The youngsters are the future.

[The Lad 0]

I would just like to dedicate a thread to some supporters, that the youngsters are for the future. Next season, we need experience, and a strong team, we don't have leeway to blood youngsters as we need trophies coming back to ibrox.

Loan deals, reserves and u19 games are what they need.

I just see "doesn't show confidence in our youngsters" alot, and its nonsense. They are young lads. We are taking more of a risk playing our youngsters than we are buying a player in.

Steven lennon, dean furman, alan lowing and the rest aren't ready for the step up yet. The occasional shot of the bench to see the first game play, perhaps a sub every so oftern, but they are far from back up to our first team imo.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Agree, Lowing is hoping to be breathing down Hutton's neck next season, but he won't be able to replace him, also Furman is expected to start training again a couple of weeks into pre-season training after his operation and he is hoping to be knocking on the door.

[Frankie 505]

I agree to an extent.

Rangers don't have the 'luxury' (more like necessity) of giving their younger players many games in a season. Occassionally, circumstances and genuine talent will help someone like Stevie Smith become a first team regular but at a club where the supporters demand instant success that's the exception to the rule.

However, over the last 20 years we've spent a lot of money on players that just haven't delivered. In addition, we don't have the same finance now so we will have to rely on more younger players than ever before. As such, I'm of the opinion that if they're good enough, they're old enough.

From what I've seen of Lennon, Furman and Lowing they are capable of coming into the team and doing well. As such, if they do get the chance, they're no less likely to fail than the Sebos, Sionkos and Svenssons of this world.

[docspiderman 1,225]

As someone said here recently, every year is a high pressure year for us, as it has been for a hundred years. Bringing through youngsters has only been seen as a luxury in the past couple of decades.

If you take the argument further there is no time when it would appear to be the right time for the "Rangers youngsters" yet look at the number who in our first team at the moment who are our products.

Let us hope that Walter will give them a chance if they are good enough and not let fear and negativity rule them out this time round.

[Guest The Brown Brogue]

If we are to introduce young players into the team, then we as a support have to realise our own responsibities.

We cry out for youth, yet the young scottish players at Rangers are the first to get torn apart when they suffer a bad game or dip in form....Hutton, Adam etc....

We can't have it both ways, if we want young players in the team we have to accept the inconsistency in performance that comes with youth.

[docspiderman 1,225]

Another paradox, 40 to 50 years ago a youngster in football terms was under 18. The old under 21 international teams in the 60,s and 70's were comprised of established first team players just below full international level.

Today, when kids are far better nourished, better built and should be scientifically be fitter, players aged 23-25 are labelled youngsters with potential.

[Briton 394]

Another paradox, 40 to 50 years ago a youngster in football terms was under 18. The old under 21 international teams in the 60,s and 70's were comprised of established first team players just below full international level.

Today, when kids are far better nourished, better built and should be scientifically be fitter, players aged 23-25 are labelled youngsters with potential.

Good point but we don't all do that. That is how you can tell that none of the youngsters are likely to be greats...even today the really top players are in the first team, and even Internationalists, as teenagers.

[docspiderman 1,225]

Another paradox, 40 to 50 years ago a youngster in football terms was under 18. The old under 21 international teams in the 60,s and 70's were comprised of established first team players just below full international level.

Today, when kids are far better nourished, better built and should be scientifically be fitter, players aged 23-25 are labelled youngsters with potential.

Good point but we don't all do that. That is how you can tell that none of the youngsters are likely to be greats...even today the really top players are in the first team, and even Internationalists, as teenagers.

Yes, I should have have said mainly in Scotland. I agree, when you look at the greats around the world almost all were established in their teens.

[JR 1,480]

I would argue that 40 to 50 years ago a player wouldve been considered at his peak around early 20's years old - whereas with the advancement in training methods, sport science, diet study and all round quality of life - I would say a player is considered in peak condition later than that.

Hence the difference where a "youngster" can be up to age 23-24 nowadays.

