Wycombe's men against West Ham Boys
Interesting article here re Tuesday night game, Great photo of the West Ham team, getting their first sight of 'the Beast'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3824085/It-Wycombe-men-against-West-Ham-boys-no-fans-glamour-cup
0
Comments
three things to pick up from that
1) slightly disappointing that we feel the need to use pre match gamesmanship for a game in the Checkatrade trophy FFS.
2) Confirmation again that WWFC at least believe that we have a playing budget in the bottom three at best.
3) Interesting thought from WH guy. While I like most would oppose B teams in the league, I have previously thought that a compromise might be to allow no more than two England U21 teams (possibly north and south) to play in the league structure. Would this be so bad as long as it didn't expand.
1) Why not? If we're forced to play in this micky mouse cup, and we're just in it for the prize money, lets do our best to win games.
2) Yes, I bet you're relishing that
3) Your worst idea yet. League football should be earned through sweat and blood, to represent towns and cities of the UK. U21 National teams should not be fast-tracked into the system.
An interesting but ultimately top flight football slanted view. I can see West Ham getting plenty of benefit from the competition but surely some of these players should be around the first team rather than waiting for these types of games.
I'm not sure an Ainsworth quote in the Daily Mail would pass any test of making the budget statement a fact. It works for him to keep wheeling out this tired old rubbish
Aside from the general sense of indignation on here about this competition, I genuinely enjoyed Tuesday night's match as it was a good game, we'll see worse fare at AP this season.
Probably because I don't have an issue with the format really given the recent announcement they'll be no B teams in the pyramid at any point. Therefore it is what it is, a chance for the big clubs to field their youngsters while paying clubs in the lower leagues a handsome reward for doing so. I can get comfortable with that, albeit slightly reluctantly, given the financial challenges faced by a supporter owned club such as ours.
Overall, I was less concerned about West Ham developing players for the England team etc and more worried about Wycombe developing players for Wycombe. It gave the likes of Kashket, Freeman and De Havilland a chance to show what they can do and all three played well. Particularly the first two, both of whom could be real gems.
Also encouraging that we're now through the group stage. So maybe we'll have a bit of a cup run alongside our improving league form.
Agree @TheatreOfChairs The point has been made about the bigger picture in football, our club is making some extra coin with a chance of Wembly on the side. The u-23 fiasco is ridiculed and we have bloodied some bodies (both theirs and ours) and the only loss is the ticket and pie money at home games.
Well done to those who Actively protested, point well made. Well done to the thousand odd (about a third of average?) Who turned out to watch the Blues. Well done to GA for setting up to win, meaningless or not. Well done to AH for his honesty in putting WWFC finances first and putting his focus on the club.
And well done to the team for putting in a performance and showing the AP crowd some goals! It can only be a confidence booster to score three at home.
COYB!
For me the competition could work but it has to get over the main hurdle as I see it .
All clubs have to play by the same rules. Wycombe should be able to play who they want in each game, like the u23 squads are.
And conversely, Academy sides should have to play U-23 players (preferably English), otherwise the entire premise - flawed as it is anyway - is rendered pointless.
Personally I think the cup has more point than the league cup, (a pointless rerun of the FA cup without the non league teams to add a bit of romance) which I would happily discontinue tomorrow. But spectators have voted with their feet over many years apart from the latter stages so maybe time to bin this one too. Maybe they should bring back the Anglo-Italian Trophy to compensate!
Not sure our team would have been different regardless of rules, so don't see that making a difference. Don't see three partially non-competitive games in front of a sprinkling of supporters helping the premiership kids much either.
If the clubs think it is worthwhile, run it, if not bin it. Not much fussed either way.
While not evidential proof, I thought the confirmation of the clubs understanding of the comparative budget situation interesting for context purposes. Unlike you, Righty, I take the optimistic view on human nature, so if someone tells me something, I will assume it to be true unless there is evidence to the contrary - (as we saw in the referendum not a commonly held assumption these days).
I understand the argument that if we want international success, we have to address the issue that promising young talents like Reece Oxford need regular playing experience to be good enough to get a game in the highly competitive premier league. The loan system can address this in parts. I don't like the idea of Premier B teams clogging up the league - I can see some merit in one or two England U21 teams playing in the leagues as a compromise experiment for say five years. Would the premier league clubs let it happen? probably not.
