By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I hear all this talk about Mick not giving youngsters a chance, and it seems too many posters aren't looking at the league as a whole. So I have tried to....
All stats are minutes on the pitch in the league only, and all ages are at today's date
U20 players Barnsley - 6,750 minutes (5,063 by loanees) Nottingham Forest - 5,185 minutes Bristol City - 3,844 minutes (3,425 by loanees) Birmingham - 3,680 minutes (1,007 by loanees) Huddersfield - 3,513 minutes (2,310 by loanees) Ipswich - 3,399 minutes
So only 5 clubs have players U20 getting more game time than at Portman Road, and only 1 club (Forest) has more game time given to U20 players that aren't on loan at the club.
Players aged 21-22 Preston North End - 8,412 minutes (682 by loanees) Forest - 8,129 minutes (1,649 by loanees) Reading - 6,811 minutes Leeds - 5,854 minutes (1,284 by loanees) Ipswich - 5,465 minutes (295 by loanees)
So only 4 teams have given more minutes to 21 and 22 year olds, and if you take loan players out of it we move to 4th
Overall - all players U22 Forest - 13,314 minutes (1,649 by loanees) Barnsley - 10,573 minutes (7,201 by loanees) Ipswich - 8,864 minutes (295 by loanees)
So overall only 2 clubs are given youngsters more game time than us, and 1 of them is mostly using loanees.
The reality is that Notingham Forest are the only side who are getting more minutes out of young players than we are at all ages, when you take out loan players - other than them we are right up there in every category.
For the purpose of this exercise our young players are Dozzell, Emmanuel, Kenlock, Bishop (U20) and Grant, Digby, Webster and Ward (U22) - so a mixture of academy products and signings, but most importantly nearly all of them are tied down for at tleast the next couple of years.
Mick has many faults, but the stats show it is unfair to accuse him of not giving youngsters game time.
This has gone a bit mad on Twitter, the Nottingham Forest fans are rightly proud of this record and it has been picked up by BBC Nottingham, their academy manager has tweeted about it and they are really happy with it.
A side that came 21st and avoided relegation on the last day are delighted with how many opportunities they've given to youngsters - we came a few places above them, gave lots of opportunites in the same way they did and people still somehow use it as something to try and moan at Mick about.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 12:38 - May 26 by itfcjoe
This has gone a bit mad on Twitter, the Nottingham Forest fans are rightly proud of this record and it has been picked up by BBC Nottingham, their academy manager has tweeted about it and they are really happy with it.
A side that came 21st and avoided relegation on the last day are delighted with how many opportunities they've given to youngsters - we came a few places above them, gave lots of opportunites in the same way they did and people still somehow use it as something to try and moan at Mick about.
Strange how different the situations are.
New manager gives fans hope and they therefore become more positive about the club.
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? What do you mean? An African or European swallow? Huh? I... I don't know that ... Auuuuuuuugh.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 12:38 - May 26 by itfcjoe
This has gone a bit mad on Twitter, the Nottingham Forest fans are rightly proud of this record and it has been picked up by BBC Nottingham, their academy manager has tweeted about it and they are really happy with it.
A side that came 21st and avoided relegation on the last day are delighted with how many opportunities they've given to youngsters - we came a few places above them, gave lots of opportunites in the same way they did and people still somehow use it as something to try and moan at Mick about.
Strange how different the situations are.
Congrats on going viral! Very interesting piece of work.
1
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 14:54 - May 26 with 3232 views
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 17:40 - May 26 by classicblue
If you take out the minutes for Emmanuel and Kenlock , both of whom Mick was forced to use what does that do to the overall total?
Good point. If we take out the minutes for all of our players that qualify for those statistics, then we'd have given 0 minutes to youngsters. Mick out.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 12:38 - May 26 by itfcjoe
This has gone a bit mad on Twitter, the Nottingham Forest fans are rightly proud of this record and it has been picked up by BBC Nottingham, their academy manager has tweeted about it and they are really happy with it.
A side that came 21st and avoided relegation on the last day are delighted with how many opportunities they've given to youngsters - we came a few places above them, gave lots of opportunites in the same way they did and people still somehow use it as something to try and moan at Mick about.
