The Young Team Myth

[Beaujolais 1,371]

This is a fascinating thread. Having watched the ICT Hearts game, I too started looking more closely at the ages within our squad and then compared them to other Clubs. My conclusions:

1. The average age of our squad is just over 23 years of age.

2. There is one aged 16 and one aged 17. Plus two aged 18 within a squad of 26 Players.

3. Nine players aged over 25- of which 4 players over 30.

It all seems pretty well balanced in age/ experience terms to me. Yes one could argue that the team are "young" in terms of how long this collection of players have been together- but I am not sure that really stands up as valid argument now given the time that have been together as full time professionals, with a state of the art training facility and well paid coaching and support staff.

Given that the majority of our past players that represented Scotland at Senior level were performing at International level aged between 20 and 23- this myth of Youth is a little bewildering. If the argument is our team lacks experience, then that would not stack up with the value of the contracts that these "inexperienced" players are on.

This team should on paper be able to perform. It would be great to see some consistent performances that equate to the sum of the parts.

[MasterD 7,448]

If the argument is our team lacks experience, then that would not stack up with the value of the contracts that these "inexperienced" players are on.

I'd say the value of their contracts will be more than reasonable considering some of them are playing regularly. I doubt we've had regular players on such low wages in about 15 or so years.

[Beaujolais 1,371]

I'd say the value of their contracts will be more than reasonable considering some of them are playing regularly. I doubt we've had regular

players on such low wages in about 15 or so years.

I partially agree with that statement- however given the level of wages that were being paid then, does that bare comparison with a group of professional players, the majority of whom should be in their prime- and the levels of performance being produced in Division 3 games. I would not disagree with you if we were still playing in the SPL.

[Ozblue 4,332]

Elfi....We will never have kids in any great amount who come right through our youth set up and continue on to the seniors as long as we retain the current crop of coaches, especially our head of coaching, Jimmy Sinclair.

The problem is that Ally has publicly gone on record as saying that we have brilliant youth coaches (special mention to Sinclair) and that he is happy about the way these kids are being coached.

Seeing as how out of the curent squad we are using that only Lewis Macleod is probably the only one who can lay claim to being a "one club man" as he has been at Rangers since he was 10 yrs old,it's not really saying too much about our success ratio with kids who join the club as 10-11 yr olds and stay with us.

Youth coaches are supposed to be there to instill and promote technique,ball control, passing ability and an ethos of what makes a successful footballer, yet if you look at the passing ability of our current squad,it is sadly lacking to the point where I begin to wonder if they ever have practiced such a basic skill.

There is no doubt in my mind where our youth problem lies,and unless Charles Green bites the bullet and hands our youth coaching (U/10's and upwards) over to people who have a completely different outlook on how to coach players, then we will remain a buying club OR have a team of average players.

[thegummy 4,472]

I thought this thread was going to be about how the media portray neds as terrifying rulers of the streets at night rather than just loud wee dicks

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Well the facts prove it's not a young team based on age, but based actual 1st team experience id say it is a young side.

[Elfideldo 4,468]

It seems some are misunderstanding the point I am trying to make, I am not saying we should have more young players in the team. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be used as an excuse and because of where we find ourselves a spin is put on it to suggest the youth department is excelling.Also what we have done in the past is irrelevant its what is happening now and the future that matters.

We may have a young team in term of Rangers, but not compared to quite a few other clubs all playing in a higher division.

Do you think the younger ones the likes of Tom Walsh, Charlie Telfer, Luca Gasparotto etc... could cope with first team football?

I have said on quite a few occasions we have a good batch of 1995's and 1996's, but I think it may be a bit too early for most of them. Decisions made by the club means that these players are very little competitive football this season, in Charlie Telfer's example I think he has played three competitive games all youth cup ties. In last week's reserve game 8 of the stating lineup are 1st team players, only Urquhart, Murdoch and Burrows were youth players that have not played in the 1st team, with Walsh and Telfer coming on as subs (replacing Murdoch and Burrows). Look at the profiles on the blog, there is an awful lot of youth players not getting competitive games, how does that help their development ?

Ozblue

Down as far as U17 there are quite a few that been at Rangers since the age of 9 or 10, Robbie Crawford, Tom Walsh, Ryan Sinnamon, Scott Roberts and a few others. Which means they were all at the club before Sinclair. When you get to U16's only Michael Mossie has been at Rangers since U11's.

[OceanRain 2,845]

You know what will be said though,that we can't play more young kids because if the results don't go our way then we would be up in arms.

The truth is most of us would accept failure for a couple of seasons if the seeds were being planted for years down the line.

This.

[Denim Bucket 2]

Anyone any idea why the 19/20s don't play in the Nextgen?

[adamtricky 89]

This.

If we had the correct coaching of the youth players, I would be quite happy if we didnt sign anyone over 21 again for the next 5 yrs +. If we hadn't of had this transfer embargo pretty sure Hegarty, Macleod, Mackay, Aird, Naismith, Crawford, Perry, Hutton ,Little would be nowhere near the 1st team , just getting the odd run out in the league cup or final few weeks of the season.

If we produce or own players = no money wasted on transfer fees / large inflated player salaries = healthy balance sheet / no chance of administration ever again.

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

I have said on quite a few occasions we have a good batch of 1995's and 1996's, but I think it may be a bit too early for most of them. Decisions made by the club means that these players are very little competitive football this season, in Charlie Telfer's example I think he has played three competitive games all youth cup ties. In last week's reserve game 8 of the stating lineup are 1st team players, only Urquhart, Murdoch and Burrows were youth players that have not played in the 1st team, with Walsh and Telfer coming on as subs (replacing Murdoch and Burrows). Look at the profiles on the blog, there is an awful lot of youth players not getting competitive games, how does that help their development ?

This wee snippet says it all.

Also explains why we lose so many youngsters,this department in the future of our club and it's a mess.

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Youth academy should be the central point of the club. Judging by the amount if comments in here alot couldnt give a toss about the youth system.

Alot more time and money should be spent on getting these young lads ready, I also think. During school holidays they should be taken to other academies in Europe, that way everyone including the coaches will get to learn how other cultures nurture the youth teams.

Alot of kids that dont make the grade fail due to temptation away from football, booze,drugs, causing bother with police. If rangers had its own school/college with proper teachers we would end up with a 1st team full of homegrown talent