Quote Originally Posted by RU66 View Post
Putting it into practice the problem. When was the last time we had enough young players up to standard making the move up to the senior level? or a manager willing to give them a chance? Decades ago I'd say. We just aren't set up for it. Can't see us getting a manager either who'd stay long enough to see it through if we were.
It's not, and never should be, about the manager. These things are bigger than the incumbent management, and all our recruitment infrastructure should be, whether it's 16 year old trialists or 33 year old loan cover. The manager needs input and to understand the club's longer term aims, but should also be realistic about their place. We should never be in a situation where an incoming manager has to look at the legacy of numerous previous failed efforts to build a team, but should see a squad which is built around the club's general ideology and therefore something he can work with and pick a starting XI from.

Some of our better, more consistent players in recent times were with big clubs around the 16-21 age. That points to a level of scouting already done which likely outstrips anything we'd do, so even if they're not up to the PL, they're probably not far off first team standard in the bottom two tiers. Bramall (Arsenal), Viking (Villa), Humphreys (City), Rathbone (Manyoo), Barlaser (Newcastle) were all about 19/20 when they were discarded, and all were more than good enough for the third tier, if not higher. They are/were all more than capable of fitting into different systems, had something our fans could get on with, and generally appear to be decent lads. Hugill and Eaves, two of the more divisive players we've had were at the likes of Whitby/Port Vale and Oldham/Bolton at a similar age...

I make no claims this is a fool proof system, but it seems a lot more reliable than our academy or the acumen of Evans and Taylor.