Do our academy teams EVER win!?

Yes, I know it's only academy/reserve football and we aren't supposed to care about the result, but I can't help think that learning a winning mentality is only going to help younger players.

I refuse to accept that at this level of football the result doesn't matter at all. Yes, ultimately you're trying to produce good footballers but surely if you're doing that then they have to win some games along the way!? Johnson even alluded to this in a recent post-match interview.

This season, our Reserves (Under 21s) have played 13 games and won once (including pre-season games), and our Under 18s have played 16 and won just once.

What's everyone else reckon? Do results matter at academy/reserve level?

 

didnt used to be like that - we had a decent second string. Did well in the cups as well a lot of the time.

losing mentality right though the club by the looks of it.

 

If you're winning some, losing some and drawing some I do't think the result of any one particular game matters. If you're losing just about every week, I reckon it matters. It suggests to me that the team/players aren't good enough. The idea of the academy in not to produce a winning academy side, it's to progress players to the first team. But if they lose every week, what is there to see that makes you want to stick them in the first team? We've already got plenty of firs team players who know how to lose. We don't need any more.

I remember when Wilson dropped Rammell and Payton and brought in Liddell and Jackson. He did that because they were both banging in the goals in the reserves and the reserve team were beating everyone they played. Had the reserve team been getting stuffed every week with Jackson and Liddell offering little, he simply wouldn't have done it.

 

Agree. Imagine how much more confidence George Smith would have if he'd come from a team that was running football matches.

We now have young lads joining our first team set up and they might have literally won a handful of games in the last few years.

 

Ive seen them a few times this season and their awful.. you think the 1st team is bad then go and watxh the academy.
Some very poor players .

 

May as well get used to the way things are going to be whilst you're young.
Anything other than miserable defeat would be a bonus.

 

No.

 

BFC = Brand Loser

 

These young 'uns are being prepared to play in our first team and the one thing Lee needs is resilience. That is the resilience to keep coming out when you get beat every week. If they don't learn it when they're young they'll never learn it.

 

Makes you wonder why we bother with a cat 2 academy

 

Only this season they have been *****, last season l seem to recall them going on a long winning run. They seem to mirror the first team.

 

Given we have the youngest squad in the Division (or not far off), aren't the U21s and U18s all actually younger than they could be? - If we have U18s playing at U21 level and 16-17s playing at U18 then it will give the other sides a physical and developmental advantage over our teams, but in turn it could make our individual players improve faster than playing against players of their own age...

 

Emile Heskey was playing in the under 21"s, he's older than God ffs. How does that work.

 

It's not that many years ago we reached the semi-final of the FA Youth Cup and knocked Man united out along the way. In fact our youth set up was the envy of many and teams like Celtic sent reps to see how we did it. We were always Premier League standard when it came to youth football even before the Academy set-up. About 2 years ago I watched Digby, Smith, Rose et al batter Leeds 3-0 with 70% possession and it was a privilege to watch. The team in the Prem had Watson, Eaden, Moses, Morgan, Scott Jones, Bullock, Liddell etc who'd all played in the youth set up, oh for those players now.
I'm not sure what's gone wrong in recent years, have we changed the scouting system, have we changed the coaching staff? There doesn't appear to be much quality coming through. The malaise at the club is frightening and at this rate of decline we'll be non-league status in a few years.

 

Sorry to be pedantic but we signed Bullock from non league. Eastwood Town I think

 

You're both correct with regards to Martin Bullock. We did indeed sign him for £15,000 from Eastwood Town in 1993. However, he was only 18 at the time. This meant we could, and we did, play him in the Northern Intermediate team. Therefore, although we did sign him from non league football, he also played in the youth set up.

 

What's even worse is he actually scored. Now you know your **** if a 73 year old emile heskey score's against you.

 

Sorry to be pedantic back but I knew he was signed from Eastwood Town, I never said he wasn't.
That's why I carefully worded it "who'd all played in the youth set up" because I actually watched him play for the youth team.
Still doesn't get away from the fact we're no longer introducing good youth players into the first team squad.