Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rovers in full control won 2-1. Liverpool manager says it was the worst performance of the season so we must have done something well Gave away a sloppy goal 10 min before the end. Keeper came flappin

Chaddy, it is impossible to defend the kick-off time for the Burnley game.  It's another kick in the teeth for supporters.  I can attend but friends who work can't attend.  If I had been working I wou

Excellent performance by the Under-21's last night at St. George's Park - and what an outstanding venue that is.   We really ought to have won by more than one and controlled the game for long pe

Posted Images

19 hours ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Funny thing is when Chapman scored 2 and got an assist in one game (I think it was Leicester away) he was in the under 23’s the next week.

When Samuel scored 2 he was straight on the bench for the next first team game and I think came on. 

That in particular struck me as odd.

As a manager myself commercially I’ve had some great talented brainy clever types come in, unless you let them continually test themselves at work and allow them freshness and a crack at something new you lose there motivation to the point they can’t really be arssed anymore. Dare I say the same happens in football or in this case with Chapman

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 23's are so much better without first teamers disrupting. When Mols, Vale, Butterworth and White are allowed to play their own game the football on display is delicious. Southampton away was the prime example. Hoping that Samuel, Chapman and Davenport are kept away really as Billy Barr's side could push up that table if given the freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JoeH said:

The 23's are so much better without first teamers disrupting. When Mols, Vale, Butterworth and White are allowed to play their own game the football on display is delicious. Southampton away was the prime example. Hoping that Samuel, Chapman and Davenport are kept away really as Billy Barr's side could push up that table if given the freedom.

Didnt you say recently that the under 23s lacked fire power when they dont have a senior attacker, which makes sense with the goals Chapman and Samuel contributed.

We have to remember the primary purpose of the Under 23s, to develop players for the first team. Chapman and Davenport are only young, it makes no sense to remove them from the under 23 picture if they arent making matchday 18s for the first team.

Edited by roversfan99
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Didnt you say recently that the under 23s lacked fire power when they dont have a senior attacker, which makes sense with the goals Chapman and Samuel contributed.

They don't.

Doesn't mean I think she should be shoehorning in first team players with the Under 23's, it hinders players like Jack Vale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2019 at 21:56, K-Hod said:

Chapman lacks effort? 
I forgot Armstrong was a grafter...

I didn't mention AA, I'm not saying he's any better or worse that's your own comparison, but the point about Chapman still stands - he does have an attitude problem, he lacks effort and when he got a chance vs Oldham he was crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Chapman must have really cheesed off the gaffer if he can't even make the matchday squad with all our injuries and perennial underperformers. I want us to play with some attacking width and tempo, rather than all this 'tippy-tappy in front of the opposition' bollox that goes nowhere. As Barry Fry once said in the Big Ron Manager docu: "If he's fit, then play the c*nt!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeH said:

They don't.

Doesn't mean I think she should be shoehorning in first team players with the Under 23's, it hinders players like Jack Vale.

Why are Chapman and Davenport considered to be senior players though? They have made I think 3 League appearances between them since signing, all as subs in games that didnt matter. If they are so far away from the first team they should play for the under 23s.

The U23 is all about developing the young players, results and tables are secondary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roversfan99 said:

Why are Chapman and Davenport considered to be senior players though? They have made I think 3 League appearances between them since signing, all as subs in games that didnt matter. If they are so far away from the first team they should play for the under 23s.

The U23 is all about developing the young players, results and tables are secondary.

To me, the most important young players at the club are the likes of Joe Hilton, Dan Butterworth, Jack Vale and Stefan Mols... not Jacob Davenport who spent an entire season with Pep in Man City's first team training set up, or Harry Chapman who's played senior football for this club and others many times. 

Davenport will only hinder Tom White, who's had less playing time, and Chapman only hinders someone like Burns or Vale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JoeH said:

To me, the most important young players at the club are the likes of Joe Hilton, Dan Butterworth, Jack Vale and Stefan Mols... not Jacob Davenport who spent an entire season with Pep in Man City's first team training set up, or Harry Chapman who's played senior football for this club and others many times. 

Davenport will only hinder Tom White, who's had less playing time, and Chapman only hinders someone like Burns or Vale.

Why are they the most important?! On what basis? Davenport is a young highly rated player who has suffered badly from injuries but has previous experience of Championship football. You speak as if its a senior player like Smallwood blocking White's path when he plays for the U23s, when in fact Davenport is actually 2 years younger. Surely working with Pep is only a good thing?

Again, why are you using Harry Chapmans senior experience against him? He is 21, Butterworth and Rankin-Costello are 20 but Chapmans exposure to mens football and proving in glimpses that he can impact games albeit at League 1 level surely is advantageous?

