Bench for Dundee Game

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I am going for a Yankee:

Esson; Horner; Wedderburn; Sutherland

[Scotty]

You have been banging on about this for a few days now IHE, and whilst I agree its frustrating to only see 5 or 6 named to the bench, can I ask you which seven FIT or UN-INJURED players you would name to the bench ... or which 18 players you would name to the squad if thats easier .....

 

 

[ICTRoughi]

I collected my ticket from the ticket office last night and Jason Brown was the one who served me. I know we are multi-tasking club but there's something not right about that. Other teams like Dundee United, Motherwell and Hamilton etc always use their U20. If the reason we refuse to use them because of bonuses then we should look at the bigger picture, the experience could easily aid their development. 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Scotty - what I am alluding to is - "Why have a Development squad if we are not going to feckin develop them ?" The team against St Mirren in the Development League last week was - Mackay, Stark, Howarth, Horner, Gilchrist, MacLennan, Vigurs, Wedderburn, Trialist, Sutherland, McRae plus Hoban, Wilson, McArthur, Rennie - potentially 10 but probably 6 that could have simply warmed the bench last night. That would have been experience and confidence boosting in itself. And what was the squad for the game against Well tonight - a team that is leading 3-1. What feckin harm could it possibly do ?

And I suppose my other concern is actually the number of injuries that we do have - the manner in which Draper was "injured" is concerning in itself. Most of the injuries appear to have been suffered or aggravated in training which raises questions about the training facilities and methods. I suppose that we have been unlucky but it has to be more than that. Perhaps we are saving money on sickness benefit and win bonuses.

 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Well Motherwell game only featured Horner, Wedderburn and Sutherland and can add Hull and McRitchie to the list.

[Hiro]

I collected my ticket from the ticket office last night and Jason Brown was the one who served me. I know we are multi-tasking club but there's something not right about that. Other teams like Dundee United, Motherwell and Hamilton etc always use their U20. If the reason we refuse to use them because of bonuses then we should look at the bigger picture, the experience could easily aid their development. 

With our form I don't think bonuses will be much of an issue.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Hiro

[+DoofersDad]

I completely fail to understand why the youngsters are not given the experience of being on the bench and soaking up the match day atmosphere.  Apart from becoming familiar with the match day atmosphere from the perspective of being involved as part of the squad, they would learn from what is said in the dugout.

I too have heard the financial argument used (appearance bonus rather than win bonus) but if that is given as a reason, then why not also stick to just 5 subs when there are more than 5 first team squad available? 

But whatever the reason, what message does this give to the youngsters we are supposed to be developing and encouraging?  It tells them that the club thinks they are no way good enough to be considered for any game time regardless of how dire our injury situation becomes. Our injury situation is unusual but should be seen as an opportunity for the club to demonstrate some positive encouragement to the youngsters.  If the lads' contracts specify that being on the bench means an appearance bonus is payable and the club is too mean to pay them, then I'll pay to see a full bench on Saturday.  Send me the bill, but for goodness sake give these youngsters a seat on the bench rather than a kick in the teeth!

[Alex MacLeod]

I dont know what the rules are nowadays on use of U-21's. Is it still the same that you have to have at least three in the matchday line-up?

I'm also wondering if the reason for not having a couple against County had anything to do with the fact they had spent the week being coached for U-20 v Motherwell taking place the following day. I cant honestly see the reason having anything to do with bonuses. These are budgeted for and had we a full squad available the bench would have had the required number eligible for any possible reward. I also wonder whether those who are still on youth contracts or whatever they are called nowadays (old S-form) are entitled to any sort of bonus. Finally, it comes to mind that clubs are actually paid incentives to have developing youths in line-up so surely not using someone is counter productive.

[Caley Mad In Berks]

I'm with those who think it well worth while to blood youngsters by having them on the bench.  Surely the experience of being in the changing room with the starting X1, hearing the team talk etc is invaluable to these young lads.  Of course, I know there is a cost involved.  A friend of mine's Grandson plays for Reading.  Before he became a first team regular, he often warmed the 1st team bench as a 17/18 year old, rarely getting on, even for a few minutes. He didn't mind a bit as it meant an extra £1000 on his weekly wage packet!  For us I'm sure we would be talking of just a tiny percentage of that figure for each lad. Money well spent in my view.

[Renegade]

I collected my ticket from the ticket office last night and Jason Brown was the one who served me. I know we are multi-tasking club but there's something not right about that. Other teams like Dundee United, Motherwell and Hamilton etc always use their U20. If the reason we refuse to use them because of bonuses then we should look at the bigger picture, the experience could easily aid their development. 

Not the first time that's happened.  Dougie Imrie sold me a ticket once!

I completely fail to understand why the youngsters are not given the experience of being on the bench and soaking up the match day atmosphere.  Apart from becoming familiar with the match day atmosphere from the perspective of being involved as part of the squad, they would learn from what is said in the dugout.

I too have heard the financial argument used (appearance bonus rather than win bonus) but if that is given as a reason, then why not also stick to just 5 subs when there are more than 5 first team squad available? 

But whatever the reason, what message does this give to the youngsters we are supposed to be developing and encouraging?  It tells them that the club thinks they are no way good enough to be considered for any game time regardless of how dire our injury situation becomes. Our injury situation is unusual but should be seen as an opportunity for the club to demonstrate some positive encouragement to the youngsters.  If the lads' contracts specify that being on the bench means an appearance bonus is payable and the club is too mean to pay them, then I'll pay to see a full bench on Saturday.  Send me the bill, but for goodness sake give these youngsters a seat on the bench rather than a kick in the teeth!

