Academy & U21s

[rigger]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The likes of Vale and Markanday will be 24 at the start of next season.

To put that into context, Shearer was 24 when we started the 94/95 season. Jansen was 24 at when we got promoted and started the Worthy cup winning season.

They aren't teenagers anymore. They should be almost at their peak now.

The problem is, they might be, but it is all we can afford.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, rigger said:

The problem is, they might be, but it is all we can afford.

We can afford better, just choose not to.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

How do you know this, but more importantly, how do you know JDT was actually happy with either?

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/23786661.gregg-broughton-explains-mystery-blackburn-rovers-medical/

Broughton said during a podcast with Elliott Jackson that JDT picked Telalovic over this La Liga

[chaddyrovers]

8 hours ago, bluebruce said:

That just isn't true. Probably gonna piss you both off here... I actually agree with your point that RF99 is too quick to say youth players aren't ready. I think he has an inherent bias towards older, more experienced players and if a youth player comes in and doesn't outperform all the senior 11 he seems to want them dropped. And I understand the reason for his caution in that area, I just think he takes it a bit far. It's a bit of a fear of the unknown I guess.

But Vale wasn't ready at all. He was shit for us. That's why he has struggled to make any impact here or elsewhere. He displayed entirely the wrong attitude on plenty of occasions and frankly seems lazy. I can't say that about Garrett, who I do think is good enough to be a squad player from what I've seen (though I must admit I had to miss, due to work, a few of the games around the time he got the most criticism). Wharton was actually more ready than JDT was giving him credit for, I said that at the time, and time has borne it out. Barnes, we'll never know as injuries fucked him over, and he barely played. Leonard has had probably roughly the amount of game time he deserved relative to the striking options we had, but by God we should have had better striking options. Phillips was ready for what he got, I'd argue should have had a little more but not tons.

Vale though...no, not at all. After early cameos which showed promise, he was shit.

You seem to think (and from many posts, not just this one) the manager doing something automatically means it's the right decision. It doesn't.

I would say that isn't the case. If our head coach  has decide something and I disagree I Will say. I thought loaning out Duru was a mistake. Should have been Brittain back up not JRC who isnt a right back

I believe in giving our young players a proper chance and if they are ready then bring them through. Aged shouldnt matter..

Agree on Garrett l. 

Injures is Leonard's problem

Edited 11 hours ago by chaddyrovers

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

The likes of Vale and Markanday will be 24 at the start of next season.

To put that into context, Shearer was 24 when we started the 94/95 season. Jansen was 24 at when we got promoted and started the Worthy cup winning season.

They aren't teenagers anymore. They should be almost at their peak now.

Both shouldn't be here next season.and their contract shouldn't be renew

[Exiled_Rover]

On 13/05/2025 at 23:42, bluebruce said:

Having any kind of minutes target for playing academy players is an outright admission of wanting to play young players for the sake of it rather than when they're ready.

I've honestly no problem with a minutes target for Academy graduates - our Academy is the only reason we still have a football club, in my opinion, it's saved us over the last decade of incompetence / budget cuts.

That said in order to promote youth you simply HAVE to have a strong  core of 15-18 players in your First Team. We obviously don't currently have that and won't spend the money to make it a reality either. 

[islander200]

38 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/23786661.gregg-broughton-explains-mystery-blackburn-rovers-medical/

Broughton said during a podcast with Elliott Jackson that JDT picked Telalovic over this La Liga

He can't have been that much of a fan of Telalovic as he hardly ever started him .

Clearly JDT wanted better 

[joey_big_nose]

1 hour ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I've honestly no problem with a minutes target for Academy graduates - our Academy is the only reason we still have a football club, in my opinion, it's saved us over the last decade of incompetence / budget cuts.

That said in order to promote youth you simply HAVE to have a strong  core of 15-18 players in your First Team. We obviously don't currently have that and won't spend the money to make it a reality either. 

Yes... I think there is an bias against youth from managers who prefer to work with experienced players. But usually young players do better than expected in my time watching rovers. Sure they might not be brilliant, but compared to other not brilliant older players the gap is not maybe as big as anticipated. 

Creating an expectation to play youth is a good thing imo. Adds risks, but then again we have seen some really poor performances from players who are 28+ so I wouldn't sweat it too much.

I'd say the balance in the ideal XI you would want is 

- 3 experienced pros (29 to 33 y.o.)

- 5 mid career established pros (23 to 29 yo)

- 3 promising young players from the academy (18 to 23 y.o.)

An issue is often those young player spots are taken up by loans which is great when you get next level quality like Harvey Elliot or Van Hecke. But when it's mediocre performers like ACD etc we're giving away valuable experience to other clubs.

All of this is a bit pointless if we can't get those young players to sign long contracts though and let them walk away for free.

