PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
not really, it just proves you have to either be really special, or incredibly lucky to get anything other than the normal route for everyone else. The way life works.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jadon Sancho
- Thread starter sam-caddick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jadon sancho
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
not really, it just proves you have to either be really special, or incredibly lucky to get anything other than the normal route for everyone else. The way life works.
What data have you taken here? First minutes for the team, first full season??? Some data is wrong.
Kroos had his first minutes for Bayern with 17 - Müller was 18 when he got his first minutes in the Bundesliga, 19 when he scored his first goals in Bundesliga and CL, was always in the starting formation with 20. Özil had his first UEFA Cup minutes with 17, played in 6 CL matches with 18. I am sure Höwedes was younger than 20, too. Lahm did not do his first matches at Bayern - his first match was against Manchester United for Stuttgart - was still 19 then.
I just had a look onto it from the players I really know it off.
I tried to take it as regular matches (at least 10-15) in a side playing in our qualifying for European competition. It was a quick scan through wiki though rather than anything particularly robust.
I just looked into the Kroos example myself and realized even then it doesn't bode well for the argument.What data have you taken here? First minutes for the team, first full season??? Some data is wrong.
Kroos had his first minutes for Bayern with 17 - Müller was 18 when he got his first minutes in the Bundesliga, 19 when he scored his first goals in Bundesliga and CL, was always in the starting formation with 20. Özil had his first UEFA Cup minutes with 17, played in 6 CL matches with 18. I am sure Höwedes was younger than 20, too. Lahm did not do his first matches at Bayern - his first match was against Manchester United for Stuttgart - was still 19 then.
I just had a look onto it from the players I really know it off.
He played for Bayern Munich 2, so they had a B team, then was promoted to first team at 17. Which sounds great... but he played 19 games over 1.5 seasons, not great, then got loaned to Leverkusen for 1.5 seasons. So even Toni Kroos had to go on loan.
Kroos came back to Bayern and became a regular at 20 years of age.
Similar kind of situation with Philipp Lahm, he went on loan for 2 years then came back to be a starter at 23 years of age. The whole loan thing isn't as uncommon as people perceive.
Callum Ramsey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 405
Let's be honest, unless you're a very, very, special talent, your chances of breaking through into the current city team is slim to none regardless of your age. Even sterling who is a rare exception of a young player breaking through only got his chance because pool at that time lacked any decent winger with pace. Top teams like chelsea, city that have title aspirations as their goals each season will rarely risk the time of bringing through an untested youth player. The only reason the likes of pool, spurs and to a lesser extent arsenal can afford to be patient with and bring through young players is because they are given a leeway into what is expected of them each season and don't have the kind of pressure on them that managing teams like city, chelsea bring where you're expected to be challenging for trophies each season.
I'm also not sure I'm with the idea of sending players on loan to much lesser talented teams for them to gain experience. I feel unless you're teams like spurs and pool, those loans will do little to nothing for your chances of making it at a team that is chasing trophies as they're more likely to have bought a much better, well established young player in your position by the time your loan is done(see b.silva and roberts). More often than not these lesser teams don't put much focus on developing the players they loan from the bigger teams as they know they are only there for a season or two at most so you see these young players coming back with some experience of competitive game time but rarely do you see much improvement in their chances of game time in the team as as a result of the very little focus they get in development. Look at players like Lukaku, Matic, De bruyne, Pogba, all players who were highly rated from a young age yet none of them were getting a sniff at first team opportunities at their clubs and I can also almost guarantee none of these players would've been what they are today if they were sent on loan to other teams and constantly had uncertainty into what their future held for their respective teams at the time.
I'm of the opinion that currently the best route of a talented academy player making it into the first team is by being sold to a very good team(everton, southampton) with a decent buy-back clause instilled in the deal where he would be able to fully focus on his game and development rather than the uncertainty that being loaned out to much lesser teams comes with. Now this comes with the risk that by the time the player fully develops, another team could come and swoop in for them with better deals like it did with Lukaku and de bruyne but that's the blunt truth of the matter. Now I would love to say that a young player could be steadily brought through the academy and make it into the first team or even go out on loan and come back and have a chance of making it but I'd be lying if I didn't say the chances of that happening are very slim to none for a team like city and especially in the current market where competition is so high due to TV money and therefore the pressure for the bigger teams to deliver are much higher meaning they'd rather buy an established young talent from another club than bring through their own.
