Martyn Hocking Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 ... not City, obviously! Incredibly, it's Man Utd - in a season when they have been chasing 5 trophies right up to the middle of April. While I'm sure their kids are better than ours, equally they are being introduced into much bigger games and are under a lot more pressure to perform from Day One. This season I'm sure we would have seen Ribeiro getting some game time if he had not got injured - and the same applies presumably to James Wilson, but that would have been about it for the Academy boys. It was great to see the four new lads - Stambolziev, Edwards, Kington and Jackson on the pitch at half-time on Saturday, but how long will we have to wait to see them on the hallowed AG turf wearing a 1st team shirt? Two years minimum I suspect, given GJ's cautious approach (a year in the reserves, followed by another season going out on loan to Cheltenham etc). I struggle to see how Man Utd (and Arsenal) can take risks with kids in league cup etc but we feel unable to - it's not as though we are ever going to win the League Cup is it? Well_red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 Its a good question - why are top clubs like Man Utd able to introduce youth into their first team squad despite being involved in so many top flight compititions? Is it the confidence that the manager has in his academy and the staff that run it or is it the fact that the manager has faith in the young players coming through? Or maybe there is some other explanation. Whatever the reason, teams in the lower leagues don't often 'risk' academy players that often. Most managers opt to stick with proven players. Its as if they simply don't have the confidence in inexperienced youngsters. To play them is too risky. Johnson is like that as was Wilson, despite the City academy producing some talented youngsters. They rarely get much chance to show what they are capable of. The closest they are likely to get to the first team is the reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcdziek Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 One of the reasons has to be the job security Sir Alex has. People go on about him and Wenger playing kids in the league cup, but those 2 are virtually untouchable compared to other managers. They can afford to throw the kids in, as if they lose, they wont be risking their job security. Pretty much every other manager in the league cant risk it. The fact that Gary Johnson is the 10th longest serving manager - at only 3 and a half years - backs that up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rizzle Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 ... not City, obviously! Incredibly, it's Man Utd - in a season when they have been chasing 5 trophies right up to the middle of April. While I'm sure their kids are better than ours, equally they are being introduced into much bigger games and are under a lot more pressure to perform from Day One. This season I'm sure we would have seen Ribeiro getting some game time if he had not got injured - and the same applies presumably to James Wilson, but that would have been about it for the Academy boys. It was great to see the four new lads - Stambolziev, Edwards, Kington and Jackson on the pitch at half-time on Saturday, but how long will we have to wait to see them on the hallowed AG turf wearing a 1st team shirt? Two years minimum I suspect, given GJ's cautious approach (a year in the reserves, followed by another season going out on loan to Cheltenham etc). I struggle to see how Man Utd (and Arsenal) can take risks with kids in league cup etc but we feel unable to - it's not as though we are ever going to win the League Cup is it? Well_red I think we have to remember that the united youngsters are far far far better than our youngsters, and thats taking into account the league difference between us and them. Also uniteds catchment area is far bigger than ours, they sign 14, 15, 16 year olds from all over the world who have the potential to be world class players and will almost certainly go on to represent their countries. Whereas we haveba small catchment areas with players that will (probably) only ever be lower league players, with a few making it to the prem and even fewer every representing their country. As a result of that i think it's alot easier for sir alex to play them, because they have sheer quality. yes it is a gamble for him to play them but id argue it would be more of a gamble for us to start one of the youngsters in the championship then it would be for united in the prem, Purely because of the difference in quality between the two sets of players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Man Utd have been playing at much the same level (i.e. the very top) for goodness knows how long. Longer than their academy lads will have been alive, certainly. Ours on the other hand has had to progress a level. It used to need to produce lower league standard players - Matt Hill and Cotterill were about the best, the rest such as Amankwaah, Fortune, Coles, Spencer etc. were all league one players at best (even if they had the potential to be better). Whilst we haven't seen too many make the first team yet I think the signs are good. One thing to look at is where the released players end up - they used to mostly end up at the likes of Forest Green and Weston, and often weren't good enough there either, now they go to clubs like Cheltenham and the Rovers who are a couple of divisions higher. That's at least a sign of progress. Johnson says that some of the current lot are potential Premier League players, and if they're good enough I reckon we'll see them before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich i e Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 One of the reasons has to be the job security Sir Alex has. People go on about him and Wenger playing kids in the league cup, but those 2 are virtually untouchable compared to other managers. They can afford to throw the kids in, as if they lose, they wont be risking their job security. Pretty much every other manager in the league cant risk it. The fact that Gary Johnson is the 10th longest serving manager - at only 3 and a half years - backs that up I don't think GJ would get sacked, if we got knocked out of the 1st round of the league cup for playing kids? I don't think it would be unreasonale to try a couple, I know Ribeiro was unfortunate, but GJ's record ain't good for trying the acadamy players. Presumably he considers the majority of them currently ain't good enough, perhaps the enrolement and coaching of them needs to be looked at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Presumably he considers the majority of them currently ain't good enough, perhaps the enrolement and coaching of them needs to be looked at? I have mentioned this before - certainly the age group of Jackson, Kington and Edwards were a match for any team except Arsenal in the