by their loans so far, we'd have been much better off keeping them at Reading and giving them minutes than sending them out to watch the ball fly over their heads.

Kuhl didn't do enough at Dundee, Tanner rarely started for Plymouth mostly from the bench. If they were as good as you obviously think there are they would have been other clubs wanting them on loan but does not seem the case. If I remember rightly a club has to be interested in you before you can go out on loan it's not The clubs fault it didn't
Work out for them. If you cant shine in lower leagues then what's the point of thinking it will work at a higher level. As for them being better than Tishbola, you must know more than Villa And Reading and the other half a dozen clubs who inquired about him.

[Nameless]

I doubt many of our young players go on loan to clubs that ask for them. We don't send them on loan to help other clubs, they go to learn and develop. I would be confident that in most cases we initiate the move because we want a player to get a particular experience.
Kuhl,is a very talented player (ask Patrick Viera, unless you think he's not a good judge of a player ! He's clearly not progressed as quickly as we would have hoped and plenty of young kids who look brilliant at 18 never make it. But unless you've watched him regularly over the last few years then your assumptions on his ability based on your assumptions on whether certain clubs have asked for him to join them on loan aren't especially credible....

[mambo3]

I doubt many of our young players go on loan to clubs that ask for them. We don't send them on loan to help other clubs, they go to learn and develop. I would be confident that in most cases we initiate the move because we want a player to get a particular experience.
Kuhl,is a very talented player (ask Patrick Viera, unless you think he's not a good judge of a player ! He's clearly not progressed as quickly as we would have hoped and plenty of young kids who look brilliant at 18 never make it. But unless you've watched him regularly over the last few years then your assumptions on his ability based on your assumptions on whether certain clubs have asked for him to join them on loan aren't especially credible....

get a second opinion if you like but the decision of who goes to what club is down to the loan club first and then the players home club, if they agree to the loan. if no one comes in for you then you don't go out on loan its as simple as that unless its a semi professional side . No one is denying that Kuhl, Tanner and the rest are not talented but nowadays loans are everything to these young players. this is their apprenticeship, they sink or swim.

[nailseabiscuitman]

Fosu vs Derby away a couple of seasons ago was like and then nothing. Clearly the boy can play....we've all seen it. So why the permanent exclusion?

But don't forget, when on loan he could only make the bench for Accrington Stable for the playoffs and stayed on it unused. He started well there, player of month etc but ended the season on the bench. Not a ringing endorsement

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Perhaps he played as many games as the loan allowed, anymore may have cost them further money.
We don't know the terms of the loans.

[Hoop Blah]

With our top youngest going to the likes of Plymouth and Boreham Wood, it's not a case of them being frozen out but more that they are clearly not good enough at this level.

You can't judge a player based on where they go on loan. You need to judge it based on watching them play.

Kuhl and Tanner are better players than Tshibola, who went to Hartlepool when he was good enough to be starting for us, came back without having improved much, went into the team and got sold for £5m. There's every reason to think that they'd succeed if we played them, particularly given that they've both looked more than capable when they've played.

To be honest those two have really been harmed by their loans so far, we'd have been much better off keeping them at Reading and giving them minutes than sending them out to watch the ball fly over their heads.

That's a bit of an odd post SCIAG.

You can't judge a player completely but the level of interest and the level they end up going to does give an indication of what people in the game think they're capable of. Going to Boreham Wood doesn't mean Kulh's hopes of playing at this level are dead in the water but it does suggest he has a lot further to go than when Adkins gave him a chance.

I totally disagree on the Tshibola point too. IMO he wasn't ready to play for us when he went to Hartlepool, it was that loan move that saw the pieces of his game drop into place and allowed him to kick on.

Hopefully the same might happen with Kulh and Tanner but I think it's now more realistic to think their best route to Championship football, or higher, is to take the path of the likes of Ben Hamer, James Henry or Simon Cox.

[nailseabiscuitman]

Perhaps he played as many games as the loan allowed, anymore may have cost them further money.
We don't know the terms of the loans.

Bit of a waste of time putting him on the bench in that case !

[Forbury Lion]

Both those matches were two years ago, if those players mentioned aren't ready for League football two years after going away and turning decent sides over then our coaching staff are failing them somewhere

Excellent point well made.

[maffff]

Both those matches were two years ago, if those players mentioned aren't ready for League football two years after going away and turning decent sides over then our coaching staff are failing them somewhere

Excellent point well made.

Well, Fosu seems to be there or there abouts, Kuhl I reckon there's more to the loan than simply 'get him as high up the pyramid as he can', we know he has 'talent' but he needs to be able to apply it, so a more physical league may help him get closer to the first team. Liam Kelly did the same last year with Bath City and he seems to have leapfrogged many other youngsters.

