[Football] First team vs u23

[Dave the OAP]

Good morning


We were having this discussion at work the other day.

Do you see the U23 team a separated entity in the club rather than an old fashioned reserve team?

It was argued that if a manager wants someone for the first team, they tend to go out in the transfer or loan market and get someone rather than dipping into the U23 squad. Is that because the system is biased towards the two transfer windows where clubs make or spend obscene amounts of money on very average players, or is it that the system of naming 25 man squads stops promotion within the club?

A few Chelsea fans seem to think that the U23 teams should be able to play in the leagues as teams on their own, but of course that would cause issues with promotion , as in how far would they be able to go!

What do people think?

 

[Postman Pat]

Interesting question.

I would hope they spend some time training together so CH can look at all his options and see how they are progressing and if anyone is near getting an opportunity for being selected for a matchday squad, but then have separate time where they can work on specifics for upcoming matches, both the first and U23 squads.

I don't think having U23 teams in the lower divisions is a positive thing for football in this country it would kill off some lower level teams as there wouldn't be enough space so some would go to the wall. I do think if they televised more U23 games on Sky it would increase the profile and make it more competitive. I don't think having kick-offs all over the place help either, never know when they are playing, suddenly its 2pm on a Wednesday afternoon etc....

I do think the feeder club approach might be better, each premier league and Championship club pair up with a lower league club and can send 4/5 players to them rather than the current approach of sending players all over the place.

 

[timbha]

I think we should move away from aiming for a successful U23 team. It’s good for them to get to the highest level so players can be tested but in my mind it’s all about producing top quality players ready to slot into the 1st team, even if it’s just one or two from the squad it would make it viable. It’s also about developing players as a commodity that can be traded, therefore justifying the cost of the u23 set up.

 

[GT49er]

The U23s is a different thing altogether from the reserves. Back in the day, we had a first eleven, which rarely changed much, except for injuries. The reserves often played at the same time as the first team - Saturday afternoons if the Albion were playing away, you could often wander up to the Goldstone to watch the reserves.

Now, of course, the 25 man squad IS in effect the first eleven and the reserves combined - it's just that the reserves don't play games any more.

What I would like to see is the club having a more open policy about U23 matches - like Aston Villa, for example. Televise the matches for a start, whether free like Villa, or a modest charge if the service was actually going to deliver (unlike the farce this season) - and POTG, to encourage more casual - but curious - people to turn up and watch (although I realise PB would probably explode if he had to let people watch his teams without him knowing their name, address, email, mobile number, bank details, inside leg measurement, etc.)

 

[Arkwright]

Once we start seeing more U23 and DS players progressing into the First Team Squad we will get more of a club feeling as opposed to club within a club.
Often wonder how the club gauge the success of the junior teams, is it results, progression into the first team or selling players on.

 

[BNthree]

Think these days everyone seems to want instant results (think of the recent churn of managers at some clubs) and that makes it harder for younger players to acquire the experience they need to be able to play for the first team (bit like job adverts that say experience required, but how does one get the experience in the first place if all jobs require experience!).