So the likes of Rashford would effectively be forced to play against Wycombe, Yeovil and Barnet every week while being unavailable to play for the team which actually pays him?
Surely Prem clubs would be even more keen to avoid signing English youngsters?
Also, FWIW, with regards to this tournament, I don't quite understand why people are making such a fuss of some of the 'U23' teams fielding the odd 30 year old and, god forbid, a handful of 'foreign' players.
The youngsters undoubtedly learn more with a senior pro or two on board, and the foreign players, well... what's the problem there?? Should they not be allowed the privilege of playing in our wonderful country?
Its kind of depressing that our development players (Will DH, Kashket and Freeman) were better than their development players. Bit of an inditement on the system isn't it. I would reckon that maybe one of the WH team will make it through to Premier League status. The saddest cases being the ones that remain in U23 football til they reach 23 then fall straight out of football as they have simply not developed enough for proper competitive football.
There has to be an argument to put youth development totally in the hands of clubs outside the top flight. It seems to me playing against adults has benefits that the Under 21 league just can't recreate.
Just had a quick look and find that WH had 3 17yo, 4 18yo, 1 19yo, 1 20yo, 1 21yo with one with no DOB but looks 17-18 from his photo. Even though they are better technical players, they are going to struggle against motivated match hardened men.
Did they gain much - arguable I would have thought.
Just out of interest I wonder how many the current England squad hadn't played any first team football before the age of 21?
@AttitudeEra Perhaps because the chief selling point of all this was it was supposedly helping develop young English players who weren't getting opportunities in the Premier League or Championship.
Well Righty, I haven't got the time to check them all, but of the six I looked at (at first glance the more likely to fulfil your criteria) - none hadn't played any first team football before 21 - although some of those on loan.
While that might be the case (and I do recall something along the lines of 'this will benefit young English talent'), are you really suggesting a competition for clubs with a rule stating 'only English players under the age of 23 may take part'?
Personally I think that sounds ridiculous and somewhat racist. @MindlessDrugHoover please note I'm not aiming that comment at you personally, I'm just responding to the general sentiment that has been expressed en masse that 'how dare these teams field foreigners and 1 or 2 experienced pros to mentor them'.
And @DevC, I notice you question whether or not these matches have been of any benefit whatsoever to the youngsters involved. I am yet to see a single comment from one of the development teams saying anything other than 'we learned a lot from this'. I'd also venture to say that our own youngsters benefited somewhat. Will De Havilland got some game time to practice yanking opposition forwards to the ground at every opportunity. Nick Freeman scored his first senior goal. Scott Kashket started his first game for us and scored a great goal. Dominic Gape missed out but featured for Southampton days before we signed him, giving him some vital experience of adult football before he got thrown in at the deep end against Luton.
I don't particularly support the competition, I stated my case after Northampton that I just enjoy games and if I can go I generally will.
I don't mind the group thing too much, and I don't think the U23 thing will be renewed next year, though I can't be sure.
I'd bloody well hope you weren't inferring I was in any way, shape or form racist, but when an idea - that I strongly disagree with - is sold to me as helping the English national team (who I have a passing interest in but no more) I'd like to imagine those academies concerned would actually field young English players. West Ham clearly did, and good for them. Reading and Stoke, to name just two, simply seemed to stick out their stiffs. In which case, I have to ask, what really is the point and who does it benefit?
@MindlessDrugHoover no absolutely not aimed at you at all. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of anything.
I think different teams may have got more or less than others out of the experience. Perhaps some only reluctantly agreed to enter in the first place. I don't think this competition can directly lead to a better England squad in the future, but I'm sure that there are benefits, even if one of them is simply allowing lower league managers the chance to scope out potential loan players. Let's face it, the competition has not exactly attracted major crowds over the years. For others who went on Tuesday, was the experience any less enjoyable than Bristol Rovers away last year? It certainly wasn't for me. Would I have enjoyed it any more if we had been playing Barnet or Accrington? Probably not.
