Elliott Anderson. - Page 2 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Elliott Anderson.


Archiesdad

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If he or any other young player truly wants to represent us they will. It should not be a case of hurry up and cap them to tie them down. If he truly wants to play for us he'll be prepared to wait - a bit like Andrew Considine did.

I don't think it can be understated though how much some playersgenuinely feel tied to two countries so it may well be first come first served

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If he or any other young player truly wants to represent us they will. It should not be a case of hurry up and cap them to tie them down. If he truly wants to play for us he'll be prepared to wait - a bit like Andrew Considine did.

Whilst I dont disagree with the sentiments, we also need to get away from the notion that every squad needs to be full of our best players at that very moment in time.

For example id like us to start making the 3rd choice GK a young player to give them experience in an around the squad.

I also see no benefit to having players such as Fleck, Patterson, Russell etc in squads when they are never likely to be 1st or 2nd choice in the position. Much better to bring in a player like Gilmour, Hickey, Turnbull etc, even if its just for the odd squad. It gives them a taste, allows management to see them up close, how they operate and handle training with the 1st team and if its a game where we are comfortable we could chuck them on for last 10 mins.

It also sends out the message that young players will get a chance. Thats something Wales have been good at for last 6/8 years so no wonder the policy might turn some heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diamond Scot said:

Whilst I dont disagree with the sentiments, we also need to get away from the notion that every squad needs to be full of our best players at that very moment in time.

For example id like us to start making the 3rd choice GK a young player to give them experience in an around the squad.

I also see no benefit to having players such as Fleck, Patterson, Russell etc in squads when they are never likely to be 1st or 2nd choice in the position. Much better to bring in a player like Gilmour, Hickey, Turnbull etc, even if its just for the odd squad. It gives them a taste, allows management to see them up close, how they operate and handle training with the 1st team and if its a game where we are comfortable we could chuck them on for last 10 mins.

It also sends out the message that young players will get a chance. Thats something Wales have been good at for last 6/8 years so no wonder the policy might turn some heads.

I get that but the international football landscape has changed greatly in the last couple of years.

Whereas in the past we had Euro and World qualifying campaign matches periodically mixed with meaningless friendlies where we could tinker and try out up and coming players without the burning pressure of the match result that is not the case now. We have Euro Qualifiers, World Cup Qualifiers and now the Nations League matches so (as we now know due to qualifying via the Nations League route) where results are critical. We cannot afford to throw green as grass kids into those matches when results are key. Friendlies for us have been very rare in recent times and so matches to experiment are just not possible. I am not sure of the solution barring packing the already overcrowded schedule with a couple of friendlie a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I get that but the international football landscape has changed greatly in the last couple of years.

Whereas in the past we had Euro and World qualifying campaign matches periodically mixed with meaningless friendlies where we could tinker and try out up and coming players without the burning pressure of the match result that is not the case now. We have Euro Qualifiers, World Cup Qualifiers and now the Nations League matches so (as we now know due to qualifying via the Nations League route) where results are critical. We cannot afford to throw green as grass kids into those matches when results are key. Friendlies for us have been very rare in recent times and so matches to experiment are just not possible. I am not sure of the solution barring packing the already overcrowded schedule with a couple of friendlie a year.

Im not advocating playing them. Im saying they should replace the guys in the squad who are not likely to play anyway.

How often does the 2nd choice GK play? So how much risk would it be to have a young GK as the 3rd choice GK. Worst case scenario is the 1st choicr gets injured just before the game and 2nd choice gets injured or sent off during the game. However how likely is that?

If Gilmour was in the next squad instead of Fleck for example, how much risk would that carry? We would still have alot of players who could play CM before having to use Gilmour. 

Developing players comes at a risk but they dont develop if you never expose them. Look at Fletcher and McFadden, largely chucked in ewrly and flourised.

I just think we have played it far too safe for far too long. Scott Gemmill is a classic example. Was pretty much selected for every squad but was never going to challenge for a place, what benefit might have been had from giving his squad place to a younger player to train and learn, become comfortable in the setup.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Im not advocating playing them. Im saying they should replace the guys in the squad who are not likely to play anyway.

How often does the 2nd choice GK play? So how much risk would it be to have a young GK as the 3rd choice GK. Worst case scenario is the 1st choicr gets injured just before the game and 2nd choice gets injured or sent off during the game. However how likely is that?

If Gilmour was in the next squad instead of Fleck for example, how much risk would that carry? We would still have alot of players who could play CM before having to use Gilmour. 

Developing players comes at a risk but they dont develop if you never expose them. Look at Fletcher and McFadden, largely chucked in ewrly and flourised.