I dont understand your attitude or mindset towards very young players who have what I would perceive to be an advantage in terms of senior football experience, which is what matters, and expert coaching. What would you do with them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Why are they the most important?! On what basis? Davenport is a young highly rated player who has suffered badly from injuries but has previous experience of Championship football. You speak as if its a senior player like Smallwood blocking White's path when he plays for the U23s, when in fact Davenport is actually 2 years younger. Surely working with Pep is only a good thing?

Again, why are you using Harry Chapmans senior experience against him? He is 21, Butterworth and Rankin-Costello are 20 but Chapmans exposure to mens football and proving in glimpses that he can impact games albeit at League 1 level surely is advantageous?

I dont understand your attitude or mindset towards very young players who have what I would perceive to be an advantage in terms of senior football experience, which is what matters, and expert coaching. What would you do with them?

Tom White, Stefan Mols, Dan Butterworth and Joe Hilton are more important than Sam Hart, Jacob Davenport, Harry Chapman and Dominic Samuel because they've got WAY more potential. Between those four mentioned, there is just 2 sub appearances.

Between Hart, Davenport, Chapman and Samuel? 201 senior appearances. I ABSOLUTELY stick by my comments. If Dom Samuel, Harry Chapman, Sam Hart or Jacob Davenport where ever going to be second division players, they would be by now considering all the games they've played. Butterworth? White? Hilton? Vale? Mols? Who knows! Give them their own chances and their own team to see.

Edited by JoeH
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoeH said:

Tom White, Stefan Mols, Dan Butterworth and Joe Hilton are more important than Sam Hart, Jacob Davenport, Harry Chapman and Dominic Samuel because they've got WAY more potential. Between those four mentioned, there is just 2 sub appearances.

Between Hart, Davenport, Chapman and Samuel? 201 senior appearances. I ABSOLUTELY stick by my comments. If Dom Samuel, Harry Chapman, Sam Hart or Jacob Davenport where ever going to be second division players, they would be by now considering all the games they've played. Butterworth? White? Hilton? Vale? Mols? Who knows! Give them their own chances and their own team to see.

I specifically stated Davenport and Chapman, 2 players who are between the ages of Butterworth/Rankin-Costello and White. Samuel is much more experienced and recovering from a long injury, and admittedly is crap. Hart id potentially play over the useless Bell but again I didnt mention him.

So essentially you are writing them off. Chapman has started is it one league game in 2 years? Davenport maybe a dozen for Burton? None last year between them. One is 21, the other 20, and you are claiming that that should have been enough to cement first team roles if they were good enough. Their admittedly limited game time at senior level, in which both received positive reviews, and any expert tutiledge in Davenports case should be seen as positives, not suggestions that they should be written off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeH said:

Tom White, Stefan Mols, Dan Butterworth and Joe Hilton are more important than Sam Hart, Jacob Davenport, Harry Chapman and Dominic Samuel because they've got WAY more potential. Between those four mentioned, there is just 2 sub appearances.

Between Hart, Davenport, Chapman and Samuel? 201 senior appearances. I ABSOLUTELY stick by my comments. If Dom Samuel, Harry Chapman, Sam Hart or Jacob Davenport where ever going to be second division players, they would be by now considering all the games they've played. Butterworth? White? Hilton? Vale? Mols? Who knows! Give them their own chances and their own team to see.

If Davenport was going to make it he’d have made it by now? Bollocks, he’s 20. Harry Kane was just shy of 22 when he made is first PL start. Davenport has been so unlucky with injuries and you’re writing him off because you think he’s been poor in the few u23 games you have seen (which I massively disagree with by the way)? Weird attitude.

Edited by RV Blue
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

If Davenport was going to make it he’d have made it by now? Bollocks, he’s 20. Harry Kane was just shy of 22 when he made is first PL start. Davenport has been so unlucky with injuries and you’re writing him off because you think he’s been poor in the few u23 games you have seen (which I massively disagree with by the way)? Weird attitude.

I’ve seen enough of Jacob Davenport at Leyland to say he’s not anywhere near better that Tom White.

its not a “weird attitude” it’s an opinion. Don’t turn discussion into argument.

Edited by JoeH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask yourself why Chapman plays in the Under 23’s constantly, he’s not injured... it’s because he’s evidently not good enough for our first team. That ain’t Jack Vale’s fault and shouldn’t be something which hinders HIS progress and his chances at 23’s level.
 

Taking that point further, I think we’d all agree that Danny Butterworth, Jack Vale and Stefan Mols are playing 23’s football because they’ve not yet been given a chance in the first team...

