Well we dont have time. Everyone is calling for the kids to take up the squad places that are being vacated by the 10 plus players leaving since we cant buy 10 plus players. So we need to decide. Are they good enough or not.
I strongly believe Hannibal is likely to be just as good as Bellingham, Pedri, Gavi and the likes if given the opportunity. He was rated just as highly as all of those 2 to 3 years ago, in fact I believe if he where to be at Barca now he would have played just as many minutes as Pedri, Gavi and we'd all be raving about him now as we are doing for those two.
A lot of it is down to drive and determination to make it. The ones who have good technical skills or physical qualities are often the ones talked up to make it, but often leads to complacency as they don't realise their potential.
I mean utd have a history of players who've made it in the first team that aren't stand outs, they've just maximised their potential and been able to make it as a useful squad player. Likes of O'Shea, Neville's, lingard, mctominay etc, none of them were regarded as top players in their position and even at youth level, few really excelled.
In truth it's just really tough to make it at utd. Players don't get opportunity to develop naturally through the club, they usually have to get a few loans and hope it works out. Unlike clubs like Ajax and others who develop their youth with the sole intention of moulding them into first team players. Utd tend to just hope a few make it but without much real planning.
I think Utd have produced more professional players than most teams (just not necessarily playing for us). The problem is there a big difference to being Utd ready than most teams in the world because of our history associated with young footballers and the pressure that comes with it. You think if Greenwood played for Norwich, the things he’s allegedly done would name the front and back pages of the newspapers? The FA youth club had a record number of people watching it. You have to protect Utd young players in different ways to any other team, especially from our own fans!!!!
This is very false.
Youngster don't need to be given games to see if they're ready or not. We have training and U21 matches for that. CO92 wasn't given games to see if they're ready or not, they're given time because they are fecking ready to step up. Not the other way around. Camavinga getting games at 17 because he has shown in training he's more than ready for what's ahead. Give Laird 10 games he'll probably fumble under the pressure, because technically the manager doesn't see him as ready. The same with most youngster around the world.
Giving them 10 games doesn't make or break them as a player, so if we're not seeing kids getting time the brutal truth is that none of them are ready or deemed good enough to be given a chance.
Stop blaming the Manager for not playing youth, in a hindsight non of our academy players are top level quality (including Rashford)
I feel strongly about United promoting youth but have to say that this has a lot of sound logic to it. I'd probably give a bigger emphasis to aiming for the kids to be squad options, and increase the cut off age to 20 but either way, this trend of chucking kids into the team as starters (not squad players) doesn't quite sit well with the ambitions of a big club.Probably a controversial opinion but for me, the point of the modern Academy shouldn't really be produce players for the first XI.
The chances of THE best player, or even a 'top 10' player, in THAT position coming through your Academy and perfectly suiting your style of football as an ELITE side are very slim.
For example, Manchester City have Phil Foden, who starts about half of the time, and Liverpool have TAA. They are the only two Academy products who start in the 'best XIs' of those sides.
A realistic objective for the Academy should be to produce players who fill out the 23. So you might expect to produce a 2nd choice GK, or a 4th choice CM, or a 2nd choice wide-forward, for example. This saves you money buying these players in and creates a pathway into the team for the younger lads.
However, for me, in modern football, the primary role of the Academy should be to 'farm' players to sell to other clubs. Now, we have done this very, very poorly in recent years. Primarily because of this old-school philosophy SAF had that we somehow owed these lads a chance to kickstart their careers, meaning we'd let them go for little to no money.
That kind of romanticism might have been fine in the 90s/early 00s but it isn't any longer, particularly with the fees some of these lads go for. We only have to look at some of the fees paid or quoted for lads we have produced to see we are missing out massively. Drinkwater won a league title and then went to Chelsea for £50m. Micheal Keane went to Everton for £30m. We've seen decent fees paid for the likes of James Chester, Ryan Shawcross and Sam Johnstone, plus their are literally 50 more we could all name that are playing in England's top two divisions and top leagues in Europe.
What would our net spend look like if we had maximised the value of these lads, like Liverpool do? What would our net spend have looked like had we been smarter with the likes of Dean Henderson, Scott McTominay, Adnan Janujaz and Marcus Rashford?
For me, the process is simple. IF they are not considered talented enough to play for the first team by the time they are 18, then it should becoming all about marketing them. Get them on 'soft loans' to clubs in leagues were they can pad their stats. Build some hype about them. Give them the odd few minutes in a couple of dead-rubber games, or games that are done and dusted.
Then, we should look to sell them with a buy-back clause inserted. That way, if ever they do really hit the heights, we can just bring them back, The chances are, we never would though. Would we bring back Henderson, McTominay, Rashford or Janujaz now, had we sold them all at 21? Very doubtful.
Harsh, I know. Perhaps not what some fans want to hear. Ultimately though, I think we would be a much better team for it, as the funds can then be used to buy players who genuinely are elite or suited to our system. Plus, arguably it's actually better for the young lads. All of these loans can't help their careers. Look at Tuanzebe. Look at Lingard. Who knows? Both could have been top PL players, had they been moved on earlier.