Fosu and Tanner were fan favourites at the respective clubs, so they did something right.

Besides, what's to say that it's coaching staff failing? In the first instance are they failing themselves? Are there physical limitations the club can help them mitigate or is it a bigger issue with regards to mentality (which we can only influence so far).

[SCIAG]

That's a bit of an odd post SCIAG.

You can't judge a player completely but the level of interest and the level they end up going to does give an indication of what people in the game think they're capable of.

Historically, I don't think it's told us much about the player's future at Reading. Golbourne got better loans than Obita, Antonio got better loans than HRK, Bignall got better loans than Church.

I totally disagree on the Tshibola point too. IMO he wasn't ready to play for us when he went to Hartlepool, it was that loan move that saw the pieces of his game drop into place and allowed him to kick on.

That's your opinion and it's just as valid as mine, but I have trouble imagining that a player could go from "worse than Akpan" to "better than Williams" in four months. Personally I saw nothing in the U21 matches after his loan finished or pre-season that made me think Tish had come a long way. He probably benefited, but not in the dramatic way that people like to imagine. He was already better than Akpan and should have been playing.

Instead we brought in a couple of it-boys from Chelsea who had five good games between them. In the last two years we've given four academy graduates from Chelsea a run of games. Only Tish and Cooper have had the chance to establish themselves for us in the meantime. Chelsea's academy players are better than ours, but not dramatically so. There's no reason to think our players couldn't cope if given the chance.

[Saaaaaaaammmmmm]

Couple of points to add after tonight...

- Only 6 subs tonight? Must feel great if you're a youngster and Stam would rather pick nobody ahead of you

- Kelly supposedly the best player tonight before being clattered, just like he was the best player during the whole of preseason. Makes you wonder why he wasn't even on the bench the last two games?

And from this thread...

- Fosu was apparently injured for the playoffs hence being a sub having just won League 2 Player Of The Month, still got on the pitch mind you so obviously rated highly

- People saying Tanner hasn't set the world alight at Plymouth, but a look on Twitter when he signed shows how much of a fan favourite he is. Also played 50 times last season, so he's been getting games but surely there comes a point when he won't be gaining anything from another season in the fourth tier

[Sutekh]

- Only 6 subs tonight? Must feel great if you're a youngster and Stam would rather pick nobody ahead of you

Yes, anyone know why only 6 subs, it's not as if we only had 17 fit professionals available and, as a manager, surely you want to maximise your options on the bench?

[SCIAG]

Meite was originally going to start ahead of Kelly. He got injured at the last minute so the team was switched up. There wasn't time to prepare another sub.

At a push, perhaps we could have got one of the U18s from the stands but I don't know what the practicalities of that are.

[No Fixed Abode]

Meite was originally going to start ahead of Kelly. He got injured at the last minute so the team was switched up. There wasn't time to prepare another sub.

.

According LWJ Meite was never in the squad last night.

[Lower West]

Meite was originally going to start ahead of Kelly. He got injured at the last minute so the team was switched up.

Meite had already injured his ankle in training before the BHA game.

[CountryRoyal]

With our top youngest going to the likes of Plymouth and Boreham Wood, it's not a case of them being frozen out but more that they are clearly not good enough at this level.

You can't judge a player based on where they go on loan. You need to judge it based on watching them play.

Kuhl and Tanner are better players than Tshibola, who went to Hartlepool when he was good enough to be starting for us, came back without having improved much, went into the team and got sold for £5m. There's every reason to think that they'd succeed if we played them, particularly given that they've both looked more than capable when they've played.

To be honest those two have really been harmed by their loans so far, we'd have been much better off keeping them at Reading and giving them minutes than sending them out to watch the ball fly over their heads.

That's a bit of an odd post SCIAG.

You can't judge a player completely but the level of interest and the level they end up going to does give an indication of what people in the game think they're capable of. Going to Boreham Wood doesn't mean Kulh's hopes of playing at this level are dead in the water but it does suggest he has a lot further to go than when Adkins gave him a chance.

I totally disagree on the Tshibola point too. IMO he wasn't ready to play for us when he went to Hartlepool, it was that loan move that saw the pieces of his game drop into place and allowed him to kick on.

Hopefully the same might happen with Kulh and Tanner but I think it's now more realistic to think their best route to Championship football, or higher, is to take the path of the likes of Ben Hamer, James Henry or Simon Cox.

More often than not every single time Tish played he was one of, if not the best player on the pitch.

Is that just luck then?

I disagree with you saying "four months can't make a difference" any little change or shift in a player's attitude, application and confidence can make a huge impact in his future play. That can happen just like that.

[BR2]

You can't judge a player based on where they go on loan. You need to judge it based on watching them play.