As I mentioned in another thread the other day, Hamilton Accies used to something very similar to what you described.  We all know how good their youth academy is and it was used, in a way, in tandem with the first team squad.  They'd go into the game with their starting eleven and on the bench a substitute goalkeeper and five outfield first team players.  The seventh spot was then reserved for a youth team player.  As well as the experience of taking part in the matchday squad, the following week the coaches would observe the effect that his inclusion had on him in training.  Did he become arrogant?  Did he become lazy?  Or on the flipside, did he strive even harder in order to win that place on the bench again the following week?  A very clever approach IMO.

I dont know what the rules are nowadays on use of U-21's. Is it still the same that you have to have at least three in the matchday line-up?

I'm also wondering if the reason for not having a couple against County had anything to do with the fact they had spent the week being coached for U-20 v Motherwell taking place the following day. I cant honestly see the reason having anything to do with bonuses. These are budgeted for and had we a full squad available the bench would have had the required number eligible for any possible reward. I also wonder whether those who are still on youth contracts or whatever they are called nowadays (old S-form) are entitled to any sort of bonus. Finally, it comes to mind that clubs are actually paid incentives to have developing youths in line-up so surely not using someone is counter productive.

The three U21s rule was scrapped a few years back.  There's now no limit in the matchday squad.  The Development League used to only allow 3 over-20 players but that's now been expanded to 5, but trialists count as one outfield player no-matter how old they are (or something like that!).

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Sorry Scotty - missed your reply in the extensive support for my banging on nonsense 

[bdu98196]

Perhaps the youth players arent put on the bench because there is no chance Yogi will put them on the pitch, I've not seen the development squad but from reports on here, maybe the simple fact is they are nowhere near good enough, so its better to struggle on with what we have in terms of fit seniors than throw a player not physically or mentally ready where it may cause more harm than good. Afterall the management team we have are professionals in this industry so know what makes a youth player ready more than most of us do.

As for citing experience of being in and around the dressing room, maybe the youth players are around the senior team on match day - just not sitting for 90 mins in the cold on a bench when they have 0% chance of featuring.

I do wonder if a lot of these negative posts that are aimed at the club, squad or management are from the element that still just don't like or want Yogi at the club and see any opportunity to turn events into another session to lambast him.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Doh - I want Yogi to stay and the "negative" comments are opinions and observations. What other teams adhere to 5 players on the bench ?

Back to Saturday as I was going to post a team. But is Storey injured - is Draper recovered ?

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

So why did wee MacRae sit on the bench today ?

[+bughtmaster]

REWARD.............Yogi probably thought he had earned it with his recent performances

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

But not against Ross County ?

[+bughtmaster]

A continuation of his good run and scoring ability ?

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I think that I may have detected the problem. The players must be petrified that sitting on the bench could literally freeze their erases off. I asked my mole to check it out this morning and he said that it was " minus 11"

[bdu98196]

Why is the club lacking such transparency on its player recovery, we were all shocked by GW returning on Sat. We know about the long term injuries, but as above where are the 'lost men', we signed these summer players who have been constantly injured - Silva, Mutumbo, Roberts now Lopez - should we read into this bigger issues with lack of settling into the club or in some cases are they even still here? is our recrutment policy flawed and our medicals not picking up on serious injuries these guys carry?

 

[Sneckboy]

Not keeping the fans informed actually worked to our advantage in that last game, when nobody expected Gary Warren to appear in the match squad-list, let-alone play!
Definitely a bit of a 'secret' and certainly not something Paul Hartley/Dundee would have planned for!

I understand fans want to know about their players, but it should also be remembered that ICT FC is also an employer - and those who are 'off work' and their reasons for being so, should be subject to confidentiality.

In any other line-of-work, if your receptionist, porter, section-manager, till-operator or boss is absent from work, then that's between the individual, their GP and the Human Resources (Personnel) department...and is no business of anybody else.

Employee confidentiality is important - we (all of us), don't want every 'Tom, Dick & Harry' knowing our reason for absence, severity and likely timescale of return!
Yes, it may be the talk of the work-place and at the water-cooler, but it's frankly nobody's business; this should also be the case at football clubs and fans need to recognise this.

[bdu98196]

Sorry, I disagree, football is not a normal business its entertainment and in this line of work fans pay the money, therefore pay or heavily contribute to the wages and in doing that we are entitled to know what we are paying to see on a Saturday. If the club dont want to divulge then thats fine, but they cant expect fans to keep paying to see an understrength team and poorer quality fare becuase we have no idea if or when we may see our top talent again.

Nobody is expecting fully detailed personal information of each injury or personal absence but to know if a player is injured for 1 or 2 weeks, or 6 to 8 months is as a curtosy. If these guys want full privacy then they shouldnt have a public job in the media and entertainment industry - the club cant ask us to pay our money yet not be transparent as to what we will see. if I go to the cinema I at least know the actors in the film, whether good or bad after that is irrelevent I attend because X or Y should or has the capability to be good and football is no different.

[ICTRoughi]

To be fair to the players, I notice some fans asking them on Twitter when they are due back and normally are very responsive with it - latest being Jordan Roberts who hopes to be back soon. 

I think it's unfair to blame the club for 'lack of information' when maybe the players themselves want to keep things under wraps. Yes football is an 'entertainment' however the players are also people like you and I. They will be ready when they're ready etc.