Strange how different the situations are.
When you make it on the tele, you need to mention TWTD as your platform to glory
Heh
Edit - do you run the ITFC academy account joe? As they are taking your retweets
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 11:36 - May 26 by itfcjoe
Even though your reply has gone I think your post is pathetic because it is an attempt to skew things in a hugely biased manner which is neither achievable (What other teams had games when they were on the beach that should be discarded?) or presentable as the criteria is so strange and pointless.
Most of the Social media sharing is by Forest fans - the post has just upset you because it doesn't make Mick look bad which you can't have
Why has my post gone?? I've been in hospital all day (here until next Thursday) as I had major 8 hour back surgery today so whose deleted it and why?
Hey :) Please check out my Ipswich Town F.C podcast 'Talk Of The Town'
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPhPy_79sSvPSugh32vN8qg?view_as=subscriber
Available every Wednesday on;
YouTube
Spotify
Buzzsrpout
Google Podcasts
Itune Podcasts
0
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 22:42 - May 26 with 3063 views
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:43 - May 27 by unstableblue
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Sorry.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 8:45]
Does it not then suggest that the young players who should have come into the side aren't as good as you're pretending then?
Seems MM was right all along and the finish to the season reflects that when you take into account who played, who got injured and the effect it had on the team.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:43 - May 27 by unstableblue
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Sorry.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 8:45]
....looking for positives particularly.
Just stating facts.
Very few people will deny that we have played some dull, turgid stuff over the last season or so, but the reasons for it aren't because "he doesn't give kids a chance" or "he only signs his ex players".
"He's too conservative and defensive in his team set up" or "He doesn't have the finances to buy players with ability we need to improve" may be more likely reasons.
Of course the second reason, may be an influence on the first.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:43 - May 27 by unstableblue
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Sorry.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 8:45]
Yeah, you're right. Joe should definitely deliberately manipulate the data set to back up those of you that can't see any good in Mick at all. Where's the value in presenting simple stats based on uncomplicated criteria after all?
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:50 - May 27 by Herbivore
Yeah, you're right. Joe should definitely deliberately manipulate the data set to back up those of you that can't see any good in Mick at all. Where's the value in presenting simple stats based on uncomplicated criteria after all?
Whoooooooaaaa
Jumping into some pre-conceptions there Herbivore.
Giving youth a chance is not a serious gripe I have with Mick. Yes Kenlock should have come in for Knudsen earlier in the 4-4-2. But I'm not convinced Emmanuel is the perfect right back we need.
Dozzell has not stepped up. And Bishop is lost. Whether these are Mick failings I have no idea.
I do have a concern with the wholesale change made at Rotherham under the guise of giving youth a chance. A few at a time but that was wholesale change and was wrong.
My point here was simply ward and Webster are not in my view unproven youth players been giving a chance either by coming in from a much lower level like Mings (which was a triumph for Mick) or coming through the academy.
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:43 - May 27 by unstableblue
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Sorry.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 8:45]
Re first two paragraphs, this talks as though we are the only club that buy in a youngster, or play a young player due to injuries - Forest spent millions on Clough, other players got opportunities due to injuries - without a forensic knowledge of every club, and in reality an agenda, it's not possible to do anything worthwhile that isn't a simple look at the stats.
Looking at Forest specifically, would Brereton have got as many games but for Assombalonga's injury? Over 4K minutes were purely Ben Osborn too.
If you look at the underlying data you'd be more positive, we really are giving young players chances - both through the academy and signed, and the best ones are tied down on long contracts.
Webster staying fit could have but us top of the list, Kenlock got ahead of Knudsen but then was injured for 6 weeks after QPR.
Young players are not getting much time in this league, we are doing well in this regard and they'll all be better for it - I think Mick should go this summer, I doubt he will, but if he does he has left us in a better position with the experience given to young players this year, whether signed or brought through.
Too many total Mick Outers just won't give him any credit
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 09:25 - May 27 by unstableblue
Whoooooooaaaa
Jumping into some pre-conceptions there Herbivore.