Kuhl and Tanner are better players than Tshibola, who went to Hartlepool when he was good enough to be starting for us, came back without having improved much, went into the team and got sold for £5m. There's every reason to think that they'd succeed if we played them, particularly given that they've both looked more than capable when they've played.

To be honest those two have really been harmed by their loans so far, we'd have been much better off keeping them at Reading and giving them minutes than sending them out to watch the ball fly over their heads.

That's a bit of an odd post SCIAG.

You can't judge a player completely but the level of interest and the level they end up going to does give an indication of what people in the game think they're capable of. Going to Boreham Wood doesn't mean Kulh's hopes of playing at this level are dead in the water but it does suggest he has a lot further to go than when Adkins gave him a chance.

I totally disagree on the Tshibola point too. IMO he wasn't ready to play for us when he went to Hartlepool, it was that loan move that saw the pieces of his game drop into place and allowed him to kick on.

Hopefully the same might happen with Kulh and Tanner but I think it's now more realistic to think their best route to Championship football, or higher, is to take the path of the likes of Ben Hamer, James Henry or Simon Cox.

More often than not every single time Tish played he was one of, if not the best player on the pitch.

Is that just luck then?

I disagree with you saying "four months can't make a difference" any little change or shift in a player's attitude, application and confidence can make a huge impact in his future play. That can happen just like that.

Rashford?

[SCIAG]

More often than not every single time Tish played he was one of, if not the best player on the pitch.

Is that just luck then?

I disagree with you saying "four months can't make a difference" any little change or shift in a player's attitude, application and confidence can make a huge impact in his future play. That can happen just like that.

I'm not sure what this is replying to. It seems like it is replying to me from the last point.

I am guessing the first point is saying something like "how can Tish be one of our best players but less talented than Kuhl and Tanner?". Tish was very good for us once he played, but he "only" won MOTM twice, he wasn't blowing the rest of the squad away. We were in very good form and the likes of Norwood and Blackman were performing to a similar or higher standard. Kuhl and Tanner went on loan because there was good competition for their places, but Tish was only competing with Williams who had injury problems. I guess it's similar to how Quinn is struggling for games, even though he's better than Kermogant. Tshibola also had a better build than Kuhl and Tanner, so was maybe less of a risk.

Tshibola is one of the best players we've produced and there's not much between the three of them.

I don't doubt that four months can make a difference. It just can't make a difference on the scale of Tshibola's alleged improvement.

However, I think I've just remembered that Tish was injured for the last few months of Adkins' reign, so perhaps not being selected ahead of Akpan makes sense.

[Hoop Blah]

That's a bit of an odd post SCIAG.

You can't judge a player completely but the level of interest and the level they end up going to does give an indication of what people in the game think they're capable of.

Historically, I don't think it's told us much about the player's future at Reading. Golbourne got better loans than Obita, Antonio got better loans than HRK, Bignall got better loans than Church.

I was, I think, talking about their prospects and standing in the game in general, not just at Reading but I do agree a loan move is a lot about what the club and player need for that player at that time in their development and career.

In terms of those loan comparisons, I'm not really sure what you're getting at as I don't think there's a lot of difference between the loans they got at similar periods. Obviously Antonio went on to get loans at teams at doing better towards the end of his time, but he's also gone on to bigger and better things than Robson-Kanu too. Obita and Golbourne have had very similar loans and careers since, IMO.

I'm really not sure Bignall got better loans than Church either. Church went to Crewe, perhaps the most successful lower league club for developing players, whilst pretty much every one of Bignall's loans was to teams at the bottom of League One. It would've been interesting to see what Bignall did if it wasn't for injuries though. I'd have said he had a lot more about him than Church who's had a bit of an odd career.

The problem for Kuhl is not that he's gone out to a non-league as such, but more that his opportunities seem to be going backwards. It's not so long ago he was on the fringe of a decent Championship starting 11 as an 18 year old (??) but since then he seems to be going backwards, first to the Scottish Leagues where he failed to make an impact and now even lower where he's not yet getting a game in the Conference. Ideally I image the club wants players to be moving higher in the level their playing at as time goes on so it seems odd that he's going in the opposite direction.

[Nameless]

Meite was originally going to start ahead of Kelly. He got injured at the last minute so the team was switched up.

Meite had already injured his ankle in training before the BHA game.

I understood it was Fosu who was due to be on the bench and pulled out too late for us to replace him.
While the announcer did say Meite was playing it had been widely reported that he'd turned his ankle the day before and wasn't fit enough.
I think it's stretching things mightily to say Stam deliberately rejected every player at the club as a replacement and chose to have an empty seat on the bench rather than call Josh Barrett or Jack Stacey in.
Bear in mind we had 2 u23 games last week as well.....