TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

This is a subject that wrankles with me and I want to put out a few scenarios out there for you to discuss and see if you agree or not.


IMO the key to success in a trial depends on 2 simple components:

1. The most obvious one being that the player is not totally sh*te in the first place.

2. The position that the player on trial plays and the situations that occur during a game.

For example, a striker with a burgeoning reputation could play a couple of games on trial at a club and should those 2 games turn out that the opposition is good and have most of the possession and dominate, then the striker might get few opportunities to sh*ne. Sure he can put himself about a bit and show some good runs and touches but if striking situations are limited then that means the action is taking place elsewhere on the field of play. This means that other players (midefielders for example) by default are always in the thick of the action and so subconsciously they get more noticed and more attention from scouts and managers.

A goalkeeper with nothing to do isn't going to impress although he may be great on then flipside an overworked goalkeeper has the chance to impress. I think strikers get a raw deal because often a game is out of their hands and then people say they are crap. Obviously should they be missing loads of chances and not reading the game well in general then fair enough but I just think trials can sometimes not show the true player.

I suppose it's like a job interview. One person may like you and another not even though you are good enough and can do the job. It's all down to one persons opinion. Like with Rendell, we've all seen him do well for us but in the trials he has not done well. I've not seen the games but I get the impression he didn't get much of a look in and was carrying an injury and so I think it's harsh to judge him on this.

Trials extend miles beyond the 90 minutes on the pitch. Knilly sees Rendell every day in training. He sees hoods attitude, workrate, application, effort, ability, willingness to stay behind, hours at the gym and a myriad other things.
What's unfair is judging applications for real jobs based on a sheet of A4 bollocks. Now that is a fubar way of doing things.

Matt.

I didn't know that triallists spent time with the club on a daily basis. I had the impression they just played in games as and when required. Oops.

Still, my point is valid for schools and youth teams as they just play in arranged games as and when don't they?

I think, in terms of kids, clubs have a team of hugely skilled individuals who spot talent immediately. Geoff Harrop, it seems, commands huge respect in the industry for his work with young players. Part of this is to identify those who have the potential to make it as pros.
The other thing to remember about the nippers is that they are free, they cost nothing in pay or transfers, so clubs can take hundreds in and, if only one of them makes the grade, that's ok, because it's cost virtually nothing.

I'm not taking away from the general point you make about trials being potentially unfair. I agree to an extent that asking a guy to impress across such a short spell is a tough ask. There again, I guess that's the nature of the industry. It's a little like speeding and speed cameras. You could be the safest, most law abiding driver on the road, but if you happen to stray over the arbitrary limit while a cop has a speed gun pointed at you, you get punished just the same as a lunatic kid who drives like a nutter ordinarily, but happened to be drunk at the time, so was only speeding a little bit.

Matt.