Damocles said:
1. Provides a clear progression path and motivates young players both to sign for us and to work hard knowing they will get a chance at the big time.
Sorry but this is a moot point. Young players know the progression path and they have the facilities and that path for motivation. I don't see how a youth player sitting on the bench getting an odd 5/10 minutes is going to hugely impact a young players motivation, be them at the club or a potential signing. Same can be applied to all clubs, young players know exactly what the progression path is. You tell me what a greater motivation for a potential signing is, seeing the facilities they have to train in and the first team players they could play with - or the fact Thierry Ambrose got 10 minutes in a game. I'm being flippant there but the point stands.
2. Gives opposition defenders and managers an unknown quantity which they will not be prepared for tactically, leading to a dependence on thinking on their feet rather than executing patterns of play
A huge assumption that the young player in question has the ability and confidence to affect the opposition's team in such a way. Did Pozo make Everton change their game plan all that much? Unfair on Pozo, but he had 85 minutes that game and I didn't see the opposition or manager all that worried by him. Players more often tend to hide on this stage rather than express themselves. Not a question of ability, more confidence/mentality, which is where the 'not ready' accusation stems from. This doesn't happen all the time, but requires a special talent with masses of self belief.
3. Allows potential first team players to become used to City's First Team's patterns of play in a live setting which will be totally different throughout the age groups, aiding their ability to transition when the time is right.
Young players are introduced to this slowly with integration into first team training which starts at a young age. We don't see it, but if Manu Garcia demonstrates in training that he plays our system better than David Silva then he will play ahead of David Silva. An unfair comparison, but your argument is based on our patterns of play and our game revolves around Silva.
4. Provides a benchmark for development for both the player and the coaching staff to highlight not just where they are now, but as you point out where their weaknesses are in comparison to the pace of the Premier League. A huge deal is that the pace of the first team is so much quicker that replicating this is extremely hard, and a "dipping the toes in" approach has shown benefits at almost every major club which has a good youth system.
Agree to this in some extent; however if a player isn't ready, this just exposes their weaknesses more and at the detriment to himself and the first team, under enormous pressure to win every game. I refuse to believe that if we play a kid, and we lose the game because said kid was invisible or makes a mistake, that the fans will say "losing that game was OK because that kid got a good run out". That may be OK with League Cup games, but not in the middle of the season (using the period we played a midfielder up front as you mention later). Fans will lament it.
5. Reminds first team players who might be a little complacent that although the transfer windows are shut, their place is consistently under threat from within and without working hard every day they could see themselves tomorrow's chip wrapping.
A few points; firstly I believe we have a serious attitude problem in the 1st team. I don't see established players fighting for position from players in our 2nd string, never mind the youth team. You could argue the 2nd string aren't good enough to provide such a threat. If they aren't, what makes you think the kids are? Secondly; still boils down to an 'if you're good enough' scenario. The first team train with these players and are aware of their ability. Thirdly, this says more about the first team players than it does about the youth team and again comes down to attitude. If Angelino had played 90 minutes against Villa and Kolarov was on the bench for example, do we really believe Kolarov would start to feel under pressure for that position? Apply the same logic to Jack Byrne and Yaya Toure. Prolonged periods of first team action might kick them up the arse but they have to be good enough to play a run of games. 10 minutes here and there is ineffective for this point in your argument.
6. Motivates and excites fans which in turn makes them louder which in turn motivates the players to perform quicker and better. Ferguson once wrote that he felt that motivating the crowd was one the biggest plus points to this whole idea as his team works harder when the atmosphere is rocking, and you could often see many United players in their dominant period asking for more from the crowd in terms of atmosphere.
Agree this would give the fans a lift. However, fans will soon lose patience. Probably within the first half of a game. I had people behind me asking for Dzeko to come on for Pozo within 30 minutes of him coming on against Everton. If we're chasing a game and Brandon Barker goes on his dribbles and loses it two or three times, to 40,000 fans getting frustrated and anxious, who is benefiting here?
7. Challenges young players to develop the type of consistently only seen in senior football and allows them a clear progression path - 10 minutes on match turns into 15 minutes down the line then 30 minutes then a start then 3 starts in a row. Encouraging goal oriented behaviour in our youth players will absolutely definitely make them better footballers in the longer run.