I just think we have played it far too safe for far too long. Scott Gemmill is a classic example. Was pretty much selected for every squad but was never going to challenge for a place, what benefit might have been had from giving his squad place to a younger player to train and learn, become comfortable in the setup.

 

Scott Gemmill got 26 caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Im not advocating playing them. Im saying they should replace the guys in the squad who are not likely to play anyway.

How often does the 2nd choice GK play? So how much risk would it be to have a young GK as the 3rd choice GK. Worst case scenario is the 1st choicr gets injured just before the game and 2nd choice gets injured or sent off during the game. However how likely is that?

If Gilmour was in the next squad instead of Fleck for example, how much risk would that carry? We would still have alot of players who could play CM before having to use Gilmour. 

Developing players comes at a risk but they dont develop if you never expose them. Look at Fletcher and McFadden, largely chucked in ewrly and flourised.

I just think we have played it far too safe for far too long. Scott Gemmill is a classic example. Was pretty much selected for every squad but was never going to challenge for a place, what benefit might have been had from giving his squad place to a younger player to train and learn, become comfortable in the setup.

 

Oh yes I agree with you there most definitely. I have said as much before as the likes of Wales have done this to very goods effect in playing players and bedding them in when their club career had yet to take off and now they have promising careers in front of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Scott Gemmill got 26 caps.

I never said he didnt. At no point in his international career did he challange for a starting place. He was a solid squad player who filled in when required. 

My point is that we are allowed large squads. It doesnt lessen our chances in a game if we leave the 1st team players and their backups alone but replace the fringe guys with younger guys with potential.

You dont even need to make it the same guys everytime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

We had three meaningless games at the end of the last qualification campaign and tried nothing. 

We also have a manager who caps players in their 30s 

 

Unfair. Hanlon and Considine were called up because of unavailability and because you don't throw youngsters in must-win games, and the Nations League is a must win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Oh yes I agree with you there most definitely. I have said as much before as the likes of Wales have done this to very goods effect in playing players and bedding them in when their club career had yet to take off and now they have promising careers in front of them.

We’re one of the worst countries at doing it & always have been. 

“kids” are 23 year olds & apprenticeship must be served blah blah... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SkyBlueScot said:

If he came on, not just a temporary appearance on the bench, that makes him the 20th Scot in the EPL by my reckoning.  There's been a steady increase.

And yes it does include those retired.

As Anderson can still play for England can we add 20 year old Conor Gallagher on loan from Chelsea at WBA who has started 14 games and is eligible. Don't let the 30 under's caps for England blind you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

As Anderson can still play for England can we add 20 year old Conor Gallagher on loan from Chelsea at WBA who has started 14 games and is eligible. Don't let the 30 under's caps for England blind you

If you like. I wouldn't myself as, whilst he could change, he's currently an england player. Anderson is currently a Scotland player. Just my own criteria really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bazmidd said:

I don't think it can be understated though how much some playersgenuinely feel tied to two countries so it may well be first come first served

That's a good point. A lot of people on here can't - or aren't willing to try to - understand that concept though.

4 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Im not advocating playing them. Im saying they should replace the guys in the squad who are not likely to play anyway.

How often does the 2nd choice GK play? So how much risk would it be to have a young GK as the 3rd choice GK. Worst case scenario is the 1st choicr gets injured just before the game and 2nd choice gets injured or sent off during the game. However how likely is that?

If Gilmour was in the next squad instead of Fleck for example, how much risk would that carry? We would still have alot of players who could play CM before having to use Gilmour. 

Developing players comes at a risk but they dont develop if you never expose them. Look at Fletcher and McFadden, largely chucked in ewrly and flourised.

I just think we have played it far too safe for far too long. Scott Gemmill is a classic example. Was pretty much selected for every squad but was never going to challenge for a place, what benefit might have been had from giving his squad place to a younger player to train and learn, become comfortable in the setup.

 

Scot Gemmill started out as one of the fringe youngsters in the squad, he just never really emerged from the fringes!

In Billy Gilmour's case, is it really more beneficial having him sitting on the bench for the senior team or playing 90 minutes for the under-21s?

If he can become a regular for Chelsea then I think it's safe to say he'll be playing 90 minutes for the senior team, nevermind sitting on the bench, but he's not featured in either of Chelsea's last two league games, one of which was against one of the weaker sides in the league, so he's clearly not quite there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scotlad said:

That's a good point. A lot of people on here can't - or aren't willing to try to - understand that concept though.

