To be fair, there’s something we don’t talk about enough at the club: how rigid age-banding and early positional drilling can peg youngsters into roles they might not keep once the physical advantages disappear. The issue is simple and stubborn — what looks like a prodigy at U16 can be a square peg by the time U21s roll around.

Why the age-band model hurts

Age bands are tidy for coaches and scouts. You can compare boys of the same birth year and build programmes around them. Trouble is, human bodies don’t follow neat calendars. Some lads mature early and dominate opponents purely because they’re bigger. We then teach them to be the big centre back, the commanding presence, the organiser. It makes sense at the time. But when everyone evens out physically, that single attribute disappears.

The positional trap

Call it programming, call it drilling — it’s when a player is coached into a slot so thoroughly that switching later is awkward. Players who have been told since 12 or 13 that their destiny is central defence have rarely practised the full range of skills a full back or defensive midfielder needs. Turning someone into a different profile takes patience, repetition and a willingness to experiment, and I’m not convinced we always give that time.

So what should change?

We don’t need a revolution. But we do need a bit more flexibility in how youth players are developed. Rotate positions more often, judge potential on technical and cognitive traits as well as size, and accept that unpicking years of positional thinking is part of the job. It’s slow work, but worth it if it means fewer promising careers fizzling out because a boy stopped growing.

Truth is, I want Rangers’ academy to produce adaptable pros, not just teenagers who peak early because they were bigger. Give the kids room to change. The pay-off comes later, when the man on the pitch can cope with the pro game, not just the youth league.

Written by EHL2020: 19 June 2026

Tags: tactics