| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 11:22 - Nov 17 with 1745 views | Antti_Heinola |
Results are bad, but it's going to take years to fix.
None of us really know if Suckling will be a good director, just because he's worked with Les before doesn't mean he's a bad choice (also doesn't mean he's a good one). People take staff with them wherever they go, giving talented and hard working people a chance with promotion. It's happened to me throughout my career - I've often had jobs I haven't done before, that are a big step up, but I've succeeded in them.
Gallen and the tiny number of coaches he had with him did a fine job under difficult circumstances and did well to produce Jones (who came tp the club quite late, but still), Parrett and Sterling. But really the failings of the U21s and U18s are unlikely to be because how they've been coached for the last few months. It's because they haven't received the right coaching for the last 10 years.
These results are hugely concerning. But there is no quick fix. I know coaches and kids who are starting at the U12 level now, and the changes going on are huge. But we're playing catch-up on almost every level.
Blaming Suckling or Ramsey is like blaming blaming a baker for poor bread when the flour he was given was 10 years old.
Suckling may be a terrible academy director. We won't know for a while though! |  |
|  |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 11:36 - Nov 17 with 1721 views | ElHoop |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 10:30 - Nov 17 by nadera78 |
It's just not true to suggest that Ramsey stuck rigidly to a particular system or formation during his time at QPR. Last season he played 2 up front because the players we had suited that formation. This season he tried to change tack and brought in players to play his preferred way, but then got stuck with a group of senior players who everyone thought would be leaving. But even then, he did change the team structure for certain games. It's completely false to suggest he only played one way regardless of circumstances. |
If i had been happy with the way in which he was running the first team I wouldn't have considered that he could have had much of a detrimental effect on the tactics employed by the younger teams.
But I wasn't happy with what I was seeing on the pitch and it was unusual to see players huffing off to the dressing room or the likes of Charlie tweeting their confusion. The overall picture was one of a level of confusion in the ranks. |  | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 12:04 - Nov 17 with 1683 views | Mvpeter |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 11:14 - Nov 17 by Jamie |
Again showing yourself up Pete. Ramsey was academy director from 04-09 until John McDermott took over and he became u21 manager.
During his time as u21 manager he oversaw Kane, Mason, Bentaleb, Townsend, Walker, Naughton and many more.
Man City have spent £200m on the best academy in the world however don't expect to see results until at least 2022.
Yet in the 12 weeks Ramsey spent working at the club he apparently ruined the QPR setup?  |
'Again showing yourself up Pete. Ramsey was academy director from 04-09 until John McDermott took over and he became u21 manager.'
And you know this how exactly? So he was the manager and Les and Tim were his assistants? So that's why when deciding who to be the caretaker they went in and said 'ah look let's get Tim Sherwood, Chris Ramsey's assistant. He's the obvious choice for a short term fix' And then former assistant Tim Sherwood promotes his former boss to be his assistant. Right.....
During his time as the U21's assistant manager he worked with Kane, Mason, Bentaleb, Townsend, Walker, Naughton and many more. Ask anyone in football when the most vital time to develop youth footballers is. Ask when's the least. The U21's is the answer to one of those questions.
'Man City have spent £200m on the best academy in the world however don't expect to see results until at least 2022.'
Irrelevant to anything anyone has said.
'Yet in the 12 weeks Ramsey spent working at the club he apparently ruined the QPR setup?'
Who said that? |  |
| |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 12:13 - Nov 17 with 1669 views | Mvpeter |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 11:22 - Nov 17 by Antti_Heinola |
Results are bad, but it's going to take years to fix.
None of us really know if Suckling will be a good director, just because he's worked with Les before doesn't mean he's a bad choice (also doesn't mean he's a good one). People take staff with them wherever they go, giving talented and hard working people a chance with promotion. It's happened to me throughout my career - I've often had jobs I haven't done before, that are a big step up, but I've succeeded in them.
Gallen and the tiny number of coaches he had with him did a fine job under difficult circumstances and did well to produce Jones (who came tp the club quite late, but still), Parrett and Sterling. But really the failings of the U21s and U18s are unlikely to be because how they've been coached for the last few months. It's because they haven't received the right coaching for the last 10 years.
These results are hugely concerning. But there is no quick fix. I know coaches and kids who are starting at the U12 level now, and the changes going on are huge. But we're playing catch-up on almost every level.
Blaming Suckling or Ramsey is like blaming blaming a baker for poor bread when the flour he was given was 10 years old.
Suckling may be a terrible academy director. We won't know for a while though! |
Is the fact that it's only now that they are bad and in need of years to fix not concerning or notable?
When you were given the job that was a big step up was that being placed in full control of a business? Did you have people around who were knowledgeable? Or was everyone promoted to a role that was a big step up at the same time coupled with a board of directors who don't understand the industry.
