BuzzerBeater Forums

Fantastic Suggestion !!!

Look at this BB-Marin

Yeah, now, after some rethinking about my suggestion and some discussion on the portuguese forum, I'm also more in favour of the U-24 rather than U-23. It's very difficult for a player with only 24 years old to get to play for the AA's, so if it was U-24 it would give managers one more year to train their players for the selection, and when they have 25/26 years old they would be in perfect shape to play for their country in the highest level!!

All right, but if instead of being U-23 it can be U-24, it's something that can be easily discussed.

As for the work of the manager in the U-23, I don't agree with your opinion. Just because it's just 2 or 3 seasons after the U-21 that doesn't mean that you don't have to speak with managers of the 23/24 years old selectable players. You still need to give training plans for those who came out of the U-21 because it's completely different to train a player when he is really young or when he has around 23, or that's what I think so, I can be wrong.
And I don't see the problem in the U-23/U-24 being an extension of the U-21, because that's what is suppose to be. It's the way to get a smaller gap between the U-21 and the AA's, it's the way to help managers to train their players in the best possible way and until a further age, making those players more suitable for the AA's.

But thanks for your comment and I hope that you continue to say what you think it's wrong with the suggestion because that's the only way to see if it is worth it or not, and the only way to improve it!!

is an ingenious idea would give players more chances to evolve and help evolve the AA selections go forward with this idea.

1) Yes, of course!! The U-23/U-24 would work as the next step of the ladder to reach the top (the AA's in this case). The U-21 would be the base, the U-23/24 would be the part where the players get experience and training to get to the last selection.

2) That's something that can be discussed and arranged. Maybe we can make the elections at the same time of the U-21, or we can rotate it during 3 seasons (although I think the first option is a little better).

3) They can choose ether or not to play with that players in the AA's or for the U-24. And I think if you are a small nation, and if you invest on training players, you can get a very good U-23/24 team and contest with the bigger nations in that age level, and then, when the players have 25 or plus, you have better players than you had before, which rises competitiveness in terms of AA's, and reduces the quality difference between large and small nations.

If it's implemented, I'd like the 3 different NT coachs to be elected for 3 seasons. 2 seasons is too short

Well, if it's supposed to be 3 seasons instead of two, then you could rearrange it that you would play a Continental Cup in the first year, have a big qualification round for the world cup in the second year (and you don't automatically qualify during Continental Cups, so a second/ new chance for every team that got a little bit unlucky during the Continental Cup e.g.) and in the third year you've got a the World Cup.

Just a quick suggestion. What do you think?

And I think, if you prolong the election period to 3 seasons, that's really good - especially in the u21/ u24 teams where you're developing players into a certain direction and it sometimes takes a little bit more than 2 seasons to get changes in training plans etc. to start working...


So I'm all for a new U-24 squad and also the 3 year election period (if we find a workable arrangement) ...