Summer Rebuild

[Vision]

I agree and thankyou for your insight Baggie, ignore Lacoste - he is a moron.

great players dont make great managers and coaches. Look at the likes of John Barnes, Tony Adams and James Beattie to name a few.

[Royal Rother]

I completely agree with you.

Trouble is, I'm in doubt that Clarke is the man for the job. I think he'd rather play Chelsea's academy graduates than our own.

If they're better than ours then I'd hope so too.

I don't see it like that. Work with our own youngsters and improve them - that's what a good coach does.

Getting in youngsters from other clubs to help them mature when we have our own sitting in the "Reserves" is flawed imo.

[K.URZ13]

I'd rather see Chelsea loanes played than our own youths every week if it was the difference between staying up and relegation.
Better to miss out on a couple of Academy graduates than drop down to a league notoriously hard to get out of.

[Hoop Blah]

I don't see it like that. Work with our own youngsters and improve them - that's what a good coach does.

Getting in youngsters from other clubs to help them mature when we have our own sitting in the "Reserves" is flawed imo.

That really depends on how good those players are though doesn't it. Even a world class coach isn't going to turn Simon Church into Lionel Messi or Robson-Kanu into Ronaldo.

Someone like Patrick Bamford added the quality to 'Boro's side that nearly took them up. If, as an example, we had him as opposed to having to throw in Samuel or Cardwell before they're ready or good enough then I'd be happy with it.

I am not convinced so far. Sacking the goalkeeping coach which bought through McCarthy, Federici and worked with Hamer is not a good move. Dean Keily might of been a better goalkeeper than Bibbo, but great players dont make great managers and coaches.

It seems pretty clear that Clarke wants to create a new atmosphere because the old one was too comfy and too easy and so the team got stuck in it's ways. Bibbo and Armstrong paid the price for that and, although he's brought through some good keepers, there's nothing we know from the outside that says he's the reason for it or even that he might've held them back at times.

[Mr.Swainey]

he is a moron.

Dean Keily might of been a better goalkeeper than Bibbo,

but great players dont make great managers and coaches. Look at the likes of James Beattie to name a few.

I think by the end of October he will be offski anyway

is a moron.

[Mr.Swainey]

Plus, Dean Kiely isn't coming to Reading, he is working at Norwich.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Dave Beasant.

[Coppelled_Streets]

I completely agree with you.

Trouble is, I'm in doubt that Clarke is the man for the job. I think he'd rather play Chelsea's academy graduates than our own.

If they're better than ours then I'd hope so too.

I don't see it like that. Work with our own youngsters and improve them - that's what a good coach does.

At the possible risk of us getting relegated? It might be somewhat unrealistic, but these owners of ours still want promotion. Poor old Clarke hasn't got a chance at this club!

[SCIAG]

I'm not sure there's a position where a young player Chelsea might send to the Championship is less of a risk than our own young players.

Pretty much across the board, our best youngsters are better than Karacan, Pearce, Robson-Kanu and so forth were when they broke into the first team. At the time, they were good enough for the Championship. Although the standard of the Championship has increased in the intervening years, I think it's fairly safe to say our best current youngsters are good enough to play in the Championship.

[wingnut]

I'm not sure there's a position where a young player Chelsea might send to the Championship is less of a risk than our own young players.

Pretty much across the board, our best youngsters are better than Karacan, Pearce, Robson-Kanu and so forth were when they broke into the first team. At the time, they were good enough for the Championship. Although the standard of the Championship has increased in the intervening years, I think it's fairly safe to say our best current youngsters are good enough to play in the Championship.

I keep seeing stuff like this being asserted on here and yet from the available evidence of their appearances at champ level I just don't see it.

Adkins gave a number of the graduates opportunities early last season and then retreated. Clarke had the option to play them later on, too, and he preferred to use Chelsea's youngsters - and from I saw he made the right call.

For the moment, I don't believe the hype.

[paddy20]

I'm not sure there's a position where a young player Chelsea might send to the Championship is less of a risk than our own young players.

Pretty much across the board, our best youngsters are better than Karacan, Pearce, Robson-Kanu and so forth were when they broke into the first team. At the time, they were good enough for the Championship. Although the standard of the Championship has increased in the intervening years, I think it's fairly safe to say our best current youngsters are good enough to play in the Championship.

I keep seeing stuff like this being asserted on here and yet from the available evidence of their appearances at champ level I just don't see it.

Adkins gave a number of the graduates opportunities early last season and then retreated. Clarke had the option to play them later on, too, and he preferred to use Chelsea's youngsters - and from I saw he made the right call.

For the moment, I don't believe the hype.