When they were being poorly coached over the last 10 years why were the results improving? Why have they dropped dramatically.
Asking why the bread tastes sht now when the baker has the same ingredients and a slightly better oven is fair imo. | |
| |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 12:39 - Nov 17 with 1649 views | PlanetHonneywood |
Different context, but looking at much of the youth of today, I can't help feeling some of them could do with a good thrashing, and their parents too!
Now back to the football... |  |
| |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:12 - Nov 17 with 1621 views | stevec |
You could possibly go back to the 1970's to find a time when our youth policy genuinely enhanced the first team.
I may have missed it but I haven't noticed anyone bring up the actual cost of running these failing youth teams. At a guess, I'd say somewhere North of £2 million a season.
Given the costs involved and the lack of players produced surely the way forward is to disband our youth sides, then put aside the costs per season saved and use that money to poach the many better set ups around the country. |  | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:16 - Nov 17 with 1616 views | SuffolkHoop |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:12 - Nov 17 by stevec |
You could possibly go back to the 1970's to find a time when our youth policy genuinely enhanced the first team.
I may have missed it but I haven't noticed anyone bring up the actual cost of running these failing youth teams. At a guess, I'd say somewhere North of £2 million a season.
Given the costs involved and the lack of players produced surely the way forward is to disband our youth sides, then put aside the costs per season saved and use that money to poach the many better set ups around the country. |
And why would an 18 year old who plays for Colchester want to move to QPR? To further his career at a club that'll help him develop? |  | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:38 - Nov 17 with 1585 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 12:13 - Nov 17 by Mvpeter |
Is the fact that it's only now that they are bad and in need of years to fix not concerning or notable?
When you were given the job that was a big step up was that being placed in full control of a business? Did you have people around who were knowledgeable? Or was everyone promoted to a role that was a big step up at the same time coupled with a board of directors who don't understand the industry.
When they were being poorly coached over the last 10 years why were the results improving? Why have they dropped dramatically.
Asking why the bread tastes sht now when the baker has the same ingredients and a slightly better oven is fair imo. |
Definitely. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:39 - Nov 17 with 1582 views | stevec |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 13:16 - Nov 17 by SuffolkHoop |
And why would an 18 year old who plays for Colchester want to move to QPR? To further his career at a club that'll help him develop? |
I imagine your average 18 year old would take one look at the filthy lucre on offer, compare it to what he is getting at Colchester and sign post haste on the dotted line.
Not entirely dissimilar to the one shining star we managed to develop post (Falklands) war. | | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 15:45 - Nov 17 with 1529 views | vegasranger |
I'm pretty sure no one said that but he has brought in the likes of Paul Hall and made the youth teams play his lovely 4-2-3-1 system. As for Perry Suckling , I don't think anyone minds a man progressing but what training / experience does he have to be a director? | | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 15:51 - Nov 17 with 1519 views | vegasranger |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 09:11 - Nov 17 by Mvpeter |
The talented coaches who had been unfairly sacked produced Sterling for one alongside my dad (wasn't fired, left a bout 5 years ago in case anyone thinks I'm all bitter about it.) The coaching was the only thing that kept him here till he was 15.
It was all we had going for us and that's why despite as you point out a chronic lack of investment they've been improving the output year on year. They were doing extremely well for the resources handed to them
It is absolutely ridiculous to try to compare the career paths of Suckling and Mourinho or Wenger. That is Claridge level stuff I'm afraid.
They both took very obvious normal gradual paths.
Perry Suckling 10 year as a goalkeeping coach - jump to head of the whole damned academy.
Jose Mourinho youth team coach at Vitória de Setúbal - assistant manager at Estrela da Amadora - scout at Ovarense -coach and translator at Sporting - coach and translator at Porto - assistant manager at Porto - assistant manager at Barcelona - assistant manager at Benfica - Manager of Benfica
Arsene Wenger was quicker but he still went - coach at RC Strasbourg - youth manager at RC Strasbourg - youth and reserve manager at RC Strasbourg - assistant manager at AS Cannes - manager at Nancy.
These are far more reasonable career paths. The issue isn't so much that it's a step up and a big step up. It's that's its almost exclusively a huge step up at every level of the club. While Mourinho and Wenger were performing those early roles they were learning. Who's teaching them?
