Jadon Sancho

[Hungarian blue]

He's already scored in a pre season friendly for them a week ago. They dont have a good striker atm so might be given a chance.

Cheers for the info. But I guess that the chances are they will sign someone and Campbell will still have to get lucky enough to get his chance.

 

[arfurclue]

That's fine, keep pointing the finger if you want, but it honestly won't get anywhere if we keep thinking it isn't our problem. I'm not sure Sancho expects any game time now (he's 17 btw), but I think he's worried he won't get it when he's 18/19 instead and is considering moving on now as opposed to signing a five year contract or whatever and locking himself in.

this sort of what I mean....does, eg, Sancho listen to those worries and then look for outside reassurance...or does he decide to dig deeper within himself and say to 'I WILL make it here, whatever is thrown at me.'

 

[twosips]

this sort of what I mean....does, eg, Sancho listen to those worries and then look for outside reassurance...or does he decide to dig deeper within himself and say to 'I WILL make it here, whatever is thrown at me.'

He's probably seen half of his older mates have that exact same attitude, who probs give 200% every day, but still get fuck all. It's a romantic notion. If i'm being honest, and I've been a City fan for 31 years, I'd probably be considering leaving City if I was 18 and we'd just signed all those players for the sake of my career.

 

[twosips]

Not disagreeing with anything you said but I still find Campbell's choice a bit weird. Do you honestly think that he'll get his chance this season at Stoke? I mean, their coach is Mark Hughes, who preferred Ched Evans to Daniel Sturridge. :)

Not weird at all. Already Stoke's brightest prospect. Scoring a shit load, promoted to the u23s in his first year as a scholar and Mark Hughes already saying he could have a big season. I think we could be surprised.

 

[adaminho]

Couldn't really blame him for leaving if he does. Its not as if we have a track record of trusting youth.

 

[arfurclue]

He's probably seen half of his older mates have that exact same attitude, who probs give 200% every day, but still get fuck all. It's a romantic notion. If i'm being honest, and I've been a City fan for 31 years, I'd probably be considering leaving City if I was 18 and we'd just signed all those players for the sake of my career.

fair enough - and I don't mean to say that I am right and you are wrong. Just that, I would argue that meeting resistance can be a way to develop the inner strength needed to play at the top level. Some will meet this resistance and walk away, others will find a way through it. Where I do feel there is a debate to be had, is how to strike the balance between it being too easy (no resistance, no growth) and too hard (too much resistance, just give up). Given that there seems to be the problem of bridging the gap between academy football (easy for a talented kid) and first team football (fucking difficult even for the best of kids) the I. for one, believe that City are at least having at good go at answering this problem, through developing links with Girona and NAC Breda (plus perhaps NYCFC)...but surely even that might take some time to come to fruition?

 

[CityStu]

well the likes of Sancho can't expect at 16 to get meaningful game time with us, sorry but it's just a fact. They need to get their heads out of the clouds. The lads who show a bit of maturity will go on to have the best careers.

And you need to get your head out of the clouds if you believe some of the most promising youngsters in the world are going to wait around at City to be given a go in the first team when they're 20/21 after loans at Celtic and Twente when they could be playing Premier League football for Spurs, Liverpool or United within a few years.

I also think the notions that we can't afford to give a youngster a bench spot and that giving a youngster a go for 10/15 mins is automatically detrimental to the team are bollocks. There's absolutely no evidence supporting either theory.

 

[Ruzzles]

Giving a players whos been around the academy for ages, probs really liked by their peers, fifteen mins of fame would be exceptionally good CFA pr.

I mean didn't the club already do this with Celina, Manu Garcia, Barker maybe someone else? They all had their 10-20 minutes of play time so i don't really get the point you are making there.

but I don't think the idea of shrugging off losing our brightest prospect is anything other than incredibly alarming. It should always be.

I think it just happends you win some you lose some. Sure it's not very pleasant but he will leave City 2 years after he left Watford. These things happen, there are plenty of youngsters that did sign a contract very talented ones so i think it's hyperbole to think it's a trend when the majority stays and 2 leave. It will also remain to be seen where he goes because if he goes to Arsenal or Spurs or Chelsea there really isn't any difference in moving.