early years. That means they beat the likes of Villa Spurs and Chelsea regularly - and also the often bigged up Southampton Academy. Something seems to happen to them when they get to the sharp end - ie between 16-18 so the quality of coaching must be looked at in my opinion. Not a lot wrong with recruitment I think because most kids are attracted to an Academy because of the opposition you play, and the only competition is the likes of Rovers Swindon and Cheltenham. City are also in the mix for the Premier league kids who get released at 16 and grabbed a couple of Chelsea lads last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Man U and Arsenal have a scouting network which probably costs as much to run as our first team wage bill and is worldwide. Once these talented youngsters are identified and signed they are put under the guidance of worldclass coaches who are capable of bringing the raw talent out of them. But they can afford to do this with the mega-millions these clubs generate. But saying that not all Man U or Arsenal prodigies go on to make it in the Premier League. Many of these kids drop several leagues to stay in football, the differance is if a City trainee drops down 2 Divisions up until last year they would have dropped out of the Football League. As for those who Sir Alex or Wenger believe to be good enough playing for the first team you have to remember they are surrounded by world class players and more than likely several internationals sat on the bench. If a youngster is having a mare then they can be guided by an experianced international and if that fails SAF can bring on Rooney or Scholes or Vidic or whoever, players who can influance a game even if they are a goal down. We could play our youngsters in the League Cup, but to a club like ours a decent cup run can generate a lot of money which we need more than they do, after all we don't have to worry about the Champions league or the Prem title. In saying all this I would love to see our youngsters get the chance to prove they can cut it at first team level, but the reallity is we will never produce high quality in great quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifty Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I don't think anyone was expecting GJ to put a whole team of youngsters out. It would be more profitable to have a mix. Just play between 1-4 in the squad for cup games. Not only will it give players the match day experience, but the fans a chance to see the players for the future. Playing our full 1st team and losing against Crewe isn't going to do much for anyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MATT BCFC Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Its a good question - why are top clubs like Man Utd able to introduce youth into their first team squad despite being involved in so many top flight compititions? Is it the confidence that the manager has in his academy and the staff that run it or is it the fact that the manager has faith in the young players coming through? Or maybe there is some other explanation. Whatever the reason, teams in the lower leagues don't often 'risk' academy players that often. Most managers opt to stick with proven players. Its as if they simply don't have the confidence in inexperienced youngsters. To play them is too risky. Johnson is like that as was Wilson, despite the City academy producing some talented youngsters. They rarely get much chance to show what they are capable of. The closest they are likely to get to the first team is the reserves. Perhaps one of the reasons that they are lower league managers. I personally think its a positive thing giving youngsters a chance they all have a point to prove and arnt afraid to try things maybe older and experienced players are. Take Marchena at Man United for example clearly quite raw but a brilliant piece of skill followed by a great finnish against Aston Villa in the dieing moments argueably has won them the title this season. Yes we don't have anyone as good Marchena but we are playing at a lower level. If you don't try these players you just don't know whether they are good enough. Seems a huge waste of money if we are going to invest so much in the academy for the vast amount of them to just be in the reserves or on loan at cheltenham.t Cant understand why someone like Tristan Plummer hasnt been used as a impact sub this season. His pace and skill would be effective against tired defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Perhaps one of the reasons that they are lower league managers. I personally think its a positive thing giving youngsters a chance they all have a point to prove and arnt afraid to try things maybe older and experienced players are. Take Marchena at Man United for example clearly quite raw but a brilliant piece of skill followed by a great finnish against Aston Villa in the dieing moments argueably has won them the title this season. Yes we don't have anyone as good Marchena but we are playing at a lower level. If you don't try these players you just don't know whether they are good enough. Seems a huge waste of money if we are going to invest so much in the academy for the vast amount of them to just be in the reserves or on loan at cheltenham.t Cant understand why someone like Tristan Plummer hasnt been used as a impact sub this season. His pace and skill would be effective against tired defenders. Tristan Plummer couldn't even get a game at Torquay so I can fully understand why GJ might think he is nowhere near a Championship start yet. I do think, however, that the likes of Akinde, Wilson, Ribiero and Artus need to be given games next season. The team is at a transitional stage and it would be nice to think we have some youngsters who, by getting vital experience now, will take us where we want to be in a few seasons time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ashtonyate Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Or It could be he does not think our youngsters are ready or good enough at the moment he sees them every day,this season if they were good enough they would have got on the bench as we had a job some games to get enough players to fill the subs positions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Cant understand why someone like Tristan Plummer hasnt been used as a impact sub this season. His pace and skill would be effective against tired defenders. Look at Macheda and then look at Plummer and you'll see. Plummer may have bulked up a bit since but last time I saw him play he looked tiny compared to the rest of the players - and I don't mean short I mean really skinny and weak-looking. Skill can obviously compensate for lack of physical strength but there's a certain basic level needed to play professionally and Plummer doesn't have it at the moment. If you look at players who've made a real impact at an early age, like Rooney, Victor Moses and Macheda you'll see that they all looked about 10 