Giving youth a chance is not a serious gripe I have with Mick. Yes Kenlock should have come in for Knudsen earlier in the 4-4-2. But I'm not convinced Emmanuel is the perfect right back we need.
Dozzell has not stepped up. And Bishop is lost. Whether these are Mick failings I have no idea.
I do have a concern with the wholesale change made at Rotherham under the guise of giving youth a chance. A few at a time but that was wholesale change and was wrong.
My point here was simply ward and Webster are not in my view unproven youth players been giving a chance either by coming in from a much lower level like Mings (which was a triumph for Mick) or coming through the academy.
Anyway get out there and enjoy the sun dear boy.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 9:27]
Young players that Mick chose to sign and then chose to play should be excluded from our stats on playing young players? What's the logic for that, aside from not wanting to give Mick any credit at all for anything?
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 08:43 - May 27 by unstableblue
Great work in putting this together. But I'd be keen to see the stats without Webster and Ward. These are players not through our academy, bought at significant cost relative to our budget, both having played significant first team football the previous season. So don't think meet the criteria of "giving youth a chance".
Also shooting down the poster who sights the realities of Emmanuel and Kenlock coming into the side due to chambo and Knudsen injury (or too hard to avoid failings in selection) does have some merit, albeit it's a post following a Mick out agenda.
Kenlock should have come into the side much earlier, and perhaps even Emmanuel prior to spence joining.
It was a very poor season of incredibly low quality football bar maybe 6-8 performances. Admire you looking for positives and supporting mick. But not sure the analysis is as positive as it seems.
Sorry.
[Post edited 27 May 2017 8:45]
He shoe-horned Webster and Ward in there because without them the stats are unremarkable.
MM has said that Emmanuel and Kenlock are back-up and that's what they've been used as. He also said that last season but this season there's been injuries at fullback which have lead to more appearances. They'll be back-up again next season.
I'd wager that we'd be right up there if the same analysis was done with 30+ players.
Mick deserves credit up to the playoffs and very little since. He has failed to build on that promise. Until an announcement or a signing is made then there's still hope that the 70+% of the ITFC fans polled on this site will have their wish and McCarthy will be rightfully relieved of his duties.
-5
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 14:10 - May 27 with 2853 views
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 11:34 - May 27 by Herbivore
Young players that Mick chose to sign and then chose to play should be excluded from our stats on playing young players? What's the logic for that, aside from not wanting to give Mick any credit at all for anything?
No-one's been criticizing MM for not playing his own signings, the criticism has been at his inability to trust unproven youngsters produced by Klug's academy. Webster and Ward were given their chance by other managers.
The shocking finding here for me is how little youngsters are playing at even this level. We could have a generation of mediocre players on the horizon which, with the world cup in Qatar and FIFA's "game of 4 quarters" agenda, could result in a horrific crash for the sport.
-1
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 14:12 - May 27 with 2850 views
Is Mick giving youngsters enough game time? on 11:27 - May 27 by itfcjoe
Re first two paragraphs, this talks as though we are the only club that buy in a youngster, or play a young player due to injuries - Forest spent millions on Clough, other players got opportunities due to injuries - without a forensic knowledge of every club, and in reality an agenda, it's not possible to do anything worthwhile that isn't a simple look at the stats.
Looking at Forest specifically, would Brereton have got as many games but for Assombalonga's injury? Over 4K minutes were purely Ben Osborn too.
If you look at the underlying data you'd be more positive, we really are giving young players chances - both through the academy and signed, and the best ones are tied down on long contracts.
Webster staying fit could have but us top of the list, Kenlock got ahead of Knudsen but then was injured for 6 weeks after QPR.
Young players are not getting much time in this league, we are doing well in this regard and they'll all be better for it - I think Mick should go this summer, I doubt he will, but if he does he has left us in a better position with the experience given to young players this year, whether signed or brought through.
Too many total Mick Outers just won't give him any credit
I think your first paragraph explains a lot about what passes for analysis from many other posters — simply no ability to place what happens with Town into any kind of context or recognise other clubs exist.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
