With Craig Brewster voicing support for a change to the U21 rule what are other people's views?

Brewster believes that the rule is hampering his ability to reward players who have been performing well in training and in the reserves by giving them a place in the first team squad due to the current rule and wants to see it changed.

I'm in two minds about the whole thing, I can understand that managers want to have the best players possible available and I also agree to a certain extent that players should be there on merit and not simply because the rules say they have to be given a chance.  However, will a reduction in the number of compulsory U21's do damage?

For the majority of teams these young lads are doing nothing other than warming the bench for 90 minutes every week and it can't be doing them any good in the long run.  I wouldn't want to see the U21's simply forgotten, but their must be a better way of supporting them without it hampering the managers job.

Thoughts?

As you say it's completely pointless have 3 U21's on the bench week in week out.  It would be better for them to actually earn a place on the bench.

Was the whole of the last 2 seasons wasted for Zander Sutherland, for example, he got a few minutes only until it was irrelevant, only now is he getting real game time.

I would like to see it scrapped altogether.

Right now you can have seven subs, 1 of which must be a goalie and three of which must be outfield players at/under the age of 21 (GK doesnt count) so you really only have 3 outfield subs unless you are confident that the youngsters can actually do the job.

A manager should be able to name 7 subs, include a goalie or not, and not have to have 3 x U21s. The U21s may be able to enjoy the matchday atmosphere from being on the bench but if they are sitting there and not playing they are not getting any actual match experience. If these rising stars could play in the reserves, or go out on loan to other teams instead of being bench fillers they may gain not only skill but confidence.

The rule also hampers the manager's ability to refine his tactics based on what happens in the game. If you could name 2 defenders, 2 midfielders, 2 attackers and a GK then you have way more options with defensive/attacking minded players.

I  pretty much agree with that Scotty. The only point I can add is that was the number of reserves not increased from 5 to 7 to incorporate the under 21s?  Still don't think that it does the under 21s any good sitting on the bench,(Gordon Strachan is always winging about it too) but they aren't that worse off as they could only have 5 subs before.

It's purpose is to encourage the development of youth and home grown talent, and IMO there is no doubt it is working.

The rule is the same for all teams, and is good for Scottish football. I've got no time for managers moaning about it.

It's purpose is to encourage the development of youth and home grown talent, and IMO there is no doubt it is working.

Two questions ....

How is it working ?

How have ICT benefited from this rule ?

The only point I can add is that was the number of reserves not increased from 5 to 7 to incorporate the under 21s?  Still don't think that it does the under 21s any good sitting on the bench,(Gordon Strachan is always winging about it too) but they aren't that worse off as they could only have 5 subs before.

Yes, it was raised from 5 subs (one of which did NOT have to be a goalkeeper) to 7 subs. When it was raised to 7 you had to have 3 x U21s and 1 x GK reducing your "actual" subs to 3 ...... so you could argue that some teams ARE worse off.

While my personal preference would be to scrap the rule altogether perhaps there is a happy medium where clubs can name 7 subs (including a GK or not) and where any two of them (inc GK) could be U21 ? That would still allow clubs 5 "real" subs as they had before and preserve a couple of spots on the bench for U21s ?

While the rule is not perfect it does encourage teams to nurture young, often home grown, talent.

On balance, I'd be inclined to retain it.

yes itmay nurture home grown talent but only if they get on. Who has come through this recently?

Iain Vigurs and Guy Kerr as well as a few others.

Can see the principle, but I don't think it's making that much of a difference. The real damage to the Scottish youth system was done about 10-12 years back when all the top league teams started buying cheaply from abroad and spending the money they saved on transfer fees on inflated wages. The damage that did to clubs like Dundee, Livi and to a lesser extent Aberdeen and even Rangers (and is still doing to Hearts) means we're unlikely ever to reurn to that sort of philosophy in Scotland. I think young players will continue to come through in their own good time if they're talented enough, even if we get rid of the U-21 rule, especially if we use the loan system wisely. Certainly worked for Barry Robson and hopefully it'll work for Zander too.

Iain Vigurs and Guy Kerr as well as a few others.

They have not come through, they are sitting on the bench !!!

Of the current crop of U21s only Rory and Zander have actually started for ICT in a competitive match. In Rory's case, he was probably over-used as discussed at length in the last few months, and in Zander's case, his 2 starting appearances have been at the end of each of the last two seasons in "meaningless" games. He has also come off the bench 4 times. Dean McDonald is next, coming off the bench 6 times this season but the rest havent got a single minute on the park between them !

R McAllister - ?? appearances on the bench, 11 starts, 33 sub appearances (over 3 seasons)

Z. Sutherland - ?? appearances on the bench, 2 starts, 4 sub appearances (over 3 seasons). doing well on loan !!!

D. McDonald - 13 appearances on the bench, no starts, 6 sub appearances

I. Vigurs - 7 appearances on the bench, no starts, no sub appearances

G. Kerr - 5 appearances on the bench, no starts, no sub appearances

A. McDonald - 3 appearances on the bench, no starts, no sub appearances

G. Wood - 2 appearances on the bench last season, no starts, no sub appearances - on loan and banging them in (before injury)

J. Duff - 2 appearances on the bench, no starts, no sub appearances

By all means put something in place to encourage teams to have U21s on the bench but 6 players with 32 games as a sub and not a single minute actually on the park between them is IMHO doing more harm than not having them there ... they could be playing in the reserves or getting competitive experience on loan rather than nappy rash from sitting on the bech so long !

Thanks Scotty, thats exactly what I'm saying, by naming them in the squad and placing them on the bench and maybe bringing them on for 3-5 mins isn't them coming through the ranks. I believe the standard of youth development is the reason that young scottish players are coming to the fore not by having to name 3 of them for a game.

Brewster is only saying that to discredit the SFA who have been scrutinising the allegation that Zibi Malkowski is in fact a goal keeper, and not as they  believe  a striker who has been disguised to help us get an extra man on the bench. I can see why they would question whether this man was truely a goalkeeper but they should surely give us the benefit of the doubt  :023:  :029: