Match experience or good coaches better?

So just wondering, if you have a youngster and you have the option for them to get first team match experience but only with a very low team that doesn't even show coaches in their staff list or to just stay home with your coaches and youth games... which is better for gains?

how low is the team below the team you're with?

it'd be better to have good coaches and play them in reserves regularly than send them to a terrible team with terrible coaches

From what I understand from reading the forums, first team football is better than playing in the reserves to develop a young player.

My team is freshly promoted to the Bundesliga (German 1st), great coaches but low training facilities. Only teams willing to take a loan would be below the German 3rd, inactive team/league. I'm keeping the player with me, but 18y/o's don't tend to improve in the youth team much... I just don't expect anything else from loaning him out. *shrug*

Edit:

From what I understand from reading the forums, first team football is better than playing in the reserves to develop a young player.

So they say... but I've never seen anyone improve playing in inactive leagues. First team football is great and all but imagine running your team with no coaches at all...

but surely playing reserve football is of a higher standard than a 4th division german team?

Generally, first team playing experience in a league ONE level below will be more beneficial. TWO leagues below will usually be much the same as your reserves. However, if your training set up is really poor and the loanee club's is decent, plus if the club is likely to win a lot of matches and guarantees your player regular first team games, that might be more beneficial. In your case, however, an inactive team/league would not give those advantages.

Generally, first team playing experience in a league ONE level below will be more beneficial. TWO leagues below will usually be much the same as your reserves. However, if your training set up is really poor and the loanee club's is decent, plus if the club is likely to win a lot of matches and guarantees your player regular first team games, that might be more beneficial. In your case, however, an inactive team/league would not give those advantages.

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking...

My MLS save I've ony been able to loan out to the inactive lower divisions and despite playing a whole season and being extremely successful the players have never come back any better. SI did say they gain experience there as well, but obviously to a much lower level.

I have seen players develop nicely in an inactive league, but he played extremely well there, like closer to 8.0 than 7.0.

As a rule, loaning out a player is a minefield. Firstly, he needs to play regularly on a team that scores 2-3 goals per match because if they don't he won't achieve an av.r of 7.0 or better, which is a requirement for him to learn anything there. This means that it is difficult to find him a proper club since he needs to be dominant in the league - but if he is too good for the league he won't go there...

Secondly, the "important first-team player/back-up to the first team" implications that the interested clubs tells you is in no way indicative of how many games he will play, so don't accept/reject on that alone. Take a look at their team, training facilities and tactic before accepting a loan request. If you want to give a young GK match practice, take a look at the keepers they have and judge for yourself whether or not they are better player than your starlet.

I tend to think that my club's youth system is not only producing players for myself, but also serve a higher purpose of feeding good players (but not good enough to me) to the other clubs in the nation. I think of it as an investment in more fun in the future! I love to see a former player of mine performing well in a different club, even if it is against me.

Personally, I find that young players improve very little - even when on loan at a top level club in an active league.

I loaned out Tiago Alves to Getafe. He scored 12 goals in 22 games but his stats didn't improve. He was 20.

The following season I kept him but played him in loads of reserve games and a handful of senior games - his stats rocketed.

I know everyone says "first team action is best" but to me having players learn at my club is much more effective.

Also you should always ensure to put 'can be recalled' into the loan deal, and then keep an eye on your player. If he's not getting many games you may as well recall him and put him back in your reserves or loan him somewhere else.

I tend to use individual training schedules, and it's very annoying to remember to put them back to their schedule after they return. Besides I have yet to see any concrete evidence they improve more while on loan. So I rarely loan them out unless they'll be important first team player at a top division

Personally, I find that young players improve very little - even when on loan at a top level club in an active league.

I loaned out Tiago Alves to Getafe. He scored 12 goals in 22 games but his stats didn't improve. He was 20.

The following season I kept him but played him in loads of reserve games and a handful of senior games - his stats rocketed.

I know everyone says "first team action is best" but to me having players learn at my club is much more effective.

Giving promising young players a match in the first team, especially in the starting XI, a few times each season is by far the best way of player development in this game. As I said above, it is very difficult finding the right loan club at the right time for the right player.