Is it time to scrap U23 football?

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

By 23 these are men. Age group football is fine but not at U23. As the term reserves might be demeaning for some why not call it squad football? We have too many players that get wheeled out for the cups and then get put back in their box. With larger squads than ours the problem is worse. These guys are paid a fortune and barely kick a ball. Then when they do get their annual cup run out they are not up to speed.
Squad football would be a better standard and the best U23s would still get their game and learn more from the seniors around them. It could also draw a paying attendance.
Thoughts?

[FactualFrank]

I'm not sure it makes sense to call it U23, when some players much older than 23 play in it. Then again, neither does "The Champions League" as non-champions get to enter.

[Newcastleclaret93]

To put it simply no.

The only way a club like Burnley survives the long term in the top division is by having one the best academy’s possible.
Any other suggestion is a non starter.

[Quicknick]

Yeah. Bring back the Central League.

[Quickenthetempo]

I would prefer a reserve league but the standard of our U23 football opponents has gone up massively this season. So best to wait and see what this season produces.

Let's be honest though the good youngsters are playing first team or on loan.

[boatshed bill]

I'd prefer an Under 21 league, TBH. Under 18 to under 23 is a big leap.

[Wellsy1882]

Yep

[ClaretTony]

I'd prefer an Under 21 league, TBH. Under 18 to under 23 is a big leap.

It’s what it used to be but was then changed to the current format which does give young players the potential for two more years.

It’s not reserve team football now. Clubs have a first team squad and we don’t usually see older players involved although the rules permit three plus a goalkeeper.

I’m not sure I see any reason to change that.

[boatshed bill]

It’s what it used to be but was then changed to the current format which does give young players the potential for two more years.

It’s not reserve team football now. Clubs have a first team squad and we don’t usually see older players involved although the rules permit three plus a goalkeeper.

I’m not sure I see any reason to change that.

I enjoy the U23 games as you know, CT. Something that struck me was a player with potential such as Richardson (17yrs old) playing against grown men. Not sure it's ideal. I see the point about 2 extra years, though I do wonder if 22year olds who haven't progressed beyond the U23s wouldn't be better off signing for a lower league club?

[ClaretTony]

I enjoy the U23 games as you know, CT. Something that struck me was a player with potential such as Richardson (17yrs old) playing against grown men. Not sure it's ideal. I see the point about 2 extra years, though I do wonder if 22year olds who haven't progressed beyond the U23s wouldn't be better off signing for a lower league club?

Clubs arrange other games at all levels which enables players to step up but the changes were all made from club recommendations

[Untinted Glasses]

It reminds me of when we used to play Mansfield in the school cricket games. I'm almost %100 Not one of the Mansfield players were of a school age. We didn't even have hairs on our legs and they were massive with huge beards bowling at 80mph.

So anyway yea why call it u23 when its not. Stupidity at its best

[wilks_bfc]

It reminds me of when we used to play Mansfield in the school cricket games. I'm almost %100 Not one of the Mansfield players were of a school age. We didn't even have hairs on our legs and they were massive with huge beards bowling at 80mph.

So anyway yea why call it u23 when its not. Stupidity at its best

When we were at primary school we had a game against another school

They turned up in their black & white striped shirts and were twice the size of us 10yr olds

Turns out they were from Fishermoore high school

[SonofPog]

To put it simply no.

The only way a club like Burnley survives the long term in the top division is by having one the best academy’s possible.
Any other suggestion is a non starter.

Honestly, I don't know if it is... Haven't quite a few teams scrapped their under 18s altogether? And haven't our best recent youngsters have all been "rejects" from bigger clubs?

There could be an argument made for only having a U23 and 1st team squad. No academy, none of the costs involved. Pick up some 18 to 22 year olds that haven't made the grade and give them a few years in the U23s... they'll be more likely to get a chance at us than say Manchester City or Chelsea.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

There could be an argument made for only having a U23 and 1st team squad.