Lack of investment is why we're sht, the question asked is why have we recently become shitter when we were improving. |
Great response Mypeter. I would like to add ( I've mentioned it a few times ) but Paul Hall has no experience at our level to be in charge of the youth set up. There has for years been a lack of investment but Steve Gallen and his coaches kept the youth set up at least competitive. Produced a few player that could play Div 1 / 2. Right now it looks like we are producing players for non league. I think we should just scrap the youth set up and start a fresh. | | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 15:55 - Nov 17 with 1503 views | francisbowles |
Looking at the names from this defeat, I don't think many of them were around last season. Is this by any chance a very young team? | | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 16:44 - Nov 17 with 1483 views | Chesshoop |
First year scholars with the exception of 2 listed. | | | |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 17:10 - Nov 17 with 1452 views | Northernr |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 09:11 - Nov 17 by Mvpeter |
The talented coaches who had been unfairly sacked produced Sterling for one alongside my dad (wasn't fired, left a bout 5 years ago in case anyone thinks I'm all bitter about it.) The coaching was the only thing that kept him here till he was 15.
It was all we had going for us and that's why despite as you point out a chronic lack of investment they've been improving the output year on year. They were doing extremely well for the resources handed to them
It is absolutely ridiculous to try to compare the career paths of Suckling and Mourinho or Wenger. That is Claridge level stuff I'm afraid.
They both took very obvious normal gradual paths.
Perry Suckling 10 year as a goalkeeping coach - jump to head of the whole damned academy.
Jose Mourinho youth team coach at Vitória de Setúbal - assistant manager at Estrela da Amadora - scout at Ovarense -coach and translator at Sporting - coach and translator at Porto - assistant manager at Porto - assistant manager at Barcelona - assistant manager at Benfica - Manager of Benfica
Arsene Wenger was quicker but he still went - coach at RC Strasbourg - youth manager at RC Strasbourg - youth and reserve manager at RC Strasbourg - assistant manager at AS Cannes - manager at Nancy.
These are far more reasonable career paths. The issue isn't so much that it's a step up and a big step up. It's that's its almost exclusively a huge step up at every level of the club. While Mourinho and Wenger were performing those early roles they were learning. Who's teaching them?
Lack of investment is why we're sht, the question asked is why have we recently become shitter when we were improving. |
That wasn't really the point I was making about Mourinho and Wenger, but it was a point lazily made on my part so that's my fault and I apologise.
I'll have another go. When people ring Steve Claridge's radio show and he disagrees with them, once he's run out of his meagre argument he quickly resorts to "well I've played football and you haven't so I know and you don't." Suckling may well be completely out of his depth and sht at his job, I've no idea, but to simply write him off completely on the basis that he's 'only' been a goalkeeping coach before ignores the fact that in football, and every type of business, people are promoted and make the step up successfully all the time while people who should be fcking brilliant when you look at their CV - Bryan Robson, Phillip Beard - are actually useless. Clubs took chances on Mourinho and Wenger early in their careers when they had meagre CVs, Villas Boas the same and he's coming good now it seems. Scunthorpe promoted their physio to be caretaker manager because he was the only full time staff member left after a sacking and it turned out to be Nigel Adkins. It does happen.
Suckling may be absolute crap, here in a jobs for the boys capacity, and his teams certainly aren't doing a lot to dampen that feeling down at the moment. Or he may have learnt a great deal during a decade at one of the best academies in the country - one that is actually produced some players for its first team - which he can now bring here. You're very quick to tell other people what they don't know or can't say - you don't know and cannot say which is the case about him.
Since Suckling has taken over we've gone from six scouts to 36 and opened a new facility at Cranford. Also the announcement today, linked to further up the thread. The effects of that will take years to be felt though.
I agree, it is bizarre and deeply concerning that results have fallen off a cliff. Quite possibly it is partly because the coaches aren't very good but I'd say there's also other factors at play - long term underinvestment at the same time as big investments were being made by several other clubs on our patch over the past ten years which are only just starting to bear fruit for them being the prime one of them. Nothing is ever black and white in situations like this, with one root cause. Many of these lads would have been in our system long before Suckling, Impey, Hall etc were appointed, and I doubt the results would suddenly improve if they all left.
And please feel free to hang your hat (or your dad's hat) on Raheem Sterling if you like. I asked how many first team regulars has the QPR academy produced for QPR. The answer is none, really, since Richard Langley. I'd generously let you have Marcus Bean as one and obviously what happened to Ray Jones was a tragedy. That's still only two in more than a decade. All this "at least they kept it competitive" business, "at leats they produced some League Two players" - the job is to produce first team players for QPR, as Steve Gallen says himself, and they've managed none.
You can't really say that's because of underinvestment, but the current results are because the coaches aren't good enough. It's a mixture of all of these things.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:10 - Nov 17 with 1387 views | derbyhoop |
The dome at Cranford, increasing the scouts from 5 to 37 and today's announcement about the pre-Academy programme indicate a significant investment. SteveC's guess at the Youth setup costing £2m+ is almost certainly overstated. The scouts are likely to be paid a pittance and Matt O'Brien won't be on big money. Incidentally, he was gutted when he didn't make it at Rangers and it almost put him out of the game.
