Manchester United Academy - High Performance Podcast

Highly recommend.

Also recommend last week's Steven Bartlett podcast with Gary Neville. Incredible listening.
 
Cox came into the club summer 2019. How would you measure his success? Surely this can only really be measured by first team regulars as this is the only real benefit to the club.
 
Bigsid said:
Cox came into the club summer 2019. How would you measure his success? Surely this can only really be measured by first team regulars as this is the only real benefit to the club.
Click to expand...

He started with United in May 2016. "Responsible for working with the Academy Leadership Team to develop the Academy vision, culture and strategy. To ultimately ensure the delivery of an an elite and holistic development programme for performers aged 7 to 21".

Then July 2019, Head of Academy.

It's also on youtube.

 
cj_sparky said:
He started with United in May 2016. "Responsible for working with the Academy Leadership Team to develop the Academy vision, culture and strategy. To ultimately ensure the delivery of an an elite and holistic development programme for performers aged 7 to 21".

Then July 2019, Head of Academy.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot of blurb for what should be a simple job.
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Jake Fcuking Humphries. Poundland James Cordon. And I’d rather spend an hour with Nigel Farage than a minute with Cordon. And I wouldn’t piss on Farage if he was on fire.

No idea how anyone can tolerate that guy.
Click to expand...

Pure cringe!
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Jake Fcuking Humphries. Poundland James Cordon. And I’d rather spend an hour with Nigel Farage than a minute with Cordon. And I wouldn’t piss on Farage if he was on fire.

No idea how anyone can tolerate that guy.
Click to expand...

Really? Is there any need for that? It’s an interesting podcast recommendation for anyone interested in our academy. No need for such an arsey response.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yeah it’s probably a bit heavy handed but Humphries is godawful.
Click to expand...

He's a bit of a gimp but the psychologist guy who is with him is very good and Humphries is less cringe than he is on BT when he's trying to be chummy and have lad bants with the ex pros. It's a good podcast from what I've seen.

The only thing that really irks me is the opening question, "what's high performance mean to you?!". It tends to be pretty awkward as it's a fairly abstract term that people themselves don't use, resulting in cringe answers like Phil Neville's "it's performing...at a high level!", or other interviewees attempting to give essentially the same answer but without saying "high" or "performance". David Moyes who had an obviously pre-prepared "teamwork!" answer.
 
What Nick Cox says to what Nick Cox does are polar opposite’s
 
Beaucoup said:
What Nick Cox says to what Nick Cox does are polar opposite’s
Click to expand...

Not a fan? I gotta say he comes off a bit David Brent in this podcast; not that what he was saying was especially wrong or bad or anything. The overly sensitive mics don't help as all the vocal sounds make him seem a bit smarmy.
 
Watched this a few weeks ago. Well worth a listen if you’re interested in academy stuff.

Sure Mr. Humphrey probably felt sick when Cox mentioned that there’s something good in failure too, but I loved listening to this.

Anyway there’s another interview out for those interested.



 
he’s still banging on about having young youth teams when at U21 the average age last season was one of the oldest teams in the league. Why doesn’t he drop the BS and stick to discussions around his more plausible philosophy, his stats undermine him.

hes A bit too David Brent as well as somebody mentioned previously, not having him from what I’ve seen, bring in a been there and done it pro all day for me
 
Last edited:
stealthy said:
he’s still banging on about having young youth teams when at U21 the average age last season was one of the oldest teams in the league. Why doesn’t he drop the BS and stick to discussions around his more plausible philosophy, his stats undermine him.

hes A bit too David Brent as well as somebody mentioned previously, not having him from what I’ve seen, bring in a been there and done it pro all day for me
Click to expand...

Tom Huddlestone is 36. Since he is a member of the U21 squad, he pushes the average age of the squad up a lot. However, he only started 4 matches, so he had far less impact on the average age of the team. Nathan Bishop 23, only 5 starts, also boosts the the average age of the squad more than the team, though not to the same extent.

Transfermarkt have the average age of the starting 11 for every match. When Huddlestone started we were older than our opponents, with 3 or 4 exceptions we were younger than the opposition when he didn't. I went through almost all the matches to check.

For the first match of the season the average age of our starting 11 was 18.8, while our opponent's was 19.8, then 18.9 v 19.3, 18.8 v 20.0, 18.5 v 19.5, 18.8 v 19.0, 18.9 v 19.2, 18.7 v 20.6, 18.7 v 19.6, 18.6 v 19.2 and so on. Likewise, if you simply count the number of players aged 20+, we had far fewer than the opposition in the vast majority of matches.

In the recent match against Arsenal, their average age was 19.8, while ours was 20.1, including Huddlestone. There were four 17 year olds in our team, their youngest starter was 18.

Other teams occasionally use older players but they typically belong to the first team squad.
 
Last edited:
kundalini said:
Tom Huddlestone is 36. Since he is a member of the U21 squad, he pushes the average age of the squad up a lot. However, he only started 4 matches, so he had far less impact on the average age of the team. Nathan Bishop 23, only 5 starts, also boosts the the average age of the squad more than the team, though not to the same extent.

Transfermarkt have the average age of the starting 11 for every match. When Huddlestone started we were older than our opponents, with 3 or 4 exceptions we were younger than the opposition when he didn't. I went through almost all the matches to check.

For the first match of the season the average age of our starting 11 was 18.8, while our opponent's was 19.8, then 18.9 v 19.3, 18.8 v 20.0, 18.5 v 19.5, 18.8 v 19.0, 18.9 v 19.2, 18.7 v 20.6, 18.7 v 19.6, 18.6 v 19.2 and so on. Likewise, if you simply count the number of players aged 20+, we had far fewer than the opposition in the vast majority of matches.

