With all the fuss about how good he is with young players, the cynic in me says he’s been brought in to develop and sell our youth and little else.
I also don't understand the 'good with young players' perception.
I think every manager can say they're good at bringing youth through?
They are trained in the youth system, they get recommended to the first team, if they do well enough they make it, if they don't they stay there.
Every professional football club produces youth at every level so you could argue almost every coach promotes younger players.
Would be pretty daft to not start a player if he was good at football, regardless of age.
Sound bite stuff, just like 'the project' and 'experience in this league'.
There are some managers who are much less willing to give young players a chance, though.
Of course there will be managers less inclined to start younger players as they may be more old school in their ways, but I doubt there's a club manager (or head coach) across the 92 who would ignore a player at the club just because they're young. I just think it's a bit of a cliché is all
Old school in there ways? Playing young players isn't some recent phenomenon.
Ironically the best way to encourage a manager to play youngsters is not not sack them every six months.
I didn't say it was, just that there are older types of managers who opt for experienced/journeyed players.
The other way is to avoid spending money on experienced players in the transfer window, so they balanced it out tbf
I really don't know what you actually mean about "older types" of managers.
As in some managers who are more experienced may overlook the younger players and opt for experience. It's rare though of course, cause as I said, the perception that a manager is good at bringing through youth is just noise.
Every club and every manager brings through youth.
If Appleton plays Leaburn & Campbell and they have a good season, he can hardly claim that he promotes young players as we all know they are good players already.
If he however developed a different academy players then that would be different. The point is any manager we would have brought in could all make that claim as it falls into the same category as lines such as:
'This club doesn't belong at this level' ' the home atmosphere makes this a hard place to come to' 'They showed me the project and it drew me in'
All these types of phrases are used among every single club, it's just PR spin
With all the fuss about how good he is with young players, the cynic in me says he’s been brought in to develop and sell our youth and little else.
I also don't understand the 'good with young players' perception.
I think every manager can say they're good at bringing youth through?
They are trained in the youth system, they get recommended to the first team, if they do well enough they make it, if they don't they stay there.
Every professional football club produces youth at every level so you could argue almost every coach promotes younger players.
Would be pretty daft to not start a player if he was good at football, regardless of age.
Sound bite stuff, just like 'the project' and 'experience in this league'.
There are some managers who are much less willing to give young players a chance, though.
Jose Mourinho seemed to only care about the here and now and either didn't see the potential in Salah and KDB or thought I will probably only be at Chelsea for a short period so I only want players who can produce this season and hopefully next. John Terry was the exception and the only Chelsea academy player to make it and stay in the 1st team for nearly a decade until Loftus-Cheek played a few games.
More Chelsea youngsters come through now than under Jose.
Maynard Brewer, Lucas Ness, Zach Mitchell, Deji Elewere, Richard Chin, Nathan Asimwe, Aaron henry, Tyreece Campbell, Karoy Anderson, Daniel Kanu, Miles Leaburn, Jacob Roddy, Nasir Bakrin, Euan Williams, Henry Rylah, Josh Laqeretabua (there may be a few I have forgotten) are young players that have already been 'worked with' or 'developed' or given a sniff. So by my calculation Michael Appleton has to add more to those players, something more that natural exposure and game time would give them. Alternatively, if he is good at developing young players the test is very likely to be if he can introduce the next strata of young players into being successful first team contenders. The specific players that might be successful because of Michael Appleton are a group principally consisting of Jeremy Santos, Jason Adigun, Ryan Huke, Toby Bower, Patrick Casey, and Harvey Kedwell. There may be an obvious one or two in one of those lists I have forgotten. My point being that Michael Appleton would have to make a very convincing case to suggest success from the first group I have listed above is down to him. However if Michael Appleton can create virtually undroppable first teamers from the second group (Nathan Asimwe style) then it could be said that he is good with the young players.
Maynard Brewer, Lucas Ness, Zach Mitchell, Deji Elewere, Richard Chin, Nathan Asimwe, Aaron henry, Tyreece Campbell, Karoy Anderson, Daniel Kanu, Miles Leaburn, Jacob Roddy, Nasir Bakrin, Euan Williams, Henry Rylah, Josh Laqeretabua (there may be a few I have forgotten) are young players that have already been 'worked with' or 'developed' or given a sniff. So by my calculation Michael Appleton has to add more to those players, something more that natural exposure and game time would give them. Alternatively, if he is good at developing young players the test is very likely to be if he can introduce the next strata of young players into being successful first team contenders. The specific players that might be successful because of Michael Appleton are a group principally consisting of Jeremy Santos, Jason Adigun, Ryan Huke, Toby Bower, Patrick Casey, and Harvey Kedwell. There may be an obvious one or two in one of those lists I have forgotten. My point being that Michael Appleton would have to make a very convincing case to suggest success from the first group I have listed above is down to him. However if Michael Appleton can create virtually undroppable first teamers from the second group (Nathan Asimwe style) then it could be said that he is good with the young players.