 

[CityStu]

fair enough - and I don't mean to say that I am right and you are wrong. Just that, I would argue that meeting resistance can be a way to develop the inner strength needed to play at the top level. Some will meet this resistance and walk away, others will find a way through it. Where I do feel there is a debate to be had, is how to strike the balance between it being too easy (no resistance, no growth) and too hard (too much resistance, just give up). Given that there seems to be the problem of bridging the gap between academy football (easy for a talented kid) and first team football (fucking difficult even for the best of kids) the I. for one, believe that City are at least having at good go at answering this problem, through developing links with Girona and NAC Breda (plus perhaps NYCFC)...but surely even that might take some time to come to fruition?

What would you do?

Option A) Risk getting a bad injury whilst out on loan at some no mark at a poor level as part of your 4 year graduation to maybe, finally getting a chance at City (a team you were born miles away from and have no natural affiliation towards). And that's only if they don't splash £50m on a guy a few years older than you who plays in your position.

Option B) Move to a club of a similar calibre (Spurs, Liverpool, United, Dortmund, RB Leipzig, Monaco, etc.) and reckon you'll have a decent chance in the first team and top class domestic football (and possibly Champions League) within two years?

 

[arfurclue]

What would you do?

Option A) Risk getting a bad injury whilst out on loan at some no mark at a poor level as part of your 4 year graduation to maybe, finally getting a chance at City (a team you were born miles away from and have no natural affiliation towards). And that's only if they don't splash £50m on a guy a few years older than you who plays in your position.

Option B) Move to a club of a similar calibre (Spurs, Liverpool, United, Dortmund, RB Leipzig, Monaco, etc.) and reckon you'll have a decent chance in the first team and top class domestic football (and possibly Champions League) within two years?

Honestly? I don't believe there is one 'right' answer. Be different for each kid. I guess what I am trying to say is that I DO believe that City are trying to find a way for the best kids
to break through to the first team. Within that, there may be kids that choose to look at going to the teams you quote - some may succeed, some may fail. great. There may also be kids that use the footballing education that they have received, to make a better career in the game than they might of otherwise had. Good for them! On top of this, City may end up with a pearl or two for the first team, that we can all enjoy. What I don't quite get is people on here claiming that youth development is an exact science that they have mastered and that, according to them, City are 'doing it wrong'. If it were that easy then surely every team would be doing it and winning leagues and cups and stuff? Oh, hang on... :)

 

[Sensanetional]

He might sign, he might not. It's clearly a game of bluff. Pep most likely said if he's not signed he won't travel. So that's what's happened.

Regardless of Sancho, his potential motivations or whatever, NK is right - if players are considering going elsewhere given everything we've got going for us sumat isn't right and we have to address it before it becomes a trend.

Biggest worry for City is Tye Campbell imo. I've got a feeling he'll play and score a few for Stoke next year and that won't reflect well at all on City. Some of his City mates him will see that and think "fuck it" and move on. The ones a couple of years younger will know him and they'll be approaching scholarship stage a year from now and they might think twice.

If its not Campbell it could be Sancho. Anyone. We can't be high and mighty about this and label Sancho. It's on us, it really is. The likes of Sancho will have looked up to the Barkers and Celinas and chances are some of them are a tiny bit bitter about everything. Whether it's warranted or not (and in my opinion lots of it is valid) once a negative thought is planted it spreads v quickly. That's our biggest problem now.

And it stops at the first team. Only way we fix it is by being bold. A good start would be someone like Roberts (even if he's not an academy prospect) being rewarded with a squad spot and a debut for a foden or a long termer who's worked exceptionally hard in training. A Nemane or Buckley 15 mins in an easy home game. A token gesture, yes, but itd mean fucking loads to them. It really doesn't take much to reverse that negativity. We just do next to nothing.