Edited 10 hours ago by joey_big_nose

[KentExile]

Harvey Higgins signed up, no news about Eze

 

 

[MarkBRFC]

Like Finneron last year, if Eze isn't announced now with the rest of them then I think its pretty safe to say he won't be staying.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I would say that isn't the case. If our head coach  has decide something and I disagree I Will say. I thought loaning out Duru was a mistake. Should have been Brittain back up not JRC who isnt a right back

I believe in giving our young players a proper chance and if they are ready then bring them through. Aged shouldnt matter..

Agree on Garrett l. 

Injures is Leonard's problem

I watched Duru in that game at Rochdale. From what I saw he’s nowhere near ready for a first team spot. The game just  passed him by.

Edited 10 hours ago by Tyrone Shoelaces

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I've honestly no problem with a minutes target for Academy graduates - our Academy is the only reason we still have a football club, in my opinion, it's saved us over the last decade of incompetence / budget cuts.

That said in order to promote youth you simply HAVE to have a strong  core of 15-18 players in your First Team. We obviously don't currently have that and won't spend the money to make it a reality either. 

I think to specifically lay out objectives of certain minutes played is the issue though. If it was a case of try and bring graduates through where possible, but its flexible, then theres less risk that we start bringing through kids that arent ready purely to hit the objective. We will have years where there are talented players ready to feature like Wharton and Phillips, but also dry spells. The issue is the likes of Vale, Garrett and even the amount of game time Leonard got were as a result of the inadequacies of the squad and budget, not because they justified those minutes.

For example, we wouldnt have needed an objective in place to blood Wharton and Phillips as they were justifiably part of the team/squad.

[wilsdenrover]

The academy’s aim should be to produce first team players.

This doesn’t (or shouldn’t ) equate to the first team having a target to use academy players. 

[bluebruce]

4 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I've honestly no problem with a minutes target for Academy graduates - our Academy is the only reason we still have a football club, in my opinion, it's saved us over the last decade of incompetence / budget cuts.

That said in order to promote youth you simply HAVE to have a strong  core of 15-18 players in your First Team. We obviously don't currently have that and won't spend the money to make it a reality either. 

So you believe we should play youth players regardless of whether they're ready, to meet that target? If you don't, the target is meaningless, as it's just something we're hoping for. If you do, then we risk losing points to meet the target by playing young players ahead of better players.

The strong core you mention only means lots of strong players ahead of them. If there's no injury crisis there may be no reason to play them beyond the arbitrary target. 3000 minutes btw is the equivalent of 33.33 full matches. So it's more or less like having one of the starting 11 be a youth player for 33 games of the season, and them not coming off. I know it wouldn't work like that, but the point is it's not the kind of minutes total that is likely to be reached with sub appearances even from a few young players.

I'm in favour of bringing through players from our excellent academy btw, when they're ready. But unless we find we have a generational talent again like Wharton, the path looks like this to me:

The best youth players are put into a development pool of sorts. They get substitute appearances when there is a need, or when the game is in the bag. They get starts and substantial minutes in cup games, especially against lower league opposition and especially at home. If in any of these appearances they display ability or form on par with the senior players, they get more substantial chances to play as they prove themselves.

Results always come first. Reaching a minutes quota for the sake of it doesn't come into consideration. How the youngsters (and senior players) perform in training in the eyes of the manager does though. That's how I feel it should go.

[davulsukur]

3 hours ago, KentExile said:

Harvey Higgins signed up, no news about Eze

 

 

Was this the lad who was wanted by Arsenal? Seems like a bit of a coup keeping hold of him?

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Was this the lad who was wanted by Arsenal? Seems like a bit of a coup keeping hold of him?

Higgins, yes apparently he was wanted by Arsenal

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/34302744/arsenal-transfer-strikerharvey-higgins-blackburn/

https://dailycannon.com/2025/04/arsenal-harvey-higgins-blackburn-rovers/

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/who-is-harvey-higgins-the-blackburn-rovers-starlet-eyed-by-arsenal/

[DutchRover]

He's a local lad no? So hopefully sees the sense in staying while he develops like Wharton did.

Look at Finneran and Phillips who chased the big move too soon and haven't got very far.

[Hasta]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/23786661.gregg-broughton-explains-mystery-blackburn-rovers-medical/

Broughton said during a podcast with Elliott Jackson that JDT picked Telalovic over this La Liga

So we don't know that JDT signed off on Telalovic over La Liga man. And we certainly don't know (the main point) that JDT was happy with either.

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

So you believe we should play youth players regardless of whether they're ready, to meet that target? If you don't, the target is meaningless, as it's just something we're hoping for. If you do, then we risk losing points to meet the target by playing young players ahead of better players.

The strong core you mention only means lots of strong players ahead of them. If there's no injury crisis there may be no reason to play them beyond the arbitrary target. 3000 minutes btw is the equivalent of 33.33 full matches. So it's more or less like having one of the starting 11 be a youth player for 33 games of the season, and them not coming off. I know it wouldn't work like that, but the point is it's not the kind of minutes total that is likely to be reached with sub appearances even from a few young players.