However, we won't be competing with Chelsea, Spurs or Arsenal in the next 10 years but, if the announcements above are anything to go by we might start to compete with Reading, Fulham and Brentford.
We can either do it properly or we shouldn't do it at all. Looks like, under Les' watch, we're going for the former. [Post edited 17 Nov 2015 19:17]
|  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 19:57 - Nov 17 with 1364 views | Mvpeter |
| Under 18's lose 8-1 in Essex on 17:10 - Nov 17 by Northernr |
That wasn't really the point I was making about Mourinho and Wenger, but it was a point lazily made on my part so that's my fault and I apologise.
I'll have another go. When people ring Steve Claridge's radio show and he disagrees with them, once he's run out of his meagre argument he quickly resorts to "well I've played football and you haven't so I know and you don't." Suckling may well be completely out of his depth and sht at his job, I've no idea, but to simply write him off completely on the basis that he's 'only' been a goalkeeping coach before ignores the fact that in football, and every type of business, people are promoted and make the step up successfully all the time while people who should be fcking brilliant when you look at their CV - Bryan Robson, Phillip Beard - are actually useless. Clubs took chances on Mourinho and Wenger early in their careers when they had meagre CVs, Villas Boas the same and he's coming good now it seems. Scunthorpe promoted their physio to be caretaker manager because he was the only full time staff member left after a sacking and it turned out to be Nigel Adkins. It does happen.
Suckling may be absolute crap, here in a jobs for the boys capacity, and his teams certainly aren't doing a lot to dampen that feeling down at the moment. Or he may have learnt a great deal during a decade at one of the best academies in the country - one that is actually produced some players for its first team - which he can now bring here. You're very quick to tell other people what they don't know or can't say - you don't know and cannot say which is the case about him.
Since Suckling has taken over we've gone from six scouts to 36 and opened a new facility at Cranford. Also the announcement today, linked to further up the thread. The effects of that will take years to be felt though.
I agree, it is bizarre and deeply concerning that results have fallen off a cliff. Quite possibly it is partly because the coaches aren't very good but I'd say there's also other factors at play - long term underinvestment at the same time as big investments were being made by several other clubs on our patch over the past ten years which are only just starting to bear fruit for them being the prime one of them. Nothing is ever black and white in situations like this, with one root cause. Many of these lads would have been in our system long before Suckling, Impey, Hall etc were appointed, and I doubt the results would suddenly improve if they all left.
And please feel free to hang your hat (or your dad's hat) on Raheem Sterling if you like. I asked how many first team regulars has the QPR academy produced for QPR. The answer is none, really, since Richard Langley. I'd generously let you have Marcus Bean as one and obviously what happened to Ray Jones was a tragedy. That's still only two in more than a decade. All this "at least they kept it competitive" business, "at leats they produced some League Two players" - the job is to produce first team players for QPR, as Steve Gallen says himself, and they've managed none.
You can't really say that's because of underinvestment, but the current results are because the coaches aren't good enough. It's a mixture of all of these things.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
That's fair enough.
The thing is I haven't written him off because of that. If I was I'd have written him off when he was hired. I haven't actually written him off now. Just concerned with the academy.
The point I made was that the situations for those promotions in all professions are different. It's very rarely such a step for one thing but when it is they are working with those who understand the industry. A stable environment in which mistakes can be mitigated. We don't have that.
I don't know he's here purely as its jobs for the boys but a combination of factors gives me a reasonable belief. We have seemingly, and I'll concede seemingly, only attempted to bring in the boys. Sherwood Ramsey Suckling Ramsey as his choices for the most important roles each time a decision has come up. Lower down the age groups that's certainly, I'm told, the case there. It may be that he really trusts and believes in them but I find it curious.
And then after a not insignificant amount of time, the only real judge we have of the state of the academy, and I understand that it's a rule of thumb, is that the results have plummeted and that is across the age groups which negates the 'a bad crop that year' argument which suggests that a change in approach has influenced the downturn in results. These are like for like. Our 15 year olds were capable of beating their 15 year olds and now one year later are being trounced by the same kids now both are 16. Recruitment doesn't cause that.
The most important factor for me is that if these things were happening there is nothing to stop it. The board do not know how a football club is supposed to operate.
You speak of black and white and then say that they also didn't produce first team players therefore they achieved the same. An Academy's output is incremental. An academy capable of producing League One players will find it easier to improve to Championship level than a non-league academy would.
You actually can say that with the same level of investment, the same kids and slightly improved facilities that the results are comparable especially given the large different in those results. [Post edited 17 Nov 2015 19:59]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