If you're good enough you'll get time.
They're loaned out and failed to make impression because they're actually not good enough. We could have loaned young Beck, Young Scholes to L2 and they'll still shine, because they're that good.
Yep. We seem to rely on the individual figuring it out and are unable to maximize the potential of the once big potential kid. My worry is that this will happen with the next batch too.We have wasted a large amount of these players because I believe that many of them had more to offer and we stunted their growth with poor early coaching and limited playing time. By all account United seems to be genuinely great at identifying talents but we are not good at nurturing and developing them. How many of our youth players have minor flaws at 17 years old that are never fixed, how many of our youth players only get playing time after 19/20 years old.
We have wasted a large amount of these players because I believe that many of them had more to offer and we stunted their growth with poor early coaching and limited playing time. By all account United seems to be genuinely great at identifying talents but we are not good at nurturing and developing them. How many of our youth players have minor flaws at 17 years old that are never fixed, how many of our youth players only get playing time after 19/20 years old.
Well this isn’t true either. Sometimes a sink or swim technique is required with players, even young players. Some players turn it on when the chips are down, and you can only know for certain when you’re in that position. However this comes with an innate risk, the risk that they sink. If they sink it can easily cost games, and costing games can cost a spot in continental competition in our case, or a place in the league for those below us.
Many managers are risk averse, because they know such a big risk could very easily cost them their job and the club lots of money. Add in the state of United (and probably more importantly the fan base) right now and managers are even more likely to be averse to throwing a young player in, because they’re even more likely to sink due to the toxic atmosphere.
You’ve way oversimplified what isn’t an easy move. Players like Pedri/Camavinga get game time at a massive club because they were stars at smaller clubs already and merely stepped up, Gavi is the only comparable one in there because he was thrown in the deep end due to the unique circumstances Barcelona are in.
Not sure whether they do, cause look down the leagues we produce good footballers. I guess we are talking about making the first team and if you had a 7 year old son, there is more chance of you winning the lottery than him making the squad….
Before you know what, I felt his form was very patchyHe was
The likes of garnacho, mejbri, farnandez, mainoo are potential first teamers. Physically though they are miles off (lightweight) , they really need to work on that aspect before they’re ready to start games for us.
Well we dont have time. Everyone is calling for the kids to take up the squad places that are being vacated by the 10 plus players leaving since we cant buy 10 plus players. So we need to decide. Are they good enough or not.
Are they? Mejbri was perfectly fine physically a year ago and football including in the premier league doesn't require to be an heavyweight, lightweights are all around the league. Also isn't Garnacho 180cm and nearly 80 kgs?
Harry Kane had shitloads of failed loans then shone when thrown in with Spurs, and is now well on his way to breaking Shearers goal record.
I agree about Mejbri, he should be playing 1st team football by now, in my opinion he was badly advised coming to Utd with either parents or representatives chasing the money. Lots of agents have told me the appointment of ETH will be good for the academy, we will have to wait and see.
This is an excellent post, was going to type almost the same thing. Since I've been watching the reserves, I'd say the only group 1 types I've seen at United were Pogba, Rossi and the best was genuinely Greenwood. But our very best teenagers in recent years (Rooney, Ronaldo) were already playing senior football every week at that age.There are five types of youth player.
1. The 1/100 who was destined to make it right from the start. They are few and far between and I can only remember five players who I saw at youth level who I thought were dead certs (Whiteside, Giggs, Butt, Morrison, Greenwood). All the others were maybe's for one reason or another.
2. Players who show all the potential but develop into very good players a bit later. There are loads of like that including Albiston, Duxbury, Hughes, Scholes, Fletcher, Beckham, Neville, Brown, etc
3. Good solid pro's who form part of a first team squad. Again there are loads of those including P. Neville, O'Shea, Blackmore, Cleverley etc
4. Good players but not at United level (which is one of the highest in the world) and they tend to be part of the 67% who go on to careers elsewhere.
5. The final group are players that just didn't develop and plateaued early...and they tend to leave the game.
In terms of our U/18's and U/23's we definitely don't have any in Group 1 but maybe in Group 2 and 3.
There are five types of youth player.
1. The 1/100 who was destined to make it right from the start. They are few and far between and I can only remember five players who I saw at youth level who I thought were dead certs (Whiteside, Giggs, Butt, Morrison, Greenwood). All the others were maybe's for one reason or another.
2. Players who show all the potential but develop into very good players a bit later. There are loads of like that including Albiston, Duxbury, Hughes, Scholes, Fletcher, Beckham, Neville, Brown, etc
3. Good solid pro's who form part of a first team squad. Again there are loads of those including P. Neville, O'Shea, Blackmore, Cleverley etc
4. Good players but not at United level (which is one of the highest in the world) and they tend to be part of the 67% who go on to careers elsewhere.