I’d sooner see the likes of Butterworth playing for Billy Barr than Harry Chapman. Not only do the team perform OVERWHELMINGLY better without first team players in the squad - it also gives chances to 18’s players like Burns, Barnes and Saadi because the squad isn’t full.

See the Derby away game a few weeks back. The lads were appalling. Smallwood, Nyambe, Chapman and Davenport all played - it was one of the worst games of football I’ve seen from the 23’s in some time. There’s a reason for that - and it only hinders younger players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Ask yourself why Chapman plays in the Under 23’s constantly, he’s not injured... it’s because he’s evidently not good enough for our first team. That ain’t Jack Vale’s fault and shouldn’t be something which hinders HIS progress and his chances at 23’s level.
 

Taking that point further, I think we’d all agree that Danny Butterworth, Jack Vale and Stefan Mols are playing 23’s football because they’ve not yet been given a chance in the first team...

I’d sooner see the likes of Butterworth playing for Billy Barr than Harry Chapman. Not only do the team perform OVERWHELMINGLY better without first team players in the squad - it also gives chances to 18’s players like Burns, Barnes and Saadi because the squad isn’t full.

See the Derby away game a few weeks back. The lads were appalling. Smallwood, Nyambe, Chapman and Davenport all played - it was one of the worst games of football I’ve seen from the 23’s in some time. There’s a reason for that - and it only hinders younger players.

I have no idea why Smallwood, Chapman and Davenport are in the same bracket. One is 28, the other 2 are 21 and 20.

Smallwood is a senior player given the occasional game in the under 23s to keep his fitness levels, same as one or two others. That comes back to the U23s/Reserve team being ultimately a tool aimed with the first team always in sight, developing players to eventually play in the first team, or occasionally keeping fitness levels up, whilst winning their league would always be a healthy sign, it is not priority number one. Obviously, playing a few unfit and rusty first teamers will result in a patchy performance, same as if its done in the cups, but it suggests that Mowbray wants him fit in case he needs him, which is fair enough.

But with Chapman and Davenport, why do you consider them to be bona fide first teamers, blocking the development of other young players even though they are the same or of similar age? This is the thing that I dont understand. Chapman has made 2 sub appearances in dead rubbers, and Davenport one, and neither have started any games since joining the club. Why are they solely first teamers in your mind, you are thinking of them as if they are senior players hindering much younger players development. At this moment in time, they are in exactly the same bracket as the players you mention.

I dont get why Chapman is hindering Vale either, they both regularly play in the same Under 23 side, same as Butterworth. I am sure you once suggested (correct me if wrong and apologies if so) that we should always have one of our strikers in the Under 23 team, whether it be Brereton, Gallagher etc, whoever isnt involved because the Under 23s lack a striker? If so, you are sending mixed messages.

And Vale, Mols and Butterworth are not necessarily still in the Under 23s because they havent been given a chance, its because perhaps they arent considered ready yet. Buckley was seen as a key performer at that level, I recall you suggesting he was the best technical player at the club, but everytime he has featured in the first team he has looked massively out of his depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Ask yourself why Chapman plays in the Under 23’s constantly, he’s not injured... it’s because he’s evidently not good enough for our first team. That ain’t Jack Vale’s fault and shouldn’t be something which hinders HIS progress and his chances at 23’s level.
 

Taking that point further, I think we’d all agree that Danny Butterworth, Jack Vale and Stefan Mols are playing 23’s football because they’ve not yet been given a chance in the first team...

Butterworth has had a first team chance. By the logic you've shown in this discussion, he shouldn't get any more because he hasn't broken into the first team.

I suppose if Buckley stops getting picked for the bench, he shouldn't be allowed to go back to u23 football either? It'll be time to write him off too.

You still haven't answered the question you were asked - what is your plan for all these players that you don't think should play first team or u23 football?

Tom White has played plenty of games btw, just at a lower level. He's also kinda old to be saying he has more potential than the other, younger lads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Butterworth has had a first team chance. By the logic you've shown in this discussion, he shouldn't get any more because he hasn't broken into the first team.

I suppose if Buckley stops getting picked for the bench, he shouldn't be allowed to go back to u23 football either? It'll be time to write him off too.

You still haven't answered the question you were asked - what is your plan for all these players that you don't think should play first team or u23 football?

Tom White has played plenty of games btw, just at a lower level. He's also kinda old to be saying he has more potential than the other, younger lads.

Butterworth, by percentage, has had 5.4% of the chances Harry Chapman has had. 2 senior games (both sub) vs Chapmans 37. I think Dan Butterworth is being let down by this club when he, and or others, can't get a game for the Development Squad because First Team Players are taking up spots.