@sandsexile I am aware that I may be the only person with this opinion, but to me, simply put, a national football competition which is only open to English youngsters would pretty much be a racist competition. What about the foreign youngsters signed to those clubs? Shall we send them off on an intensive 90 minute English language lesson while the Englishmen play the matches?
We already have enough rules in each competition relating to the number of homegrown players must be selected, I really don't think we need any more.
By all means, try and improve the English national team of the future, but I'm sure there are other ways. Better coaching, mentoring from 17-18 years old to encourage clubs to have a long term plan for their players, encouraging loans and/or moving players into the first team squad to spend time travelling with the team etc.
But putting them in a competition where half of their team mates are not allowed to play because they're French/Spanish/Armenian/Polish, where they go on to play against a team of 11 Englishmen? That's just ridiculous quite frankly.
It's just a view, but IMO one of the reasons the England national team struggles is because so few players ever leave to play their football elsewhere. Spanish national team players are spread throughout Europe in their league football. Same with the French, the Belgians, pretty much every team apart from ours. Maybe if a few more of our players did a Joe Hart and exposed themselves to a different football culture, we may fare better?
I think you're ignoring the original selling point of the academy team inclusions though - it was specifically intended to help develop young English players to benefit the national team. Nothing racist in it - I'd guess that a very significant proportion of those young English players are black.
But you're right - the best way to help the national team is to improve coaching from an early age, and that means better investment in grassroots football - something the top tier of football with all its billions, consistently fails to do. Changing the FLT or introducing academy teams into a league structure does no good.
Could Brexit mean the end of Bosman? Back to a system without free transfers at the end of contracts? I struggle to remember how that worked.
Except that West Ham U23 or Stoke U23 are not national teams. I understand why England would only field English players, I don't understand why anyone would want to force a club team to. Even if it is meant well, I'd imagine there would be more merit in not restricting it, allowing the English youngsters who deserve a place in the U23 to play and flourish, rather than saying 'you can play tonight but it'll probably be your only game as the French and Portuguese are eligible again on Saturday'.
If something like this competition WERE to work I'd say allow the England u21s to enter a team in the JPT, League Cup and FA Cup. You could even offer them a 'second chance' type scenario where they're only knocked out when they've been beaten twice.
Sorry, allow the England u-21s into the fa cup, and they'd only be knocked out once they'd lost twice?
It's taken a while, but someone has finally come up with a worse idea than the late, great My Only Wycombe's suggestion that referees carry around an orange card
@eric_plant it's not what I'd do but what is materially wrong with that idea if we were that keen as a nation to develop our youth for the future. Extra points if someone can answer without reference to 'history' or 'tradition'.
The elephant in the room is too many youngsters are hoarded and stockpiled by the rich clubs in sterile environments where they might be 'technically excellent' under no pressure, but come unstuck playing 3rd and 4th tier teams of journeymen, has-beens and never-weres.
Rather than contorting and contriving ridiculous competitions like this year's Football League Trophy to get them experience of playing with the big boys, how about restricting the amount of youngsters these clubs can hoard and let the others come through the ranks lower down the pyramid?
As for the 'England U21' team shoehorned into the 2nd Division suggestion, is the bloke trying to get himself committed to an asylum?
@ReadingMarginalista Exactly. Therein lies the real problem. To be fair to @AttitudeEra though he may just be auditioning for a job at the FA/EFL
To be fair, I never suggested putting them in a league, that was somebody else!
I did suggest that putting an England U21 teamin the cups might be more beneficial to English football than putting random Stoke/Reading/Southampton U23s in the tinpot trophy. Is that really an inaccurate statement?
The best way to bring on the youth players is to introduce a salary cap on each squad. This means if the teams want big money players they have to complete the squad with youth players rather than expensive make weights from around the world.
Younger players (English or otherwise) have to play first team football. We are in a ludicrous position where even established England internationals are not playing regularly so what chance the new youngsters.
Earlier I asked a question about the current England squad playing first team before they were 21 years old. My point is that most had and that early experience gained is to me key. If you are still playing U21 football at 21 then the chances of you being the next hot talent is not good.
@ReadingMarginalista
You've hit the nail on the head. Premier League clubs should not be allowed to have more than 21 youth players in my opinion. That means they can loan out 5 at anyone one time, and still field a full team and bench of 5 in reserve/youth games.