Scot Gemmill started out as one of the fringe youngsters in the squad, he just never really emerged from the fringes!

In Billy Gilmour's case, is it really more beneficial having him sitting on the bench for the senior team or playing 90 minutes for the under-21s?

If he can become a regular for Chelsea then I think it's safe to say he'll be playing 90 minutes for the senior team, nevermind sitting on the bench, but he's not featured in either of Chelsea's last two league games, one of which was against one of the weaker sides in the league, so he's clearly not quite there yet.


agree with this.  I don’t agree with picking players cos they are young. Pick the best players regardless of age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ProudScot said:

Banks & Anderson are years from a call up 

 

We need to stop only picking players when they're a certain age of when they've played x amount of matches of whether they are "ready".

Didn't Wales call up Harry Wilson before he played a game for Liverpool? It's about time we started looking at the big picture. 

People gave Craig Brown pelters for not integrating young players, and there's a case for saying that we have more good kids coming through now than when Brown was at the end of his tenure.

Edited by Taylor1996
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

As Anderson can still play for England can we add 20 year old Conor Gallagher on loan from Chelsea at WBA who has started 14 games and is eligible. Don't let the 30 under's caps for England blind you

Conor Gallagher is eligible?!

I didn't know that.

I've watched him as a neutral and he looks an absolute standout in the WBA team.

Hopefully Steve Clarke is aware of his eligibility as he looks like a young Jack Grealish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, scotlad said:

That's a good point. A lot of people on here can't - or aren't willing to try to - understand that concept though.

Scot Gemmill started out as one of the fringe youngsters in the squad, he just never really emerged from the fringes!

In Billy Gilmour's case, is it really more beneficial having him sitting on the bench for the senior team or playing 90 minutes for the under-21s?

If he can become a regular for Chelsea then I think it's safe to say he'll be playing 90 minutes for the senior team, nevermind sitting on the bench, but he's not featured in either of Chelsea's last two league games, one of which was against one of the weaker sides in the league, so he's clearly not quite there yet.

90 minutes for the under 21s means nothing when you’re a top player.

Also if he was in the senior squad he would be well worth a start regardless of his game time for Chelsea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

 

We need to stop only picking players when they're a certain age of when they've played x amount of matches of whether they are "ready".

Didn't Wales call up Harry Wilson before he played a game for Liverpool? It's about time we started looking at the big picture. 

People gave Craig Brown pelters for not integrating young players, and there's a case for saying that we have more good kids coming through now than when Brown was at the end of his tenure.

I am all for picking younger players with limited club experience.

Banks hasn’t even made a premier league squad yet though has he? And Anderson isn’t even a regular on the bench.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

I am all for picking younger players with limited club experience.

Banks hasn’t even made a premier league squad yet though has he? And Anderson isn’t even a regular on the bench.

 

No. Banks hasn't even made an EPL matchday squad. The encouraging thing is that Hodgson came out last year and ruled out a loan deal, as Banks is a part of the squad. He'll just need to bide his time.

As for Anderson, he has been a regular on the Newcastle bench since the end of November. (4 EPL and 1 FA cup.) If you look at his record at u23 level (goals and assists), it's plain to see that, at 18, he's ready for the jump up to EPL football. 

I'd have no qualms about calling both players up and see what they're made of. They don't have to play, just being around the first team would give them a sense of belonging.

We missed out of McCarthy, Souttar, Terry Taylor and maybe Banks, all because our managers at various levels, went with tried and tested instead of freshening things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, scotlad said:

That's a good point. A lot of people on here can't - or aren't willing to try to - understand that concept though.

Scot Gemmill started out as one of the fringe youngsters in the squad, he just never really emerged from the fringes!

In Billy Gilmour's case, is it really more beneficial having him sitting on the bench for the senior team or playing 90 minutes for the under-21s?

If he can become a regular for Chelsea then I think it's safe to say he'll be playing 90 minutes for the senior team, nevermind sitting on the bench, but he's not featured in either of Chelsea's last two league games, one of which was against one of the weaker sides in the league, so he's clearly not quite there yet.

I dont think its an either or situation.

Gilmour could mainly play for the U21s but be called up to one or two squads. 

My point is that with a squad of either 23 or 25 there should be space for say 2 young players each time. One squad that could be a GK and a defender. Next squad a midfielder and an attacker. Give them some exposure. Only then you might see that the player is actually ready. Players always talk about knowing when a young player has a bright future from the minute they train with the 1st team. 

If we always pick the best 25 players then you limit progression. If are having to rely on the 25th player for any given match then id suggest we are in trouble anyway.

 

Link to comment
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...