If Michael Appleton can create virtually undroppable first teamers from the first group of players, other than Leaburn, I would say he is doing something right.
I don’t think further success with the first group would be down to Michael Appleton. They’re already getting picked here and there. If Miles Leaburn becomes an undroppable player, do you think that will be down to Michael Appleton, or would it be down to his team selection from the players he is presented with and he rates Leaburn? As do most of us.
I don’t think further success with the first group would be down to Michael Appleton. They’re already getting picked here and there. If Miles Leaburn becomes an undroppable player, do you think that will be down to Michael Appleton, or would it be down to his team selection from the players he is presented with and he rates Leaburn? As do most of us.
Well why bother with a manager at all then, doesn't sound like we actually need one.
I don’t think further success with the first group would be down to Michael Appleton. They’re already getting picked here and there. If Miles Leaburn becomes an undroppable player, do you think that will be down to Michael Appleton, or would it be down to his team selection from the players he is presented with and he rates Leaburn? As do most of us.
You don’t think further success from the first group would be down to Appleton as they are already being picked ‘here and there’. There are about eight from that list who have about eight first team appearances between them. There are further on that least who have had more first team exposure than they were ready for and that isn’t a good thing. Unless you are up the training ground every day, unless you are involved in these players development, unless you are in on conversations between said players and the coaching staff/Appleton you have absolutely no idea how much or how little of their future development is down to him.
We get it, you are not keen on Appleton, he has to win at Stevenage or if not be sacked, even if we win at Stevenage he then has to win the next seven games or face being sacked after each one he doesn’t win. And even if we did that you’d find some reason to say it wasn’t down to him.
Can’t you just give him say the next ten games and then evaluate how he’s done. I swear he’s under so much pressure already from some quarters that if we are losing at half time at home to Wycombe he’ll get booed off with people calling for his head.
I want Charlton to win game after game. If Appleton achieves that then brilliant. I do have similar reservations to @Braziliance above about the appointment being promoted as one where a person develops the young players, and yes that is likely to be an art practiced on the training ground. My point is about whether the development of the young players is a top priority right now.
I make no secret that for me the priority is promotion. Maybe both can happen, a team glittering with young stars that wins promotion.
One challenge I would like to see Michael Appleton succeed with is Jeremy Santos. Here we have a young player with skill, but somehow his role and contribution can be really rather inconsistent, to the point where I wonder about him. Santos is the kind of raw material that if Appleton can make a really credible player out of that would impress me.
The next ten games will be a third of the season gone. So what kind of points total after sixteen games would you consider a success?
I want Charlton to win game after game. If Appleton achieves that then brilliant. I do have similar reservations to @Braziliance above about the appointment being promoted as one where a person develops the young players, and yes that is likely to be an art practiced on the training ground. My point is about whether the development of the young players is a top priority right now.
I make no secret that for me the priority is promotion. Maybe both can happen, a team glittering with young stars that wins promotion.
One challenge I would like to see Michael Appleton succeed with is Jeremy Santos. Here we have a young player with skill, but somehow his role and contribution can be really rather inconsistent, to the point where I wonder about him. Santos is the kind of raw material that if Appleton can make a really credible player out of that would impress me.
The next ten games will be a third of the season gone. So what kind of points total after sixteen games would you consider a success?
Whatever points total we have after sixteen games I might not consider a success because of the point we are starting off now, after a disastrous start. I’m only going to deal with the next ten games when Appleton is in charge. From the next ten I expect 20 points, promotion form.
Whilst I'm a little underwhelmed I'll get behind him and see what eventuates. I'll judge him on what we see over the next dozen games. I really hope he does well for all our sakes. COYR.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
Very good read interesting comments re Edun and McGrandles
If the bloke can get a team into the playoffs with McGrandles in midfield he must be some sort of miracle worker
In all fairness to McGrandles I still don’t think we have seen enough of him to judge.He was good at Lincoln and did well on loan to Cambridge He might yet suprise us all
A lot of Lifers thought Dobbo a dud early on.
Because he was
Bit harsh. Gave a goal away when he and … thingy… collided.
Was ok-ish apart from that, I thought. But he improved and looks to have improved again in the first two or three games this season.
