Smith Calls For Rule Change

[Stardog 11]

Not sure if this has been posted already or not - http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Ne...1093269,00.html

WALTER SMITH belives it is time for the SPL to have a serious look at scrapping the current rule which forces clubs to name three under-21 players in their 18-man squads.

It is a ruling that frustrates Smith on two fronts. Firstly, it means several of his experienced players are forced to sit in the stand each weekend with only three substitute slots available for senior outfield players for each league match.

Secondly, the manager feels it is a system that promotes youth players based on age rather than merit and often before they are ready to be involved at first-team level.

The manager said: "I feel that the under-21 ruling pushes you to put a young player in there and let's them think they've achieved a certain level without them actually doing anything to achieve that level.

"We've had young players come in to our team over the years - Barry Ferguson, Charlie Miller and Steven Pressley, for example - and every one of them has done so regardless of their age.

"In the next few years I'm sure we will have several young players here pushing their way into the first-team but they won't do so because they are under 21 but rather because they are good footballers.

"That should be the criteria for picking a team, not because of someone's age. A lot of younger players are getting involved in first-team games far too easily simply because of their age and not because they're making the demands of football. That's wrong.

"It's leading to some young players having the wrong attitude towards what they should be doing.

"Players should strive to get in the first-team. They shouldn't be getting there just because there is a ruling that states there must be X number of players of a certain age involved in each match.

"That's the biggest problem, in my mind, with the under-21 rule. It's a nonsense that a player gets his involvement due to his age rather than his ability."

Those in favour of the under-21 rule may argue that it was created to ultimately help the Scottish national team although when international hopefuls like Charlie Adam and Alan Gow find themselves not even stripped on a Saturday afternoon it seems something of a moot point.

Smith admits it is sometimes difficult to keep his entire squad happy when league rules dictate that certain players must yo-yo in and out the team to meet requirements.

He added: "I don't think the under-21 rule does anything to help the overall spirit of the team.

"You know you can only use three senior outfield players as replacements in a match, unless you have a number of under-21 players available to you, which means you have the situation where you have to leave a lot of players out which is never a good thing.

"It would be better if the players could feel like they were involved, even as a substitute.

"As it stands just now you have to leave out reasonably experienced players who then feel like they're not getting any opportunity to get close to the team."

I think it's a stupid rule to have 3 under-21's. Was the rule just started this season. I thought it used to be 2.

[excoriate 0]

In addition to the 3 Under 21s rule, were the number of subs not also increased?

Don't really hear any other managers complain about the 3 players rule, mainly because they aren't so reluctant to using youngsters.

[Stardog 11]

We've been allowed 7 on the bench for a while.

[finzster 0]

Whilst I agree with the fundamentals of WS's statement; I still think it is to the benefit of Scottish players if the rule remains.

What I dont agree with in his statement is the part where he says the younguns think they have made it when they reach the bench. I would have thought it would spur them onto greater things when they see it so close?

I'm all for the rule remaining in place - with a slight adaption:

Rather than the 3 u-21's, it would be more beneficial to state 3 home developed players. Think about Hibs, and say they kept all their players. Feasibly they could have a squad of 18 all around 22-24 years old. 3 of the squad would have to drop out for 3 under 21's, despite the fact all their players may have come through their youth system.

Watty just needs to blood more younguns !

[Bazza 21]

This has been posted, but I still agree with what Walter is saying.

[Stardog 11]

Whilst I agree with the fundamentals of WS's statement; I still think it is to the benefit of Scottish players if the rule remains.

Think about Hibs, and say they kept all their players. Feasibly they could have a squad of 18 all around 22-24 years old. 3 of the squad would have to drop out for 3 under 21's, despite the fact all their players may have come through their youth system.

I don't think it benefits Scottish players at all. Like you say, when players hit 22 they can find themselves dropped completely. I know Charlie Adam is shit, but he would be on the bench if the under-21 rule wasn't there, so a Scottish player who has worked his way up has just been booted out for a 21-year-old nobody, even if Adam was playing well.

I don't think the under-21's would be spurred on. Some of them would think they're on the brink of making it, when they're actually just making up numbers, and aren't even close to being good enough.