I agree with you, but tbh most players are loyal to the academy anyway, can't see Foden or Doyle bailing on us.. Obviously extreme examples but Duncan could easily get attracted by Liverpool in a year or so when he's banged 20+ goals for the U18's. It depends on the players ofc, not everyone will think like that. Sancho has roots elsewhere, so does Richards as well and that will always be a worry

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

And you need to get your head out of the clouds if you believe some of the most promising youngsters in the world are going to wait around at City to be given a go in the first team when they're 20/21 after loans at Celtic and Twente when they could be playing Premier League football for Spurs, Liverpool or United within a few years.

I also think the notions that we can't afford to give a youngster a bench spot and that giving a youngster a go for 10/15 mins is automatically detrimental to the team are bollocks. There's absolutely no evidence supporting either theory.

none of them do get to play at them though anyway, so pointless moving unless you want to play down a level. Unless you're talking minimal game time and sitting on the bench most of the season, well worth that over playing full-time...

 

[CityStu]

Honestly? I don't believe there is one 'right' answer. Be different for each kid. I guess what I am trying to say is that I DO believe that City are trying to find a way for the best kids
to break through to the first team. Within that, there may be kids that choose to look at going to the teams you quote - some may succeed, some may fail. great. There may also be kids that use the footballing education that they have received, to make a better career in the game than they might of otherwise had. Good for them! On top of this, City may end up with a pearl or two for the first team, that we can all enjoy. What I don't quite get is people on here claiming that youth development is an exact science that they have mastered and that, according to them, City are 'doing it wrong'. If it were that easy then surely every team would be doing it and winning leagues and cups and stuff? Oh, hang on... :)

Sadly, I think we are doing it right, except the last bit. All this means is we develop loads of great talent for other clubs to enjoy.

At the moment, the best path for a young player to get to City's first team is:

1. work through the youth ranks at City
2. don't sign a pro contract
3. move to the likes of Everton, Spurs, Leipzig, Monaco or Porto
4. spend a few years breaking into the first team
5. become a key player by the time you're 21
6. move back to City for £50m+

The guys we've signed over the past few seasons (Sterling, Stones, Bernardo, Sane, Jesus, Ederson, potentially Mendy) have commanded their enormous transfer fees because they were often already important players for their clubs in their very early 20s. Our academy players can't get to that level because at the moment we don't even contemplate playing them until they're 20/21 and then it's bits here and there rather than expensive new signing game time.

none of them do get to play at them though anyway, so pointless moving unless you want to play down a level. Unless you're talking minimal game time and sitting on the bench most of the season, well worth that over playing full-time...

They do by the time they're late teens/early twenties. City haven't even given players that of late. There's also the aspect of training week in, week out with the first team squad which will also boost development.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The players who have patience and understand their late teens/early 20s are all about maximising any opportunity, going through the grind, being patient and learning will make it. Guys who chase after the big buck and stardom will fall away in the hype.

took Harry Kane 4 years and 4 loans to get a PL appearance for Spurs. In fact let's look at the last England squad.

Heaton - At United 7 years, no appearances. 6 loans away before dropping down to the Championship with Cardiff, Bristol City then getting promoted with Burnley.

Butland - 3 years at Brum before loan to Cheltenham, then a full season in the Championship with Birmingham before coming into Stoke, where he played 12 times in 2 years before coming first choice, with 3 loans to the Championship in that spell.

Forster - 6 years at Newcastle, couldn't break through. 3 loans in England before 2 years on loan at Celtic before moving there permanently. Only after 4 seasons as first choice in the SPL did he get a move to the PL and Southampton.

Hart - 3 years of playing at Shrewsbury, 1 year first choice in League 2. Comes to City, 2 loans in his first season, then gets regular game time. Then we move up a level squad-wise and he goes to Birmingham and stars as first choice, then comes back and becomes number 1.

Trippier - Starts with us, no games. Has 2 spells on loan at Barnsley before moving to Burnley in the Championship. Spends 4 years there, gets promoted and goes to Spurs.

Bertrand - 8 years a squad player at Chelsea, 7 loans before he got a permanent move to Southampton.

Jones - A rare case of break into the first team at a PL club (Blackburn), then get a big money move in 2 years to United. Hasn't fulfilled the early promise.