Listening to Alan Pace t’other day it seems the development of youngsters to generate first teamers and income is the way they want to go. I’ve gone the way you mention in the past but not in our current PL position. We must be able to attract very good youngsters as well as taking the unwanted, like Dwight, from other clubs.

[ClaretTony]

We must be able to attract very good youngsters as well as taking the unwanted, like Dwight, from other clubs.

Isn’t that what we are doing?

[tarkys_ears]

I'm not sure it makes sense to call it U23, when some players much older than 23 play in it. Then again, neither does "The Champions League" as non-champions get to enter.

It's not a League either

[welsbyswife]

To put it simply no.

The only way a club like Burnley survives the long term in the top division is by having one the best academy’s possible.
Any other suggestion is a non starter.

Lovely idea but I think it's a myth. Can you name any club that has managed to stay in the top flight on the back of a good academy. I can't.

[welsbyswife]

I don't mean historically. I mean in today's game.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Isn’t that what we are doing?

Certainly mopping up decent cast offs. I’m not so sure about finding unknowns but as I never see them you would know better than me.

[boatshed bill]

Lovely idea but I think it's a myth. Can you name any club that has managed to stay in the top flight on the back of a good academy. I can't.

I doubt that any would just based on what their academy could produce, but a club with a relatively small budget could certainly supplement the first team (even just on the bench) and save plenty of money which could go to buying a better starting 11.

[FactualFrank]

The best of luck - you've been incredibly annoying, and I can't be doing with you, I really can't. Sorry.

[Burnley87]

Is it time to scrap the U23s.....

Possibly the best time of English footballs development of youth in decades and you want to scrap it. The FA and Football in general has done a wonderful job in the last 10 years to get English footballs youth back to where is should be. We were light years behind other countries

[tim_noone]

Lovely idea but I think it's a myth. Can you name any club that has managed to stay in the top flight on the back of a good academy. I can't.

Going off todays performance by Derby I've got to Agree.Though Did Manchester utd have the class of 92? Or something along those lines...

[Burnley87]

Lovely idea but I think it's a myth. Can you name any club that has managed to stay in the top flight on the back of a good academy. I can't.

Arsenal, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Tottenham, Fulham they maybe even more

All have at least 3 major players in the squad that have come threw the youth team

So Im pretty sure it’s a really important part of actually staying in the premier league and even prospering

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Is it time to scrap the U23s.....

Possibly the best time of English footballs development of youth in decades and you want to scrap it. The FA and Football in general has done a wonderful job in the last 10 years to get English footballs youth back to where is should be. We were light years behind other countries

You haven’t read my OP. At 23 these are men. I’m not talking about disrupting youth training. They need to serve their apprenticeship.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Arsenal, Manchester City, Manchester United, Southampton, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Tottenham, Fulham they maybe even more

All have at least 3 major players in the squad that have come threw the youth team

So Im pretty sure it’s a really important part of actually staying in the premier league and even prospering

City - Foden, can't think of any other major players and he now needs to be a first choice pick at this stage of his career.

Utd - Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay and those last 2 aren't auto first choice.

Spurs - Kane, Winks and Dier, its debatable if Winks is a major player.


I could go on, but many teams would rather buy players in, usually foreign, but this could change with Brexit.

City's academy is mainly about hoovering up as much talent as possible and then farming them out for loan fees and selling for as high as possible, Chelsea's is the same.

The money at stake in the PL means the top teams aren't willing to blood many academy lads, certainly not in large numbers.
Utd in the 90's and Arsenal under Wenger were the leading clubs at promoting youth players and doing it successfully

[superdimitri]

It doesn't really matter now. It was make or break time after Howe left. Either to not bother or to invest in the academy. The club chose the latter and already has a vision and further plans. U23 is very much part of that, the ones that are good enough will be playing for them a lot younger than 23. The ones that are older will be doing what they can to secure themselves a career elsewhere.