Academy Report 24/01/09

Is it the coaching that's the problem or the 'raw materials' they have to work with?

There's only so much coaching that can be done. If the kids in the academy are not good enough, they're just not good enough.

 

I have not suggested that you do not support the Academy, however your reports are read by many people who do not watch the Academy games and consequently may form opinions based on them. This is your first report of the year and you started it by taking away any of the positives from the away win at Sheffield. A game which you did not see!
You went to the trouble of collating facts about Sheffield Wednesday which I do not feel were relevant in this match report and merely serve to undermine any progress the Academy is making.
I think it is good that the Academy lads play strong opposition in reserve fixtures but their progress would be assisted by players like Steele, Odejayi etc. being in the team. It is also good for the fitness of the first team players. When did Steele last face a shot in anger? I realise that the squad is stretched and Davey has to be careful but there have been occasions when more of them could have been included.
Finally, by bringing up the Youth Cup defeat from 2007 and linking it to one from last year, you have a strange way of showing your support for Academy!

 

That may well be true but if we had coaches with better reputations, throughout the club, then we might be able to entice better quality youngsters into the system.

 

I will say it once again, the club must find a way of improving the academy or those who would like to see it closed will win their argument. If you close your eyes to the facts, it does not mean that they will go away. The facts remain to eat away at the structure and undermine it. Ultimately, the academy will not be judged by the result on Saturday versus Forest, nor my interpretation of that or any other result. It will be judged by the number of players that it produces for the first team. In that respect, the performance in recent years of the academy is dreadful. We have debated the reasons for this on here from time to time and those debates have been largely inconclusive. Nevertheless, the debate must go on inside the club and an answer must be found because I believe that the youth of Barnsley deserves its chance.

 

I also went to the Leeds game and in all honesty Barnsley did alright,plenty of Ist years playing and all trying against a strong Leeds side,Roobs needs a rest from playing against these sides and needs a month just playing for the Academy, for a 15 or 16 year old to be playing against this opposition is asking a lot.Im involved Red Rain in Centre of Excellence football and see Academy teams just now and then but I find it a bit puzzling when you have 2 coaches,one coach from Barnsley and one from Leeds both have the same coaching badges,both teams Academys,why is it that Leeds produce far more talent then than Barnsley?Im not knocking Barnsley,I love the club but when I see Barnsleys Academy play its hard and determined but without a lot of skill,when you watch Leeds Academy its nice quick passing and plenty of movement with skill in abundance,Barnsley have a few that could make the grade but Leeds have 4 or 5 kids that are already valued at over 1m(Delph 5 or 6m, Aidy White over 2m to just name two of them) remember the coaches have the same grades,how is it then that Leeds players are worth millions but Barnsleys players might only make the grade?

 

I pretty much agree with all of that. I think RNL would have been substituted on Saturday but Branson picked up a bad injury and we had already made two substitutions. There was little doubt that he was tired. He will not be as fit as the others because he is still at school. Having said all that, I fear that we may be in danger of "killing the golden goose" if he does not get some top notch coaching. On Saturday our coaches were constantly on his case about being aware of his positioning when the opposition has the ball (he played in the hole behind the striker), but the lad is just 15 for goodness sake. We may turn him off the game if we are not carefull.

 

</p>

I'm sorry Red Rain, althoughI agree thatyou do &quot;state facts&quot; as you say,its the negative way that you describe events from the match such as aplayer &quot;inexplicably lost his man from a cross&quot; or &quot;a piece of play that was again embarrassing for Reid&quot; or &quot;when Reid was embarrassed once more&quot; or &quot;More embarrassment followed for Reid on 82 minutes&quot; !!!!</p>

Repeatedlystating that a player was &quot;embarrassed&quot; isn't stating a FACT, thats your opinion. </p>

I don't have a problem with you giving your opinion, everyone is entitled, but don't try and mask your obvious dislike of the Academy set up and the people that run it by claiming that your simply &quot;stating facts&quot;.</p>

Ps, if I was Sean Reid's Dad I'd be looking for you at the next game for a little chat !!!!</p>

 

spot on

 

I said that my "initial preamble" contained only facts, which it did. Obviously my report of the game contains opinions, as do all reports of games. You seem to think that I am hard on the players named. Perhaps you are right, but in the case of Branson for the first chance, I was not the only one. His coach gave him a right telling off, heard by myself and everyone else who was watching. In the case of Reid, in afraid he got a good chasing from a very good opponent who scored 2, set up the third and also hit a post. He was beaten twice, embarrassingly, near the half-way line when he committed himself to challenges instead of staying on his feet. What do you want me to say, if I was him, I would have been embarrassed.

