Bradford Reserves Logic? Help!

[DutchBantam]

What is the logic behind our reserve team?

I understand the theory. We get the best of our youngsters playing up against men, seasonsed pro's, tougher opposition both skill wise and physically, week in, week out. The younger ones are playing youth football and reserve football all season. This means these kids are getting a whole shed load of experience and are going to develop quicker and adapt and acclimatise to pro football quicker as they will be more used to the pace and physical nature of the game rather than jumping straight from the youth team.

But on the other hand take a look at the reserves for the past 2 seasons. How many first teamers have come from there apart from Bentham?

And take a look at the fringe players in the first team squad. The players who play 10-15 games per season or the players who are serious backup to the first team.

Edghill, EJ, Howarth, Clarke and to some extent Muirhead. These guys are expected to come into the first team and perform well however they are very rarely if ever given a run out in the reserves. I think EJ has had one, Muirhead a couple, Clarke one, Edghill and Howarth I haven't seen for a long time.
Why? How can Edghill be expected to play against Forest and be at his best when he hasn't had a game at any level for months? What happens if Ricketts gets injured? Do we play the promising Saynor or do we risk a keeper who hasn't had a match all season?

Dunno, I must be missing something here...

[Yeadon Bantam]

I'd risk saynor, he can't be worse than Howarth?

[BronteBantam]

I agree, the only explanation I can offer could be that because our squad is so thin we don't risk injuries in reserves.

[Edwin Fitzgerald]

What is the logic behind our reserve team?

I understand the theory. We get the best of our youngsters playing up against men, seasonsed pro's, tougher opposition both skill wise and physically, week in, week out. The younger ones are playing youth football and reserve football all season. This means these kids are getting a whole shed load of experience and are going to develop quicker and adapt and acclimatise to pro football quicker as they will be more used to the pace and physical nature of the game rather than jumping straight from the youth team.

But on the other hand take a look at the reserves for the past 2 seasons. How many first teamers have come from there apart from Bentham?

And take a look at the fringe players in the first team squad. The players who play 10-15 games per season or the players who are serious backup to the first team.

Edghill, EJ, Howarth, Clarke and to some extent Muirhead. These guys are expected to come into the first team and perform well however they are very rarely if ever given a run out in the reserves. I think EJ has had one, Muirhead a couple, Clarke one, Edghill and Howarth I haven't seen for a long time.
Why? How can Edghill be expected to play against Forest and be at his best when he hasn't had a game at any level for months? What happens if Ricketts gets injured? Do we play the promising Saynor or do we risk a keeper who hasn't had a match all season?

Dunno, I must be missing something here...


The reason it is done is this: Todd, in a moment of sense, realised that if he played his first team cover players in the reserves, there is a chance, as with every football game, that they could get injured. Because of this, he decided not to play them in reserve games, because if, heaven forbid- he lost a first team player for whatever reason, he would still have cover. It's not rocket science !
I realise how patronising that sounds, but Todd said as much in an interview earlier in the season. He needs cover, just in case we lose a player. Take doyle as an example- he's gone to hull now. If he had played Edgie in the reserves, and he had gotten injured, todd would not have a right back (that he rates and is willing to play) at the club. He has his favourites, and wants them available for first team football whenever possible.

[DutchBantam]

On the other hand playing a cover player who has not played any matches for months is playing a player who is only 60% match fit/sharp.
Players get injured during training, they get injured at home or out clubbing. And playing a player who is only 60% match ready greatly increases the chance they will be injured during a game when they do have to fill in.

Is it any coincidence that certain players get crocked easily in matches when they have not been playing for long periods?

My own negativity aside that is a good reason which answers my question. I do not agree with it (the principal) in the slightest but it is a good explanation.

[Edwin Fitzgerald]

On the other hand playing a cover player who has not played any matches for months is playing a player who is only 60% match fit/sharp.
Players get injured during training, they get injured at home or out clubbing. And playing a player who is only 60% match ready greatly increases the chance they will be injured during a game when they do have to fill in.

Is it any coincidence that certain players get crocked easily in matches when they have not been playing for long periods?

My own negativity aside that is a good reason which answers my question. I do not agree with it (the principal) in the slightest but it is a good explanation.

That's a good point about injuries in people 60 % fit too. The thing is- i agree with you. I'd much rather have my players match fit by playing them. But todd could be a sven he's so cautious. He dare not risk them with such a thin squad, as was rightly said before. Tbh, with our financial situation, as well as the precarious league position, i can understand why, but still- it is very conservative.