I'm in favour of bringing through players from our excellent academy btw, when they're ready. But unless we find we have a generational talent again like Wharton, the path looks like this to me:

The best youth players are put into a development pool of sorts. They get substitute appearances when there is a need, or when the game is in the bag. They get starts and substantial minutes in cup games, especially against lower league opposition and especially at home. If in any of these appearances they display ability or form on par with the senior players, they get more substantial chances to play as they prove themselves.

Results always come first. Reaching a minutes quota for the sake of it doesn't come into consideration. How the youngsters (and senior players) perform in training in the eyes of the manager does though. That's how I feel it should go.

I'm ok with 5-7 spots in the 25 man squad being reserved for Academy graduates, yes.

Your suggestion is how I would run it too - a number of graduates rotated through the bench and given minutes off the bench to see what they're made of when the result is no longer in doubt.

As I said the problem we'll run into is that the 15-18 core players would have to be really good and we're simply not going to fund that. You can't have the likes of Forshaw. JRC (as much as it pains me to say it) or Buckley around the squad either, they're passengers. 

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

Was this the lad who was wanted by Arsenal? Seems like a bit of a coup keeping hold of him?

The system is absolutely broken when keeping hold of a kid you've developed since he was 8 years old is seen as a 'coup'.

The authorities need to get a handle on this for the good of the game. 

[KentExile]

32 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

He's a local lad no? So hopefully sees the sense in staying while he develops like Wharton did.

Look at Finneran and Phillips who chased the big move too soon and haven't got very far.

May have played a part, apparently been in the academy for 10+ years too

Not sure we can say Phillips hasn't got far, probably getting paid more than anyone currently at Rovers, and has played pretty much 1.5 out of 2 years at Championship level since he left

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/stoke-city-hopes-of-tottenham-ashley-phillips-transfer-agreement-played-down/

I would hazard a bet that like Phillips, Finneran will also be playing at a decent level next season, and also is on a wage much higher than he would be getting at Rovers

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

Was this the lad who was wanted by Arsenal? Seems like a bit of a coup keeping hold of him?

I wouldn't get too excited, it's only a scholarship. Finneran had one of those too. Until we can and hopefully do sign him to full pro terms when he turns 17 (and hopefully without a release clause like Phillips insisted on), we haven't achieved full protection on him. It's as good as we can do for now though, but it only really kicks the can down the road til next summer and gains us a bit more compensation if he leaves then.

[KentExile]

7 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I wouldn't get too excited, it's only a scholarship. Finneran had one of those too. Until we can and hopefully do sign him to full pro terms when he turns 17 (and hopefully without a release clause like Phillips insisted on), we haven't achieved full protection on him. It's as good as we can do for now though, but it only really kicks the can down the road til next summer and gains us a bit more compensation if he leaves then.

Finneran left before signing a scholarship

Finneran has been lured to the North East, rejecting a scholarship offer from Rovers

Had he signed one, he would have been named here with the rest of least years 1st year intake

 

The rest of your post is still valid though

Edited 4 hours ago by KentExile

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, KentExile said:

Finneran left before signing one

Oh did he? My memory is playing tricks on me then, sorry. I nearly googled it to double check but then I was like nahh I'm sure he did 😂 I suppose my sense of time didn't get its head around just how young he was when he had his debut.

I've just checked these scholarships too and they actually run to summer 2027 not 2026. Hopefully we get him signed up once he turns 17 and don't have another saga to look forward to in 2027.

[KentExile]

39 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Oh did he? My memory is playing tricks on me then, sorry. I nearly googled it to double check but then I was like nahh I'm sure he did 😂 I suppose my sense of time didn't get its head around just how young he was when he had his debut.

I've just checked these scholarships too and they actually run to summer 2027 not 2026. Hopefully we get him signed up once he turns 17 and don't have another saga to look forward to in 2027.

Every first year scholarship is 2 years. When these can be signed are based on a players "school year", with a scholarship able to be signed once they have left school.  So this years intake will all have been born in the 12 month period running up to and including 31/08/2009, last years intake would have all been born in the 12 months up to 31/08/2008, and so on (this is what Tyjon signed last season & also what todays intake signed)

A 3 year pro contract can be signed once a player turns 17 (this is what Phillips signed, albeit with a release clause)

Higgins turns 17 in January, so we have more than a 6 month wait for that, we have a will he-wont he with Tyjon to keep us "entertained" in the interim period 😉 

Once a player turns 18, contracts can be as long as they like

Just to emphasise how special/loyal he was, Adam Wharton signed his scholarship, a 3 year pro deal, and also two 5 years contracts, 1 year apart, all without a hint of him going elsewhere until he was pushed out of the door to keep the lights on

ps - I've updated my previous post with the details of Finneran leaving

Edited 4 hours ago by KentExile