 

</p>

Thats fair enough and like I said you're entitled to your opinion. I don't see the Academy games so I can't comment.</p>

I'm not saying your wrong, but like you said Reid was against a very good opponent, that's something that happens to the best of them.... butto say he was repeatedly embarrassed is probably the worst thing you can say about a player and in my opinion unfair.</p>

IfSean Reid hasread your report it will probably bother him more than anything that was said to himon the day.</p>

 

I am a little bit confused about what you feel is the role of the coaches. If they were telling RNL what to do when he hasn't got the ball, then isn't that coaching? Surely this will help him? He will need to know if he is going to play in the first team or 10,000 people will be telling him.
RNL is only one school year younger than most of the boys playing on Saturday but it seems it's OK for a couple of them to get slaughtered. Perhaps there is a lack of consistency here?

 

My position on coaching is consistent. I believe the lads cannot take on what a coach is saying in the middle of a match, in the heat of battle so to speak. We see lots of opposition coaches and none of them coach during games as much as the Barnsley coaches. I thought things had improved in this respect when Mr Branson stepped back from match day duties, and indeed, Mark Burton is nowhere near as bad. How do you expect to find a players faults and for that matter strengths unless you allow him to make his own mistakes. Having found the players mistakes, the coaches have all week to talk about them and correct them.

Is there nothing else on this board that interests you other than my academy reports? Of course, I am flattered that you should take the time to reply, but out of 38 posts, 37 have been to tell me that my reports and subsequent thoughts are rubbish. Why?

 

Not being funny - but who is Ronnie Branson?

Where has he come form, what is his background in the game?

Or is he just Don's mate?

 

I do not know much about him either. I think that he used to be a teacher.

 

I think you really do flatter yourself to think I look for things in your reports to rubbish you with. I watch all the first team home games and go to see the Reserves and Academy whenever I can. I don't comment on the first team because hundreds of other people do that and an alternative viewpoint is always expressed. However, with Academy games, it is often only your viewpoint that people see. Some people only have your reports to go on. You take the time to write a report which some people find useful and that is fine but you become very defensive if anyone challenges you or offers a different perspective. Your opinion is just your opinion, no more or less valid than mine or anyone else's.
In my opinion, the lads have made progress since the start of the season and your dislike of the coaches may be influencing your judgement. I felt your last report was bitter and without perspective. I have just read that three of the lads played a behind closed doors game with the first team the day before. No wonder there were some tired legs out there!

 

how can a player who according to red rain rarely starts and is sadly fading away is then according to red is given the short straw by being picked to play on the left wing that along with his personal assanation of reid gives me the impression he wants lads to fail so that he can get on the coaches back
is there some history between them ?

 

I am not a professional journalist as I think you can tell. I write these academy reports because I believe in the academy and like to watch the lads improve. I believe in the academy and support it. I originally began writing these reports in order that people who were unable or unwilling to attend the games had some idea about who was coming through and who to watch out for. To be honest, it used to be a joy watching them develop from being raw 16 year olds to 18 year olds with a future in the game. I have been watching the academy now for 6 years and to be honest, it is becoming less of a joy and I am having less opportunity to pass on my underlying enthusiasm. The standard has definately gone down since the days when the academy was run by Mark Smith.
You say my last report was bitter and without perspective, and yet you have said earlier in the thread that you did not attend the game. How are you able to judge. I used the word embarrassed, a word that generally has connotations of going red in the face over some trifling error, and yet you and, in fairness, some other posters on here have attributed to the word a level of critisism equivalent to "worse than useless". To say that you are going over the top about the use of the word would be an understatement. If you remember, a couple of months ago the same lad that I used the word embarrassed about, I also awarded my MotM. I do not have favourites. I tell it like it is. If a lad has a good game, I say so. If he has a bad game I say so but in less strong terms. Embarrassed, in my view of that word is as weak as it comes. As for the fact that they might have played against the first team, did that make them better on Saturday. Is that an excuse that I should make if I am unaware that they did so.
To suggest that my opinion of the coaches may be influencing my judgement is simply laughable. You were not at the game on Saturday and in my view the report, which basically only gives an account of the 3 goals, does so accurately. A statement like that would only be valid if you felt that my reports were biased on an ongoing basis. Perhaps you would like to justify your judgement of my reports by referring to previous reports of games that you did see.

 

</p>

I've played football to a pretty good standard, done my coaching badges etc...</p>

In football terms, to say that a player has been &quot;embarrassed&quot; continually is one of the worst things you can say... In football speak its a bit of ano no...</p>

I underastand thatthis is something you may not be aware of but I hope that you'll take it on board and maybe not use the term as much in future.</p>

 

Fair enough. I can honestly say that I was unaware of the football connotations of the word. Perhaps we can drop it now>

 

Keep the reports coming Red Rain (nodding2fingers)