The assumption here is that these 15 minute, 30 minute periods are successful and a player makes an impact like Harry Kane did at the start of this season. Harry Kane was good enough and Spurs had shite strikers so had little other option. I'm not trying to doom and gloom here, and I would love for this to happen, I really would. Repeating myself here but if the players were good enough they would get this game time, if they are good enough then perhaps they lack the maturity, or perhaps the manager is under so much pressure to get results he sees the risk of playing youth an unnecessary one that wouldn't benefit him, the first team or the kid in question. There could be several reasons, but this ideology that he just
doesn't want to is just bizarre.
Why did Scott Sinclair and a 36 year old Frank Lampard come on in a game where we were 2-0 and 3-1 up and dominating rather than a young player? Why did Marcos Lopes get Man of the Match then one game later was completely dropped from the squad? Why did Pozo and Ambrose get dropped entirely and instead played a centre midfielder up front?
I've no idea why Ambrose didn't come on in that game and felt it was a stupid decision. I won't defend that. Lopes was excellent against West Ham but ineffectual against Watford when given a start in the FA Cup with a a strong first team. This inconsistency is the issue with young players and I don't see how we can benefit from that in league games. Therefore, when the players are on the edge of breakthrough as Lopes was, they get loaned out for regular first team football. This works much better for City and the player.
Edit: That period Milner played up front was probably our best run of the season for results. He used his experience and played the roll very well. Boxing Day away to West Brom in the snow when we had a chance of topping the league by New Year, is that the right platform to play Ambrose or Pozo from the start?
The manager isn't going to play youth. No bizarre conspiracy theories or paranoia, a very simple and consistent reading of events over the previous two years of his reign.
You state it as fact when it is opinion. If it is opinion then there is a reason behind your view. You disregard any kind of reasoning which i've explained in this and my previous post, and many others before me. For blatant disregard of reasonable argument, it does come down to conspiracy theories or paranoia because you reject reason and believe their is an ulterior motive.
To touch again on this point, youth will NEVER be better than a first team player. NEVER EVER EVER. Even Leo Messi wasn't better than the first team players at Barca when he broke in. You break in youth team players because they have talent and need development with the hope that they turn out to be quality AFTER receiving first team action. A youth player will never be as good as a first team player because one is a youth player and the other is an established Premier League player. What you're suggesting isn't just an impossible situation, but it means that we would never bring through any player ever and the same system we've worked under for 7 years to the point where our youth progression in that time has been a bad joke.
Yes he was.
Look, your theory is sound for most clubs, where blooding youngsters and losing games isn't much of a risk. For us, it is, it's huge. So we adopt a different model and we wait until they are close then loan them out. When they come back, if they are good enough they will be integrated, or loaned out again, or sold. That is very simply the process that this essay we've put together comes down to. We just haven't seen this process go from start to finish YET, because a player hasn't been good enough for first team football at City. Hopefully, Lopes and Denayer will be, if not, there is a conveyor belt of talent who will get the same opportunity.
Football is not JUST a results business, not any more. It's certainly the most important thing but the way you win is just as important as anybody who visits a Pellegrini thread will tell you (we're second in the league and going to sack the manager not because of results but because of the manner of those results). Integrating youth players is a part of the modern City manager's job whether they like it or not, we didn't spend millions on this Academy for no reason and progression is expected. The idea that a youth player must be as good as or better than a senior player is an incredibly stupid thing to believe for any club that is favouring its youth development systems in the way that we are.
Agree with the first section to a point. However pretty football is all well and good, results win you titles. I don't see City playing the best football and coming 2nd each year as being good enough in the eyes of our top brass.
The bold bit is rubbish. City, or any other top club, with aspirations of titles, will field their best team to do the job. Be it established players, youth, or a combination. They will not purposefully lower the standard of the first team by playing youth players that are not good enough to perform at that level.
Not really, your point boils down to "well we should not play them because they might cost us" and "the management knows what's best" which is the same post everybody puts on these threads without considering the flaws in their argument.
It's a constructive attempt and trying to get you to see reason. You say the argument is flawed and it may well be but I could write all day about the flaws in yours. Your point boils down to "The manager isn't going to play youth" as if this is a deliberate act, without reason, because of his own personal vendetta or something similar, and you talk about flawed arguments?
Apologies for the essay, but for an educated man you sound a tad deluded on this point so I'm attempting constructive reason to give an alternative view.