This is the issue with a lot of fans, not just ours. If you sign a new player, get a new manager or use an academy player and they are not immediately outstanding, they’re crap. And it takes ages to get over that initial opinion.
This is the same fan base that demands stability
The original comment was that he was 'a dud early on'. No one who watched him in the opening games can disagree with that.
I think we have established that if we are going to get back to being a championship club (somewhere i think most agree is our natural level), we are going to have to do it the hard way - for whatever reason, we are not one of those lucky clubs who have managed to attract a ridiculously wealthy owner who is willing to throw loads at it. The selling point by methven to the funders is probably that under the last 2 ownerships at least, the club has been run by amateurs which has hampered the footballing side. The hope is that now we have Scott and Rodwell pulling the strings, the football side will be helped and the losses required to fund the club reduced at the same time by clever buying and selling - including a profit from our youth products. Now that is the traditional way of running a club and i'm fine with that. The funders will expect to lose a big chunk of what they have what they have promised for 2 years but that that gets them closer to a crack at the money shot - the prem - and the likes of luton have proved it is achievable without massive spending. The opening games clearly didn't back that 'added value by know how approach' up so a change in the 'head coach' has been made - again, fair enough. It's all on Appleton now - if he does well, Scott does well - if he fails, with Scott's players,all of that falls back onto Scott. Will Methven and the funders then replace Scott or will they look to sell? I hope Appleton does well - he could do - i'm somewhere between thinking we now have an experienced coach with a decent squad if all are fit, to thinking we have a shit set of central defenders who lack a real leader and aerial dominance so can't see how we will keep the ball out, regardless of what we do going forwards. I'm also concerned we won't see a lot of camara, which could be pivotal. I'll be getting behind things until it becomes obvious we aren't heading in the wrong direction. We should never settle for league 1 but we also have to give people a fair chance at getting us out of the division. Club's positions in the football league are a lot more transient now - you can move up and down the divisions a lot quicker now - probably due to the short term contracts and rapid turnover in squads - so i don't feel like we are now a league 1 club - i feel like we are a club still trying to get its act together after a succession of bizarre ownerships but we will get there at some point.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
I’m backing Appleton to do well , law of averages means we’re gonna have someone punch above their natural weight sooner or later and this scary fruit is the man . David Kerslake as his steady older hand as well will help . problem is I think most of our players aren’t good enough for a promotion and that’s what’s required , so give him a chance back him with some better players and the worlds our oyster .
You heard it here first , Appleton will be our saviour
Very good read interesting comments re Edun and McGrandles
If the bloke can get a team into the playoffs with McGrandles in midfield he must be some sort of miracle worker
In all fairness to McGrandles I still don’t think we have seen enough of him to judge.He was good at Lincoln and did well on loan to Cambridge He might yet suprise us all
A lot of Lifers thought Dobbo a dud early on.
Because he was
Bit harsh. Gave a goal away when he and … thingy… collided.
Was ok-ish apart from that, I thought. But he improved and looks to have improved again in the first two or three games this season.
This is the issue with a lot of fans, not just ours. If you sign a new player, get a new manager or use an academy player and they are not immediately outstanding, they’re crap. And it takes ages to get over that initial opinion.
This is the same fan base that demands stability
The original comment was that he was 'a dud early on'. No one who watched him in the opening games can disagree with that.
The original comment (mine) was meant to convey that early form (indeed not good for Dobbo - I don't disagree with you) can lead to premature (and wrong) judgement. It was a response to the judgement expressed by some here that McGrandles is a write off. IMO we have not seen enough of him yet to make that judgement.
Very good read interesting comments re Edun and McGrandles
If the bloke can get a team into the playoffs with McGrandles in midfield he must be some sort of miracle worker
In all fairness to McGrandles I still don’t think we have seen enough of him to judge.He was good at Lincoln and did well on loan to Cambridge He might yet suprise us all
A lot of Lifers thought Dobbo a dud early on.
Because he was
Bit harsh. Gave a goal away when he and … thingy… collided.
Was ok-ish apart from that, I thought. But he improved and looks to have improved again in the first two or three games this season.
This is the issue with a lot of fans, not just ours. If you sign a new player, get a new manager or use an academy player and they are not immediately outstanding, they’re crap. And it takes ages to get over that initial opinion.
This is the same fan base that demands stability
The original comment was that he was 'a dud early on'. No one who watched him in the opening games can disagree with that.