+ 1 Anyone that thinks we can simply replace the players leaving and the ones we need from our Academy are deluded. At best one or two will break into the team but will still need nurturing by more experienced players

[Royal Rother]

I don't see it like that. Work with our own youngsters and improve them - that's what a good coach does.

At the possible risk of us getting relegated? It might be somewhat unrealistic, but these owners of ours still want promotion. Poor old Clarke hasn't got a chance at this club!

Well, I appreciate there's always a backstory but we had a number of (probably quite expensive) loanees, and some entirely useless experienced players he brought in, and FA Cup apart, the performances didn't improve a jot.

And I think it's a bit misleading to keep calling the youngsters we are talking about "Academy players" - the ones in contention are developing members of the 1st team squad.

[SCIAG]

I'm not sure there's a position where a young player Chelsea might send to the Championship is less of a risk than our own young players.

Pretty much across the board, our best youngsters are better than Karacan, Pearce, Robson-Kanu and so forth were when they broke into the first team. At the time, they were good enough for the Championship. Although the standard of the Championship has increased in the intervening years, I think it's fairly safe to say our best current youngsters are good enough to play in the Championship.

I keep seeing stuff like this being asserted on here and yet from the available evidence of their appearances at champ level I just don't see it.

Adkins gave a number of the graduates opportunities early last season and then retreated. Clarke had the option to play them later on, too, and he preferred to use Chelsea's youngsters - and from I saw he made the right call.

For the moment, I don't believe the hype.

Well, most of our youngsters have barely played at Championship level, so of course you can't tell they're good enough from their appearances at Championship level.

Barring that one League Cup match where Long came on, the only player Adkins "retreated" on was Kuhl, and that was because he signed a new player and had two more come back from injury. Nothing to do with Kuhl himself, who was good to excellent in most of his appearances. Oh, there's Taylor I guess - similar story, McCleary and HRK got fit. Tanner and Tshibola were injured, Hector remained in the side all season, Cooper third choice centre back for most of the season.

The other evidence you could compare are their appearances at youth and reserve level, where our current players comfortably have the upper hand. Even if it's not fair to compare Karacan to Kuhl, maybe compare Fosu or Stacey to Obita - for my money they're both at least as good as he was two years ago.

Picking Chalobah ahead of Kuhl was probably the right call, but his performances outside of the cups were still nothing to write home about. It's unlikely he'll go on loan to the Championship again, and nor will any other Chelsea youngsters who have already proven themselves at this level. Aké didn't show any quality beyond our own players at all and I don't think there's any reason to suggest his selection ahead of the Aarons was justified, except as a left back.

[Royal Rother]

You're not an outsider though are you? You're a WBA fan with an agenda against Clarke.....

Thanks for the concern but I have no concerns re: Clarke - my main worries are with finances & ownership. Clarke was asked questions & he answered as honestly as he could. If he didn't people would moan about him talking rubbish like Bodgers & Adkins did.

In for another odd season I feel but if Clarke stays, I think we'll do better than last time. Reading being 19th was not solely down to Clarke. I'm reasonably sure you didn't watch every game under Clarke. If you had, you'd have seen a fairly decent uplift in our performances.

There was a fairly decent uplift under Clarke? results in the Championship would suggest otherwise.

I can't remember who signed what and when for sure but Adkins (with no Chelsea players) 21 games, 25 points.

Clarke (with Chalobah, Ake, Knight, Yakubu, Travener, and whatever other superstars he brought in) 25 games, 25 points.

[maffff]

Ake was class. Best player on the pitch for most of the short time we had him.

[wingnut]

Ake was class. Best player on the pitch for most of the short time we had him.

While I wouldn't go that far, both he and Chalobah were significant improvements on Kuhl's fairly ineffective displays for the first team.

[SCIAG]

Ake was class. Best player on the pitch for most of the short time we had him.

While I wouldn't go that far, both he and Chalobah were significant improvements on Kuhl's fairly ineffective displays for the first team.

Kuhl was voted MOTM in his first two appearances. It's complete fiction to say he was ineffective.

Chalobah won no MOTM awards (in League matches) in his whole time here, and only received 50% more votes than Kuhl across the whole season despite making more appearances.

[Hoop Blah]

I think Kuhl did quite well, but I think it's fair to say he got a lot of those MoM votes for sentimental reasons.

Everyone wanted our little crusty the clown who'd skippered the kids teams to success to flourish and he got a lot of good press because of it. Yes he played well, but if he'd done as well as the fans reaction would suggest then he wouldn't have dropped away from the side quite so quickly as he did.

I think he's a cracking little player and I want him to earn a place in the side this season but I don't think he was quite as good for the first team as it's often made out.

[melonhead]

^that^

[wingnut]

I have absolutely no idea how those motm awards were decided or voted upon but wasn't one of them the 4-0 defeat away at forest? So yeah, really effective.