[finzster 0]

I would argue that 40 to 50 years ago a player wouldve been considered at his peak around early 20's years old - whereas with the advancement in training methods, sport science, diet study and all round quality of life - I would say a player is considered in peak condition later than that.

Hence the difference where a "youngster" can be up to age 23-24 nowadays.

Baws, the age that young players are mainstays in top teams (Barca, Real, Manure, Arsenal, etc) is getting lower and lower all the time!

Raul, Ronaldo, CRonaldo, Messi, Xavi, Casillas, Buffon, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Rooney, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, Scholes, Butt (the list can go on and on) were not even considered as merely 'youngsters with potential' by the time they were 21!!!!

In fact, this whole thead is all bollocks!

Regarding pressure to win preventing youngsters being dropped in it: Ajax have at least the same pressure on them year on year (as there are 3 'big' dutch teams that feasibly win the league; and only 2 CL spots). Similarly PSV and Feyonoord, yet these teams have little difficulty in throwing in the young guys instead of buying some journeyman!

Are you telling us that had the Gers promoted 3/4 young players a year the past 5 years that the position would be much worse than some of the signings (Capucho, Emerson, Ostenstad, Maniero, Jeffers, Sebo, Sionko, Svennson, Fanfan, etc)?? That's 9 shankers that have taken significant funds away from the club while repaying very, very little! So, if you are suggest ing that the club need to buy that sort of player instead of promoting youngsters in their place, I say you are talking tripe!!!

All your points are excuses! You have completely ignored all the good work that Rangers have put in in promoting youngsters from within Murray Park in the last couple of years:

-1. McGregor

-2. Hutton

-3. Smith

-4. Burke

-5. Adam

With others about to make the step up! 2/3 players per year as main parts of the squad should be commended!

Why is it that Rangers very rarely get credit for this in the media (they are having a lovefest with Hibs and Shellick over their yoof policies) - FFS even Rangers fans are being masked of the hard fact!

[The Lad 0]

People want our youngsters to get promoted from youth and automatically be first team players... they become fringe, then squad, then first team, unless they show in a significant way they can handle the first team.

Too many supporters just want them in straight away.

[Davy 68]

Like I keep saying, with youth comes inconsistancy.

At a time where consistancy is vital, as there is no margin for error, I find it insane that people want us to throw the kids in.

[Briton 394]

I would argue that 40 to 50 years ago a player wouldve been considered at his peak around early 20's years old - whereas with the advancement in training methods, sport science, diet study and all round quality of life - I would say a player is considered in peak condition later than that.

Hence the difference where a "youngster" can be up to age 23-24 nowadays.

While I don't think players get a great deal better when it comes to the actual skills needed to play the game...there's a lot of rubbish talked about coaching IMO. Of course experience is worth a lot in all walks of life, and in sport physique comes in to the equation, but I doubt if the majority of 23-24 year olds will ever get much better. Of course I'm talking generally as we're all individuals. I'd draw the line at 21 myself.

[Ace 3,556]

I beleive in the adage ..."If your good enough, your old enough"

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I would argue that 40 to 50 years ago a player wouldve been considered at his peak around early 20's years old - whereas with the advancement in training methods, sport science, diet study and all round quality of life - I would say a player is considered in peak condition later than that.

Hence the difference where a "youngster" can be up to age 23-24 nowadays.

Exactly JR, Pele played in a World Cup Final at 17, can we honestly see that today?

[nvager 498]

I also believe if you are good enough you are old enough and Willie henderson and D Johnstone are two good examples as is BF.

WE can carry a young player or two if thev remainder of thev team is strong.

Give them a chance - if you pick the right games and times in games it should be achieveable.

[Briton 394]

I would argue that 40 to 50 years ago a player wouldve been considered at his peak around early 20's years old - whereas with the advancement in training methods, sport science, diet study and all round quality of life - I would say a player is considered in peak condition later than that.

Hence the difference where a "youngster" can be up to age 23-24 nowadays.

Exactly JR, Pele played in a World Cup Final at 17, can we honestly see that today?

Didn't Wayne Rooney make the England side at 17?