I'm also not sure I'm with the idea of sending players on loan to much lesser talented teams for them to gain experience. I feel unless you're teams like spurs and pool, those loans will do little to nothing for your chances of making it at a team that is chasing trophies as they're more likely to have bought a much better, well established young player in your position by the time your loan is done(see b.silva and roberts). More often than not these lesser teams don't put much focus on developing the players they loan from the bigger teams as they know they are only there for a season or two at most so you see these young players coming back with some experience of competitive game time but rarely do you see much improvement in their chances of game time in the team as as a result of the very little focus they get in development. Look at players like Lukaku, Matic, De bruyne, Pogba, all players who were highly rated from a young age yet none of them were getting a sniff at first team opportunities at their clubs and I can also almost guarantee none of these players would've been what they are today if they were sent on loan to other teams and constantly had uncertainty into what their future held for their respective teams at the time.
I'm of the opinion that currently the best route of a talented academy player making it into the first team is by being sold to a very good team(everton, southampton) with a decent buy-back clause instilled in the deal where he would be able to fully focus on his game and development rather than the uncertainty that being loaned out to much lesser teams comes with. Now this comes with the risk that by the time the player fully develops, another team could come and swoop in for them with better deals like it did with Lukaku and de bruyne but that's the blunt truth of the matter. Now I would love to say that a young player could be steadily brought through the academy and make it into the first team or even go out on loan and come back and have a chance of making it but I'd be lying if I didn't say the chances of that happening are very slim to none for a team like city and especially in the current market where competition is so high due to TV money and therefore the pressure for the bigger teams to deliver are much higher meaning they'd rather buy an established young talent from another club than bring through their own.
What data have you taken here? First minutes for the team, first full season??? Some data is wrong.
Kroos had his first minutes for Bayern with 17 - Müller was 18 when he got his first minutes in the Bundesliga, 19 when he scored his first goals in Bundesliga and CL, was always in the starting formation with 20. Özil had his first UEFA Cup minutes with 17, played in 6 CL matches with 18. I am sure Höwedes was younger than 20, too. Lahm did not do his first matches at Bayern - his first match was against Manchester United for Stuttgart - was still 19 then.
I just had a look onto it from the players I really know it off.
Bayern can afford themselves to play kids when they win the league in March. As someone pointed many German teams often have fuck all to play for so giving chance to youngsters is logical thing to do. In England you have 6-7 top clubs fighting for league and CL, managers having their reputation on line, clubs risking huge CL money. Why would Guardiola prioritize playing kids this season when his reputation is on line and club, fans and media expect him to win lot of stuff? Same with Mourinho and other managers. It's only Wenger who doesn't give a shit and has support from the club to do whatever he wants. And to lesser extent Liverpool who know they can't compete with city, chelsea and rags and are bit forced to mix youth and quality.
I really don't understand the obsession some people have about promoting youth. Yeah, it would be great, lot of money would be saved and then some of it could be used for special players, it wouldn't be bad to have some local lads emotionally connected with the club but in big scheme of things, I couldn't give a flying one as long as we have good players and win the things. Why bother? Because posters on Daily Fail mention our academy, money spent and stuff? Yeah, I'll lose my sleep over it. Not.
Last edited:
I just looked into the Kroos example myself and realized even then it doesn't bode well for the argument.
He played for Bayern Munich 2, so they had a B team, then was promoted to first team at 17. Which sounds great... but he played 19 games over 1.5 seasons, not great, then got loaned to Leverkusen for 1.5 seasons. So even Toni Kroos had to go on loan.
Kroos came back to Bayern and became a regular at 20 years of age.
Similar kind of situation with Philipp Lahm, he went on loan for 2 years then came back to be a starter at 23 years of age. The whole loan thing isn't as uncommon as people perceive.
Which players have we sent on loan who've come back and played regularly for City?
doobyedoobye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 4,704
Which players have we sent on loan who've come back and played regularly for City?
Which ones have been good enough?
Which ones have been good enough?
Rony Lopes had a decent loan spell at Lille at 19 - when he came back the club made a big deal about him being promoted to the first team squad and he was promptly sold!
doobyedoobye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 4,704
Rony Lopes had a decent loan spell at Lille at 19 - when he came back the club made a big deal about him being promoted to the first team squad and he was promptly sold!
Yes he's a quality player but who would he have dislodged from the first team?
Yes he's a quality player but who would he have dislodged from the first team?
Well I wasn't suggesting that he would have started every match, but I think he would have contributed far more goals and assists than Navas has the past 2 seasons.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.