 

Stefan Mols - 0%
Tom White - 0%
John Buckley - 18.9%

Harry Chapman at 37 games, a Youth World Cup under his belt and more, is a first team footballer. He's playing 23's because Tony Mowbray either doesn't like him or doesn't think he's good enough. That shouldn't be holding back young Jack Vale. 

Just my opinion. And as for what should be done with Harry Chapman? I don't know. It's not my job. I certainly wouldn't have resigned him.

Edited by JoeH
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Butterworth, by percentage, has had 5.4% of the chances Harry Chapman has had. 2 senior games (both sub) vs Chapmans 37. I think Dan Butterworth is being let down by this club when he, and or others, can't get a game for the Development Squad because First Team Players are taking up spots.

 

Stefan Mols - 0%
Tom White - 0%
John Buckley - 18.9%

Harry Chapman at 37 games, a Youth World Cup under his belt and more, is a first team footballer. He's playing 23's because Tony Mowbray either doesn't like him or doesn't think he's good enough. That shouldn't be holding back young Jack Vale. 

Just my opinion. And as for what should be done with Harry Chapman? I don't know. It's not my job. I certainly wouldn't have resigned him.

But hes in the same age bracket, how can you talk about him likes a senior player when since he re signed for the club he has never started, he has made 2 sub appearances last year in dead rubbers and thats it. And when he did play in League 1 he impacted games and it was only injury that prevented him from continuing to do that, not an inability to take his (almost exclusively cameo) opportunities.

Same with Davenport, he is only young, his progress has been halted by injuries like Chapman but he is 2 years younger than White and often plays in the same U23 team as him to suggest that ges blocking his development is ridicilious on both counts. Likewise Chapman often plays with Vale, Butterworth etc.

The fact that Davenport and Chapman have had chances and impressed at senior level should not mean that they should be written off, indeed it should give us more hope as to the future, both careers have been halted by injuries but they both clearly have potential and are in the same age bracket as many of the others you mention so to suggest that they shouldnt be allowed to play for the U23s makes no sense at all. Chapman has tangibly and objectively impacted on under 23 games with goals, assists and award nominations whether you rate him subjectively or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

But hes in the same age bracket, how can you talk about him likes a senior player when since he re signed for the club he has never started, he has made 2 sub appearances last year in dead rubbers and thats it. And when he did play in League 1 he impacted games and it was only injury that prevented him from continuing to do that, not an inability to take his (almost exclusively cameo) opportunities.

Same with Davenport, he is only young, his progress has been halted by injuries like Chapman but he is 2 years younger than White and often plays in the same U23 team as him to suggest that ges blocking his development is ridicilious on both counts. Likewise Chapman often plays with Vale, Butterworth etc.

The fact that Davenport and Chapman have had chances and impressed at senior level should not mean that they should be written off, indeed it should give us more hope as to the future, both careers have been halted by injuries but they both clearly have potential and are in the same age bracket as many of the others you mention so to suggest that they shouldnt be allowed to play for the U23s makes no sense at all. Chapman has tangibly and objectively impacted on under 23 games with goals, assists and award nominations whether you rate him subjectively or not.

Harry Chapman and Jacob Davenport are not Under 23's footballers, not because of their age, but because of their experience, status and the way they where brought to the club. Both have been signed as first team footballers, train and play(ed) under Tony Mowbray in the first team set up.

I'm not writing off Harry Chapman or Jacob Davenport, I'm saying:

a) Don't sign players we can't fit into the side or aren't good enough
b) Don't hinder the chances of a Jack Vale or a Stefan Mols who've come through our academy to suit a player who's got 37 senior appearances to his name
and
c) Chapman winning a youth award nomination doesn't help our football club in any way, it certainly doesn't help Jalil Saadi's chances, and it doesn't do anything for the DEVELOPMENT team.

The Under 23's consists mainly of players who've come up through our ranks together, for our academy to ever succeed properly, and consistently produce Lewis Travis's and Phil Jones's then we have to let the actual academy players play in their team. Chapman showed vs Oldham he isn't good enough, that's on TM, not Stefan Mols or some other young lad who's not been given those chances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Development squads are used for fitness and/or injury management as well. You seem to have quite a lot of hate for Chapman and lesser so Davenport. Both have had their early careers hampered by injury and perhaps their exposure to the u23s is more to build them up so that they are ready to come into the first team and less likely to break down again in an important match.

Davenport was one of city's highest rated youngsters, Burton fans said he has one of the best debuts they had ever seen. They loved him there. Chapman, we have all see what he can do and is a bums off the seat kind of player - bemused why TM signed him though as he doesn't like that type of player seemingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.