If Chelsea finish 4th this season, it will be success for them. If City finish 4th, it will be a serious failure league wise. Both clubs have different objectives which explains why Chelsea have time for youngsters and City don't.
You pay a price when you compete for all big trophies and against teams who can win 95+ points like Liverpool or have a wage bill of 500m like Messi's Barca. One must be naive to think City can compete against those teams with youngsters in the first XI. Liverpool don't have such youngsters and Barca won't go far in the CL if they start kids against good teams.
I really don't understand this line of thinking.
Trent-Alexander Arnold is only 21 and has been the best RB in the world for 2 years (so from 20-21, he just turned 21 years old).
Barcelona played a young Messi in their team and reaped the rewards by playing him in the first team, he becomes the goat.
I just refuted the 2 teams you used as examples to NOT play youth. Note that they don't have to play alot of youth, but some? I think all teams can get some in assuming they have talent.
Nobody is saying City needs a bunch of youngsters in the team, but to say we don't have one player who is a standout and can perform within this team is nonsensical, we even had 3 players (Sancho, Foden and Diaz) who were clearly destined to make it to top teams (and they already have) so the talent is there for us to use, we just have to make sure we don't lose them.