In the recent match against Arsenal, their average age was 19.8, while ours was 20.1, including Huddlestone. There were four 17 year olds in our team, their youngest starter was 18.

Other teams occasionally use older players but they typically belong to the first team squad.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the work you've put down on this. It really is interesting to put some more perspective on what is going on in the u-21s. When Huddlestone is counted in, the average rises by one whole year, since he's so much older. It makes sense therefore to discount him when looking at the average age. The average may be seen as a blunt instrument (though still relevant).

It's also a factor when you look at how many really young players there are in one team compared to the other. Adding to that, perhaps one could look at how many seasons they have behind them at u-21 level? It should be an advantage to have a season behind you at that level compared to the rookies. The 17-year olds must be doing well if they can compete with opposition who are a couple of years older on average, right?

Maybe our u-21 team did contain some good talent this season, even if context must be applied in order to realize it?
 
Real_Knut said:
Thanks for the work you've put down on this. It really is interesting to put some more perspective on what is going on in the u-21s. When Huddlestone is counted in, the average rises by one whole year, since he's so much older. It makes sense therefore to discount him when looking at the average age. The average may be seen as a blunt instrument (though still relevant).

It's also a factor when you look at how many really young players there are in one team compared to the other. Adding to that, perhaps one could look at how many seasons they have behind them at u-21 level? It should be an advantage to have a season behind you at that level compared to the rookies. The 17-year olds must be doing well if they can compete with opposition who are a couple of years older on average, right?

Maybe our u-21 team did contain some good talent this season, even if context must be applied in order to realize it?
Click to expand...

All rhetoric. Our u21s side against the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea and City was older with or without Huddlestone. Am sure if Diallo and Hannibal were thrown into the side we would have won more games mind.
 
Last edited:
Bigsid said:
All rhetoric. Our u21s side against the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea and City was older with or without Huddlestone. Am sure if Diallo and Hannibal were thrown into the side qe would have won more games mind.
Click to expand...

Whether or not to count Huddlestone is not "rhetoric" though, it's an important part of considering how old the sides actually were. Since he is an outlier, it makes sense to view the average age both with and without him, since it gives a more complete view of the situation. I have read enough on here though, to understand you are generally more interested in painting a bleak picture of things than balanced representations.
 
Real_Knut said:
Whether or not to count Huddlestone is not "rhetoric" though, it's an important part of considering how old the sides actually were. Since he is an outlier, it makes sense to view the average age both with and without him, since it gives a more complete view of the situation. I have read enough on here though, to understand you are generally more interested in painting a bleak picture of things than balanced representations.
Click to expand...

Never mind him. A City fan pretending to be a United fan. Not sure what enjoyment he gets out of it, but to each their own I guess.
 
Real_Knut said:
Whether or not to count Huddlestone is not "rhetoric" though, it's an important part of considering how old the sides actually were. Since he is an outlier, it makes sense to view the average age both with and without him, since it gives a more complete view of the situation. I have read enough on here though, to understand you are generally more interested in painting a bleak picture of things than balanced representations.
Click to expand...

Fair to include him but with or without him we were older. He only started in a couple of games against the better opposition.
 
Bigsid said:
Fair to include him but with or without him we were older. He only started in a couple of games against the better opposition.
Click to expand...
Also a fair reply and a piece of the whole picture. Fair do's
 
Bigsid said:
All rhetoric. Our u21s side against the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea and City was older with or without Huddlestone. Am sure if Diallo and Hannibal were thrown into the side we would have won more games mind.
Click to expand...

United 18.8 v Liverpool 19.0

United 19.5 v Liverpool 19.2

United 18.6 v Chelsea 19.2

United (including Huddlestone + Brandon Williams) 21.0 v Chelsea 19.8

United 19.7 v Man City 19.0

United 19.0 v Man City 18.7

(as I wrote earlier, there were 3 or 4 matches that Huddlestone didn't start, in which we were older than the opposition. Anyway, all the details are on Transfermarkt if anyone wants to check)
 
kundalini said:
Tom Huddlestone is 36. Since he is a member of the U21 squad, he pushes the average age of the squad up a lot. However, he only started 4 matches, so he had far less impact on the average age of the team. Nathan Bishop 23, only 5 starts, also boosts the the average age of the squad more than the team, though not to the same extent.

Transfermarkt have the average age of the starting 11 for every match. When Huddlestone started we were older than our opponents, with 3 or 4 exceptions we were younger than the opposition when he didn't. I went through almost all the matches to check.

For the first match of the season the average age of our starting 11 was 18.8, while our opponent's was 19.8, then 18.9 v 19.3, 18.8 v 20.0, 18.5 v 19.5, 18.8 v 19.0, 18.9 v 19.2, 18.7 v 20.6, 18.7 v 19.6, 18.6 v 19.2 and so on. Likewise, if you simply count the number of players aged 20+, we had far fewer than the opposition in the vast majority of matches.

In the recent match against Arsenal, their average age was 19.8, while ours was 20.1, including Huddlestone. There were four 17 year olds in our team, their youngest starter was 18.

Other teams occasionally use older players but they typically belong to the first team squad.
Click to expand...
Some in-depth research and useful insight there
Stats are very interesting but I guess it all comes down to 2 metrics in the end 1. Players in first team, and 2. Players sold on for profit having careers elsewhere.

I do feel the level has dipped but I think it can be random chance as well as recruitment and coaching and so I suspect we will have some top groups coming along in the next few years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.