The original comment (mine) was meant to convey that early form (indeed not good for Dobbo - I don't disagree with you) can lead to premature (and wrong) judgement. It was a response to the judgement expressed by some here that McGrandles is a write off. IMO we have not seen enough of him yet to make that judgement.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
If Appleton can give hector what’s needed to make him the dominant leader we need him to be then that will be a massive step in the right direction - got s feeling his ‘easy osey’ style won’t go down well with our tattoo gunned snarler - this could also be pivotal
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
You do know the difference between improving and picking. You honestly expect us to believe someone with your level of education and experience does genuinely not know?
I don’t think further success with the first group would be down to Michael Appleton. They’re already getting picked here and there. If Miles Leaburn becomes an undroppable player, do you think that will be down to Michael Appleton, or would it be down to his team selection from the players he is presented with and he rates Leaburn? As do most of us.
Do you actually ever see anything other than negativity and conspiracy ?
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
You do know the difference between improving and picking. You honestly expect us to believe someone with your level of education and experience does genuinely not know?
I asked what improvements might look like beyond what we know and can see already? Maybe you would like to describe what an improved Tyreece Campbell (and others) would look like, I have already made one suggestion which is he would be improved if he were part of a team that secured us automatic promotion. It is the development system under Steve Avory that had made the major contribution to the players we are discussing.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
You do know the difference between improving and picking. You honestly expect us to believe someone with your level of education and experience does genuinely not know?
I asked what improvements might look like beyond what we know and can see already? Maybe you would like to describe what an improved Tyreece Campbell (and others) would look like, I have already made one suggestion which is he would be improved if he were part of a team that secured us automatic promotion. It is the development system under Steve Avory that had made the major contribution to the players we are discussing.
Being part of a successful team isn’t a measure that any player has improved individually. For T Campbell for example improvement could be shown by getting more goal involvements, being defensively smarter and being able to pick out passes a bit earlier. That’s not saying he’s bad at any of those things but they can be improved. It’s not necessarily something you can see with statistics either, some things you have to use your eye and judgement.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
You do know the difference between improving and picking. You honestly expect us to believe someone with your level of education and experience does genuinely not know?
I asked what improvements might look like beyond what we know and can see already? Maybe you would like to describe what an improved Tyreece Campbell (and others) would look like, I have already made one suggestion which is he would be improved if he were part of a team that secured us automatic promotion. It is the development system under Steve Avory that had made the major contribution to the players we are discussing.
Are you saying that every young player that makes it through to being on the fringes of the first team is at that point the finished article ? Not even in your most ridiculous arguments can you think that. Avory gets them through to that point and then his job is done. Most will improve naturally as they mature and some will have a ceiling they cannot break through. It is the first team manager and his first team coaches that make sure that the potential is nurtured and reached. That includes protecting the player from over selection regardless of ability and having the ability to see where the player needs additional help. Of course the first team management are heavily involved in the progression of an academy prospect once they are at the required level to be involved in first team squads.
It's another "I win/you lose" irrational target being set.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
The voice of reason. One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help). It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
Holden introduced Karoy Anderson to first team football. Then there is Campbell, Asimwe Mitchell and Ness to add to that. If they hadn’t been picked a lot of people wouldn’t have known they were ‘promising Academy products’. Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards? As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same. If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like? I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
My answer to that question would be to make them part of a winning team that secures automatic promotion.
You do know the difference between improving and picking. You honestly expect us to believe someone with your level of education and experience does genuinely not know?
I asked what improvements might look like beyond what we know and can see already? Maybe you would like to describe what an improved Tyreece Campbell (and others) would look like, I have already made one suggestion which is he would be improved if he were part of a team that secured us automatic promotion. It is the development system under Steve Avory that had made the major contribution to the players we are discussing.
Being part of a successful team isn’t a measure that any player has improved individually. For T Campbell for example improvement could be shown by getting more goal involvements, being defensively smarter and being able to pick out passes a bit earlier. That’s not saying he’s bad at any of those things but they can be improved. It’s not necessarily something you can see with statistics either, some things you have to use your eye and judgement.
I agree with you. What intrigued me is to what extent further improvement (to Miles, Tyreece and others) would be down to more game time or more coaching.
Comments
Every club and every manager brings through youth.
If Appleton plays Leaburn & Campbell and they have a good season, he can hardly claim that he promotes young players as we all know they are good players already.
If he however developed a different academy players then that would be different. The point is any manager we would have brought in could all make that claim as it falls into the same category as lines such as:
'This club doesn't belong at this level'
' the home atmosphere makes this a hard place to come to'
'They showed me the project and it drew me in'
All these types of phrases are used among every single club, it's just PR spin
Jose Mourinho seemed to only care about the here and now and either didn't see the potential in Salah and KDB or thought I will probably only be at Chelsea for a short period so I only want players who can produce this season and hopefully next. John Terry was the exception and the only Chelsea academy player to make it and stay in the 1st team for nearly a decade until Loftus-Cheek played a few games.