Cahill - 5 years at Villa, 2 loans and 1 season where he played 20 games. Moved to Bolton and after his first season became a regular, then moved to Chelsea.

Stones - 3 seasons at Barnsley where only his last was as a regular. Moved to Everton and claimed his spot and went on to us.

Walker - Briefly at Sheff Utd before being bought by Spurs, however 3 loans followed over the next 2 seasons before he cemented his spot at RB. Then moved to us.

Cresswell - 3 years at Tranmere, 3 years at Ipswich then a move to West Ham.

Getting bored of proving my point so a few more...

Smalling - Maidstone - Fulham - United.

Sterling - A rare exception.

Ox - A year in League 1 with Southampton before a gradual introduction at Arsenal.

Alli - 4 years in League 1 at MK Dons before Spurs.

Dier - No apperances at Everton, infrequent appearances for Sporting before move to Spurs.

Defoe - Loan to 2nd Division Bournemouth before being given a chance at West Ham.

Rashford - The 2nd rare exception.

Lingard - 4 loans away before becoming a squad player at United.

Kane - 4 loans over 3 seasons, scoring 16 goals in 3 years. First PL game in 2012/13, 10 league games in 2013/14, only scored 4 goals. Took till 2014/15 to be a regular and hit, 5 years after joining Spurs and at 21 years old.

In summary, if Sancho isn't prepared to go out on loan, even down the levels, and be patient and realise unless he's a very rare exception he won't break through into a top team in even a squad role until his early 20s, then he'll throw his career down the pan being greedy and going for broke too early.

Sign the contract, do the time and earn your stripes. Be wise.

 

[arfurclue]

Sadly, I think we are doing it right, except the last bit. All this means is we develop loads of great talent for other clubs to enjoy.

At the moment, the best path for a young player to get to City's first team is:

1. work through the youth ranks at City
2. don't sign a pro contract
3. move to the likes of Everton, Spurs, Leipzig, Monaco or Porto
4. spend a few years breaking into the first team
5. become a key player by the time you're 21
6. move back to City for £50m+

The guys we've signed over the past few seasons (Sterling, Stones, Bernardo, Sane, Jesus, Ederson, potentially Mendy) have commanded their enormous transfer fees because they were often already important players for their clubs in their very early 20s. Our academy players can't get to that level because at the moment we don't even contemplate playing them until they're 20/21 and then it's bits here and there rather than expensive new signing game time.



They do by the time they're late teens/early twenties. City haven't even given players that of late. There's also the aspect of training week in, week out with the first team squad which will also boost development.

Wouldn't disagree with you. Though i get the feeling - rightly or wrongly - that City are waiting for a kid that can really make it as a first team player, rather than just a
'squad member' that'll be hyped for a bit then get sold off to sunderland for a few quid. Might take a while but if it truly sets a precedent for others, then I think it's worth it. I mean no disrespect to the kids that have been through the system so far but have any of them really struck you as a player that could be the next Kun, Merlin, YaYa, Vinnie? Am not so sure. But maybe that is what City are saying that they want the kids to set their sights on?

 

[CityStu]

I'm not sure England are a great example of how to do things... Let's look at the last world cup winners:

Neuer - first regular first team minutes at top (qualifying for European comps) club at Schalke aged 20
Großkreutz - Dortmund 21
Ginter - Dortmund 20
Höwedes - Schalke 20
Hummels - Dortmund 19
Khedira - Stuttgart 19
Schweinsteiger - Bayern 19
Özil - Bremen 20
Schürrle - Mainz 20
Podolski - Bayern 21
Klose - Kaiserslautern 21
Zieler - Hannover 22
Müller - Bayern 20
Draxler - Schalke 18
Durm - Dortmund 21
Lahm - Bayern 22
Mertesacker - Bremen 22
Kroos - Bayern/Bayer 18
Götze - Dortmund 18
Boateng - Hamburg 19
Mustafi - Valencia 22
Weidenfeller - Dortmund 23
Kramer - Mönchengladbach 22

Average of 20.3 (20.1 excluding keepers). Youngsters at City have no chance of being first team regulars by the time they're 20 unless they're not at City.

