Trying to put perspective around our recruitment policy

Seeing some of the EFL Trophy (or whatever it's called now) highlights this week got me thinking about the ongoing viability of our current recruitment policy in a way I'd not considered previously, but it seemed to highlight the scale of the challenge of what we're trying to do.

We've had 3 seasons now of the EFL Trophy since the U21 teams were introduced to the format. They've been competitive in some games, but none of these teams have come close to winning the tournament yet, and these are generally the U21 sides of the most successful clubs, with the pick of the youngest players within them.

The footage that prompted this thought-train was a game between Cheltenham and West Ham's U21s this week, where West Ham led 3-1 at half-time, but ultimately lost 4-3, basically to repeats of the same goal from crosses on the right wing. Ultimately, it gave the impression of very talented youngsters being out-done by a more experienced team over the course of 90 minutes, something which we're becoming very familiar with this season.

Anyway, we've had 3 seasons of U21 teams failing to beat League 1/2 sides over a tournament requiring 10 games or so, maximum. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that an U21 team couldn't compete over a full league season in League One with a reasonable expectation of promotion, no matter how talented the squad. Perhaps they could in League Two, based on the EFL Trophy evidence, but the step up to League One appears too far.

So, assuming you then increase the age restriction in one year increments, at what point can you become competitive at the League One level?

Arguably, we provide the best answer to this with last season's team, which must have had an average age of around 24/25, at a guess. This, to me, was an exceptional group of players in a well-coached squad but, for the purposes of this theory, they demonstrated that it was capable of being promoted from L1 as, say, an Under 24/25's team. It doesn't guarantee success, but it's possible to be achieved.

Our recruitment policy relies on the fact that the same U25 restriction is also capable of competing in the Championship, and this is where the model falls down for me. My very basic analysis above suggests U21's might be competitive in L2, but you need an U24/25 team to compete at L1 level. Logically, the Championship, and subsequently the Premier League, need a corresponding increase in age, and more importantly experience, to make the step up, which is where we're missing out currently. I'd be intrigued to know what the youngest average aged squad to be promoted from the Championship is, historically, but at at guess I'd say it would be 27/28, which would be a logical progression of the above trend. Maybe the age argument then stops there at a Premier League level, as things become less about age/experience and more about ability to buy the best talent/coaching at that stage, so unlimited funds ultimately become the key factor.

Unsurprisingly, it's only concluding what most of us can already see instinctively about the experience in the squad, but it seems telling to me that a team as talented as, say Man City's U21 team which beat us at Oakwell last season, hasn't yet been successful over League teams in a format which requires about a quarter of the games of a full league season. Consequently, how reasonable is it to expect an age restricted team to compete in the Championship over a full league season?

Our current transfer policy is essentially placing this type of restriction on our recruitment and the logical conclusion is that the best we can hope for is to be a yo-yo team between L1 and the Championship if we stick with it as rigidly as it appears.

Anyway, just something to ponder while we await the appointment of the next miracle worker.