More Chelsea youngsters come through now than under Jose.
So by my calculation Michael Appleton has to add more to those players, something more that natural exposure and game time would give them.
Alternatively, if he is good at developing young players the test is very likely to be if he can introduce the next strata of young players into being successful first team contenders. The specific players that might be successful because of Michael Appleton are a group principally consisting of Jeremy Santos, Jason Adigun, Ryan Huke, Toby Bower, Patrick Casey, and Harvey Kedwell.
There may be an obvious one or two in one of those lists I have forgotten.
My point being that Michael Appleton would have to make a very convincing case to suggest success from the first group I have listed above is down to him.
However if Michael Appleton can create virtually undroppable first teamers from the second group (Nathan Asimwe style) then it could be said that he is good with the young players.
If Miles Leaburn becomes an undroppable player, do you think that will be down to Michael Appleton, or would it be down to his team selection from the players he is presented with and he rates Leaburn?
As do most of us.
We get it, you are not keen on Appleton, he has to win at Stevenage or if not be sacked, even if we win at Stevenage he then has to win the next seven games or face being sacked after each one he doesn’t win. And even if we did that you’d find some reason to say it wasn’t down to him.
Can’t you just give him say the next ten games and then evaluate how he’s done. I swear he’s under so much pressure already from some quarters that if we are losing at half time at home to Wycombe he’ll get booed off with people calling for his head.
I do have similar reservations to @Braziliance above about the appointment being promoted as one where a person develops the young players, and yes that is likely to be an art practiced on the training ground.
My point is about whether the development of the young players is a top priority right now.
One challenge I would like to see Michael Appleton succeed with is Jeremy Santos. Here we have a young player with skill, but somehow his role and contribution can be really rather inconsistent, to the point where I wonder about him. Santos is the kind of raw material that if Appleton can make a really credible player out of that would impress me.
The next ten games will be a third of the season gone. So what kind of points total after sixteen games would you consider a success?
I'll be very pleased to be proved wrong but doubt it.
If any academy player who has already appeared in the first team, even as just a sub in the paint pot cup, does well that doesn't count as they have already been "developed".
No allowance given for developing/improving them from where they are now to where they might be.
Deji and Ness have both played this season but clearly both need to be a lot better to start every week. There will be multiple reasons for that but part of MA'S job will be to take them to the next level and make raw talent consistent and reliable.
And all while having to win every game.
Good at developing players is a glib cliche as there are so many other people inputting to a player's development not least including the player themselves.
Did Garner develop JRS or was that Holden or Hayes?
So in the case of Jeremy Santos what is the measurement of "development".
Maybe a loan but then the credit will be given to the loaned club not MA.
Maybe play him v Wycombe but if he bombs then MA has stunted his development. Another "gotcha".
As I said they are "I win/you lose" targets and tell us more about the person setting them than they ever will about Appleton.
One of the reasons I thought DH had to go when he did was that we were seeing very promising Academy products losing confidence and going backwards - by mistakes yes, but primarily by naive team selection and poor late game tactics ("senior" players going AWOL at times didn't help).
It's one of the best crop of youngsters we've produced in the last 20 years IMHO and, for their and CAFC's sake, we must enable them to fulfil their potential while they're with us.
David Kerslake as his steady older hand as well will help .
problem is I think most of our players aren’t good enough for a promotion and that’s what’s required , so give him a chance back him with some better players and the worlds our oyster .
You heard it here first , Appleton will be our saviour
It was a response to the judgement expressed by some here that McGrandles is a write off.
IMO we have not seen enough of him yet to make that judgement.
Were we seeing those players losing confidence and going backwards?
As for mistakes, well I saw Asimwe cost us a game with a mistake, but I also saw experienced Michael Hector do the same.
If Michael Appleton is going to improve the academy products that have broken through what will that look like?
I think you can rule out picking them in the first place because that’s already been done, so what else?
Maybe you would like to describe what an improved Tyreece Campbell (and others) would look like, I have already made one suggestion which is he would be improved if he were part of a team that secured us automatic promotion.
It is the development system under Steve Avory that had made the major contribution to the players we are discussing.
Michael Appletons Red and White Army doesn’t work - the iteration is out as it’s too long.
Maybe Michael A’s Red and White Army (like we did we Alan C’s).
My OCD will be itching if we try and cram 5 syllables in.
What intrigued me is to what extent further improvement (to Miles, Tyreece and others) would be down to more game time or more coaching.