 

[CityStu]

Wouldn't disagree with you. Though i get the feeling - rightly or wrongly - that City are waiting for a kid that can really make it as a first team player, rather than just a
'squad member' that'll be hyped for a bit then get sold off to sunderland for a few quid. Might take a while but if it truly sets a precedent for others, then I think it's worth it. I mean no disrespect to the kids that have been through the system so far but have any of them really struck you as a player that could be the next Kun, Merlin, YaYa, Vinnie? Am not so sure. But maybe that is what City are saying that they want the kids to set their sights on?

Denayer. Came back from Celtic at the same level as van Dijk. One's now touted at £70m and the other is forgotten after pointless loans at Gala and Sunderland. What would we have learnt from those loans that we wouldn't have learnt from his time at Celtic?

 

[WallyA]

The reason England is being brought up is because the comparison is being made that we don't play young players compared to other teams, and as it has been mentioned many times, no team plays youngsters this young, and when they play people who are 20/21 it's usually after they went on loan.

The comparison to the German league is a bad one, because that's an England issue not a City issue. It's similar with Spain. We have alot more money and have high expectations for many teams here.

Why would german teams spend money on players when there is nothing to play for, Bayern will always win and Dortmund will make some kind of attempt that eventually fails. In Spain it's Barca and Real, with Atletico now coming into their own, nobody also can compete, so why spend money.

Having said that, I think the overall issue of the premier league not playing young guys until many loans is not perfect, but without the implementation of B teams or some other rule implemented I don't see the loan method going away, and I understand why.

The list of players you showed were average age of 20.3, which is a good age to start in the league, Roberts should be the player we look at to see if Pep is serious of integration of successful loanees.

I'm not sure England are a great example of how to do things... Let's look at the last world cup winners:

Neuer - first regular first team minutes at top (qualifying for European comps) club at Schalke aged 20
Großkreutz - Dortmund 21
Ginter - Dortmund 20
Höwedes - Schalke 20
Hummels - Dortmund 19
Khedira - Stuttgart 19
Schweinsteiger - Bayern 19
Özil - Bremen 20
Schürrle - Mainz 20
Podolski - Bayern 21
Klose - Kaiserslautern 21
Zieler - Hannover 22
Müller - Bayern 20
Draxler - Schalke 18
Durm - Dortmund 21
Lahm - Bayern 22
Mertesacker - Bremen 22
Kroos - Bayern/Bayer 18
Götze - Dortmund 18
Boateng - Hamburg 19
Mustafi - Valencia 22
Weidenfeller - Dortmund 23
Kramer - Mönchengladbach 22

Average of 20.3 (20.1 excluding keepers). Youngsters at City have no chance of being first team regulars by the time they're 20 unless they're not at City.[/QUOTE

 

[Hamsterdam95]

The players who have patience and understand their late teens/early 20s are all about maximising any opportunity, going through the grind, being patient and learning will make it. Guys who chase after the big buck and stardom will fall away in the hype.

took Harry Kane 4 years and 4 loans to get a PL appearance for Spurs. In fact let's look at the last England squad.

Heaton - At United 7 years, no appearances. 6 loans away before dropping down to the Championship with Cardiff, Bristol City then getting promoted with Burnley.

Butland - 3 years at Brum before loan to Cheltenham, then a full season in the Championship with Birmingham before coming into Stoke, where he played 12 times in 2 years before coming first choice, with 3 loans to the Championship in that spell.

Forster - 6 years at Newcastle, couldn't break through. 3 loans in England before 2 years on loan at Celtic before moving there permanently. Only after 4 seasons as first choice in the SPL did he get a move to the PL and Southampton.

Hart - 3 years of playing at Shrewsbury, 1 year first choice in League 2. Comes to City, 2 loans in his first season, then gets regular game time. Then we move up a level squad-wise and he goes to Birmingham and stars as first choice, then comes back and becomes number 1.

Trippier - Starts with us, no games. Has 2 spells on loan at Barnsley before moving to Burnley in the Championship. Spends 4 years there, gets promoted and goes to Spurs.