5. The final group are players that just didn't develop and plateaued early...and they tend to leave the game.
In terms of our U/18's and U/23's we definitely don't have any in Group 1 but maybe in Group 2 and 3.
Yeah he was a good player, good but not brilliant at basically everything. Would have been interesting to see how he would have developed if he went somewhere else instead of being backup to Keane and Scholes.Good post, interesting to see you mention Nicky Butt as a ‘dead cert’ would never have thought that.
Probably a controversial opinion but for me, the point of the modern Academy shouldn't really be produce players for the first XI.
The chances of THE best player, or even a 'top 10' player, in THAT position coming through your Academy and perfectly suiting your style of football as an ELITE side are very slim.
For example, Manchester City have Phil Foden, who starts about half of the time, and Liverpool have TAA. They are the only two Academy products who start in the 'best XIs' of those sides.
A realistic objective for the Academy should be to produce players who fill out the 23. So you might expect to produce a 2nd choice GK, or a 4th choice CM, or a 2nd choice wide-forward, for example. This saves you money buying these players in and creates a pathway into the team for the younger lads.
However, for me, in modern football, the primary role of the Academy should be to 'farm' players to sell to other clubs. Now, we have done this very, very poorly in recent years. Primarily because of this old-school philosophy SAF had that we somehow owed these lads a chance to kickstart their careers, meaning we'd let them go for little to no money.
That kind of romanticism might have been fine in the 90s/early 00s but it isn't any longer, particularly with the fees some of these lads go for. We only have to look at some of the fees paid or quoted for lads we have produced to see we are missing out massively. Drinkwater won a league title and then went to Chelsea for £50m. Micheal Keane went to Everton for £30m. We've seen decent fees paid for the likes of James Chester, Ryan Shawcross and Sam Johnstone, plus their are literally 50 more we could all name that are playing in England's top two divisions and top leagues in Europe.
What would our net spend look like if we had maximised the value of these lads, like Liverpool do? What would our net spend have looked like had we been smarter with the likes of Dean Henderson, Scott McTominay, Adnan Janujaz and Marcus Rashford?
For me, the process is simple. IF they are not considered talented enough to play for the first team by the time they are 18, then it should becoming all about marketing them. Get them on 'soft loans' to clubs in leagues were they can pad their stats. Build some hype about them. Give them the odd few minutes in a couple of dead-rubber games, or games that are done and dusted.
Then, we should look to sell them with a buy-back clause inserted. That way, if ever they do really hit the heights, we can just bring them back, The chances are, we never would though. Would we bring back Henderson, McTominay, Rashford or Janujaz now, had we sold them all at 21? Very doubtful.
Harsh, I know. Perhaps not what some fans want to hear. Ultimately though, I think we would be a much better team for it, as the funds can then be used to buy players who genuinely are elite or suited to our system. Plus, arguably it's actually better for the young lads. All of these loans can't help their careers. Look at Tuanzebe. Look at Lingard. Who knows? Both could have been top PL players, had they been moved on earlier.
A lot more were making their debuts and making impressions than they are today. Rooney, Cesc and even players like Clichy were absurdly young. Wenger literally signed Clichy by telling a 17 year old (?) kid he plays if I remember the story correctly.Which 17/18 year olds were just slipping into Premiership football 15 years ago?
A lot more were making their debuts and making impressions than they are today. Rooney, Cesc and even players like Clichy were absurdly young. Wenger literally signed Clichy by telling a 17 year old (?) kid he plays if I remember the story correctly.
It was a different world back then. A kid playing like he was back in the school yard was put forward as a positive trait as if professional football shouldn't ask any more of them.
Theyre not playing in England? Bundesliga is a lot more like the EPL from 10 years ago, you can see Jude getting a bit lost when stepping up in Europe imo. Picking a player who went to Germany because they could guarantee him playing time from a young age instead of moving to the EPL isnt that great of an example.How are Rooney and Cesc back then different to Bellingham and Camavinga now?
You've just picked out two of the most mature and deceloped teenagers to play in the modern era.
If teenagers were just getting chucked in 15 years ago you should be able to list plenty. Above and beyond what we're seeing today.
Reality is that it was just as hard 15 years ago as it is today for a teenager to get starts at the top level.
Theyre not playing in England? Bundesliga is a lot more like the EPL from 10 years ago, you can see Jude getting a bit lost when stepping up in Europe imo. Picking a player who went to Germany because they could guarantee him playing time from a young age instead of moving to the EPL isnt that great of an example.
That kind of proves my point, there will always be some youth players stepping up but youre having to go across Europe to now pick kids when I just randomly picked 1 period from one league, its a lot rarer now for a reason.
I didnt even touch Ronaldo, Messi, Benzema etc if we are going across Europe. The great Micah Richards burst on the scene around that time as well even famously getting an England call up!
My point is, in my opinion, that pressing etc is a lot more prevalent in England than other countries and because of that step up in quality its a lot harder 0for kids to consistently get games. Englands youth system is the best its ever been, the talent is ridiculous yet less players are getting that chance at earlier ages.