years older than they actually are. Some players simply won't be ready until they're much older and Plummer is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 ... not City, obviously! Incredibly, it's Man Utd - in a season when they have been chasing 5 trophies right up to the middle of April. While I'm sure their kids are better than ours, equally they are being introduced into much bigger games and are under a lot more pressure to perform from Day One. This season I'm sure we would have seen Ribeiro getting some game time if he had not got injured - and the same applies presumably to James Wilson, but that would have been about it for the Academy boys. It was great to see the four new lads - Stambolziev, Edwards, Kington and Jackson on the pitch at half-time on Saturday, but how long will we have to wait to see them on the hallowed AG turf wearing a 1st team shirt? Two years minimum I suspect, given GJ's cautious approach (a year in the reserves, followed by another season going out on loan to Cheltenham etc). I struggle to see how Man Utd (and Arsenal) can take risks with kids in league cup etc but we feel unable to - it's not as though we are ever going to win the League Cup is it? Well_red This is an odd thing. Why are we not giving our youngsters a fair chance when we got nothing to play for? Loyalty to the team again so they will get their bonuses? Really, really poor.. Our scouts seems to be schysters reading players contracts instead of doing what they are paid for - scouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Would certainly like to see more of our youngsters, it seems to be a bit of a vicious circle for them at the moment though, if there not good enough yet, they don't get a look in, so in that case they don't get the benefits of matchday and game time experience that would help bring them on. I think its important that younger players get a taste of what its like to play infront of a large crowd in a competitive game for your own team, its all good and well being sent on loan 2 leagues down and doing ok, but surely there hearts not going to be 100% into it, i for one would much rather be playing for the club ive been with for 5-10 years than Hereford or Torquay for example. I guess we just have to retain faith in the manager but i do feel the longer the route is blocked for our younger players it will eventually start to damage the reputation of the academy in that its just a dead end. It needs to be seen as a proper conveyor belt for local talent with the end product being a solid pro and 1st team regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 One of the reasons has to be the job security Sir Alex has. People go on about him and Wenger playing kids in the league cup, but those 2 are virtually untouchable compared to other managers. They can afford to throw the kids in, as if they lose, they wont be risking their job security. Pretty much every other manager in the league cant risk it. The fact that Gary Johnson is the 10th longest serving manager - at only 3 and a half years - backs that up This is a very good point...The board of ManU want the Champions League Trophy and/or the Premier League in their cabinet and thus there is little or no risk to the manager all the time they can obtain/retain one of these trophies....Money Talks Therefore the reserves actually get more big match (any match) experience at Old Trafford than at most clubs... The risk of failure at our club is a problem, a return to Divvy Three would be disastrous and the revenue bought in by Cup matches is very helpful to the manager and the chairman thus playing reserves/u20's does have a much higher risk factor...Who wouldn't show up at AG for ManU in the League Cup/FA Cup not many... However all managers sometimes do have to take risks to move things along and I can see Mr. Johnson adding a couple of players that are considered close to ready to the 1st 16 early next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 This is a very good point...The board of ManU want the Champions League Trophy and/or the Premier League in their cabinet and thus there is little or no risk to the manager all the time they can obtain/retain one of these trophies....Money Talks Therefore the reserves actually get more big match (any match) experience at Old Trafford than at most clubs... The risk of failure at our club is a problem, a return to Divvy Three would be disastrous and the revenue bought in by Cup matches is very helpful to the manager and the chairman thus playing reserves/u20's does have a much higher risk factor...Who wouldn't show up at AG for ManU in the League Cup/FA Cup not many... However all managers sometimes do have to take risks to move things along and I can see Mr. Johnson adding a couple of players that are considered close to ready to the 1st 16 early next season Scared boys will never kiss beautiful girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Scared boys will never kiss beautiful girls. Swedish boys wont have to watch third division football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donkeeebles Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I seem to remember Arsenal kids beating Wigan 5-0 or 5-1, something like that, in the league cup. Not sure how many of those have featured in the first team since. I did expect Ramsey to feature more lately considering Arsenal have had a few players missing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RobbieTurner Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 ... not City, obviously! Incredibly, it's Man Utd - in a season when they have been chasing 5 trophies right up to the middle of April. While I'm sure their kids are better than ours, equally they are being introduced into much bigger games and are under a lot more pressure to perform from Day One. This season I'm sure we would have seen Ribeiro getting some game time if he had not got injured - and the same applies presumably to James Wilson, but that would have been about it for the Academy boys. It was great to see the four new lads - Stambolziev, Edwards, Kington and Jackson on the pitch at half-time on Saturday, but how long will we have to wait to see them on the hallowed AG turf wearing a 1st team shirt? Two years minimum I suspect, given GJ's cautious approach (a year in the reserves, followed by another season going out on loan to Cheltenham etc). I struggle to see how Man Utd (and Arsenal) can take risks with kids in league cup etc but we feel unable to - it's not as though we are ever going to win the League Cup is it? Well_red No disrespect to our 1st team but I believe Man Utd can get away with it because they have so many good players helping the youngsters along. Our players have fallen short in our league and cannot manage themselves sometimes, let alone carry a 17 or 18 yr old on their shoulders. And before anyone says anything - thats realism not being defeatist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.