Bertrand - 8 years a squad player at Chelsea, 7 loans before he got a permanent move to Southampton.

Jones - A rare case of break into the first team at a PL club (Blackburn), then get a big money move in 2 years to United. Hasn't fulfilled the early promise.

Cahill - 5 years at Villa, 2 loans and 1 season where he played 20 games. Moved to Bolton and after his first season became a regular, then moved to Chelsea.

Stones - 3 seasons at Barnsley where only his last was as a regular. Moved to Everton and claimed his spot and went on to us.

Walker - Briefly at Sheff Utd before being bought by Spurs, however 3 loans followed over the next 2 seasons before he cemented his spot at RB. Then moved to us.

Cresswell - 3 years at Tranmere, 3 years at Ipswich then a move to West Ham.

Getting bored of proving my point so a few more...

Smalling - Maidstone - Fulham - United.

Sterling - A rare exception.

Ox - A year in League 1 with Southampton before a gradual introduction at Arsenal.

Alli - 4 years in League 1 at MK Dons before Spurs.

Dier - No apperances at Everton, infrequent appearances for Sporting before move to Spurs.

Defoe - Loan to 2nd Division Bournemouth before being given a chance at West Ham.

Rashford - The 2nd rare exception.

Lingard - 4 loans away before becoming a squad player at United.

Kane - 4 loans over 3 seasons, scoring 16 goals in 3 years. First PL game in 2012/13, 10 league games in 2013/14, only scored 4 goals. Took till 2014/15 to be a regular and hit, 5 years after joining Spurs and at 21 years old.

In summary, if Sancho isn't prepared to go out on loan, even down the levels, and be patient and realise unless he's a very rare exception he won't break through into a top team in even a squad role until his early 20s, then he'll throw his career down the pan being greedy and going for broke too early.

Sign the contract, do the time and earn your stripes. Be wise.

Your whole premise is flawed. I can easily look at the evidence you provided and say, out of everyone that went on loan from your list there is 1 top class player (Harry Kane), yet out of the few that didn't go on loan, Rashford and Sterling are genuinely some of the best players to come out of England in recent years. So send them on loan and they turn out like Trippier, someone who couldn't get anywhere near Germany, Spain or France's squad. The truth is, players don't develop properly when they are constantly going from loan to loan. They go through different environments, each team has a different structure. What players need is a environment where they are allowed to develop, something that is stable. The other point you seem to miss the whole load of kids who spent time earning their stripes at Chelsea and City. Chelsea have won the last 5 FA Cups and none of their youth are anywhere being top class. Because they are mismanaged. Look at Loftus-Cheek, who in England youth teams was considered a bigger talent than Dele Alli, yet he did the time and missed critical time for his development. Same with the rest of the Chelsea boys.

If I was a youngster coming up at City, I would bail right after my 1st year after my scholarship because there are no chances at City. We would rather spend 30m on Real Madrid's version of Mangala, than give time to our young RB, who has done everything the club has told him to do.

 

[Maldeika]

I'm not sure England are a great example of how to do things... Let's look at the last world cup winners:

Neuer - first regular first team minutes at top (qualifying for European comps) club at Schalke aged 20
Großkreutz - Dortmund 21
Ginter - Dortmund 20
Höwedes - Schalke 20
Hummels - Dortmund 19
Khedira - Stuttgart 19
Schweinsteiger - Bayern 19
Özil - Bremen 20
Schürrle - Mainz 20
Podolski - Bayern 21
Klose - Kaiserslautern 21
Zieler - Hannover 22
Müller - Bayern 20
Draxler - Schalke 18
Durm - Dortmund 21
Lahm - Bayern 22
Mertesacker - Bremen 22
Kroos - Bayern/Bayer 18
Götze - Dortmund 18
Boateng - Hamburg 19
Mustafi - Valencia 22
Weidenfeller - Dortmund 23
Kramer - Mönchengladbach 22

Average of 20.3 (20.1 excluding keepers). Youngsters at City have no chance of being first team regulars by the time they're 20 unless they're not at City.

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.