can we see some youth please

[BigOscar]

I'm with Damocles here. You have to give youth a proper chance in the first team before you can know if they'll make it or not.

I was very dissappointed, yet not surprised last week when 2-0 up and cruising at home to west ham that Pellegrini chose to bring on Dzeko and not Pozo. I don't understand why he'd choose to bring on a guy who regularly gives half hearted efforts when there's a young lad desperate to prove himself left sat on the bench. What good does it do to Pozo? And more importantly, what benefit did it bring to the team?

I'm not meaning this as an anti dzeko post btw - merely using that decision to highlight the way we are as a club.

I sincerely hope Lopes and Denayer get their opportunity at City next season, but I have major doubts that they will.

Edit - on the defeat to Chelsea. Imo we're not looking for our youth teams to be the best in the country before certain individuals can be considered as a first team candidate. The first team have been trounced by Chelsea and looked far inferior on plenty of occassjons but it doesn't mean the entire first team squad isn't good enough.

Throughout the academy it should be considered a success if there are one or two players from each age group who are worthy of and duly take up their chance in the first team successfully.

Exactly in that situation what harm could it have done.

West Ham nearly got back into the game, had they scored one then we would have been defending for our lives, in which Pozo woul have been entirely useless, given that he is possibly the least useful defensive player you could imagine. Dzeko at least is tall so can head it away on set pieces and has the experience to remain calm in that situation, Pozo is slow, weak and tiny, just about pointless for either defending a lead or trying to hit on a counter to punish teams throwing men forwards. It was an entirely sensible decision to see the game out, especially given the frayed nerves of the team and the need for a result.

 

[Damocles]

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.

But motivation isn't a health bar that is filled up and that's that. It's a constantly eroding and rebounding psychological state, your argument here seems to be that "they already have enough motivation" whereas by specific argument here is "a little more can't hurt".

In my view, and to be fair backed up by people like Karim Rekik and Denis Suarez, the greater motivation is seeing one of their mates actually on the pitch. Looking at David Silva and thinking "wow I could train with him every day" is a different type of scenario than looking at Rony Lopes and thinking "he was playing with me last week, now he's on Match of the Day and getting praised by all the world's pundits for a great display".

One facet which I don't think you're taking into account is that most of this generation of Academy products are players who we have brought in in the last 3 or 4 years. We went out and bought some of the most talented youngsters in the world and put them altogether in our youth system. They aren't people who sit there overawed at sitting on the bench at Man City - we can either play them or they'll walk and we've already lost talent because of this.

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.

Not really, any tactical plan will be dependent on the opposition players on the pitch. This isn't really anything that the player themselves create through their own talent, just a consequence of their relative obscurity. Of course this doesn't mean that a good player with a bit of confidence can't shake up a defence as Lopes did for us last year and Janujaz did for United.

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.

As I alluded to in the quote though, the problem with this is that a pattern of play learnt in the relative safety of a training session executed nicely is different from one executed on the pitch against an Everton or Aston Villa. If I'm being deadly honest I thought that one of the big things that Pozo showed was that our young players who train with the first team are obviously not aware of ANY of our patterns of play because either he wasn't doing it right which caused people not to pass to him or they didn't understand what he was trying to do which caused people not to pass to him, and we've had this little irritation a couple of times now (though to be fair mostly in friendlies).

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.

I don't think the fans will look at it that way, but I definitely think that the coaches and player will be much better off that they have an identified weakness that they can now address in drills on the training pitch than if this never came up. Again it gives the young player something specific to shoot for instead of just a poorly developed idea of what "ready" entails.

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.

I'll agree here that the 10 minutes option won't do a lasting damage to a poor mentality that I also agree pervades around the first team. With that said, I'm reminded of comments made by Brian Kidd after the 2010 FA Cup Final where he said that the manager's job now is to look around the dressing room and find people who are still desperate for the fight tied in with what Ferguson put in his autobiography that he often brought in youth players to the squad simply because the more players in the same place with that attitude is better for the mentality.

But the overall point is supposed to more theoretical than specific. In a good youth system, the young players will always be providing pressure to the first team. It just so happens that our first team probably don't care as much in that regard.

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?

You do have to have a proper amount of faith in a young talent and fans will go the same way as their performances do. It's hard to say what effects this could be as every player will respond to it differently - some good and some bad. But at least they will be given a chance to respond. I mean that's really what we're talking about here in terms of the two sides; there's one argument suggesting that the benefits are small and the drawbacks large and another argument vice versa. I'm very much a person in favour of rolling the dice on talent - when you identify somebody in your organisation of a good quality then your job is to allow them to shine and not attempt to micro-manage every aspect on the basis that they cannot handle it. Let people be brave and they will take up that mantle.

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.

But as mentioned before, failed appearances can teach a young player just as much as successful appearances in terms of how they progress and react.

The "doesn't want to" is a shorthand for a longer argument which I'll mention later rather than typing it twice.

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.

As I say, it's just a shorthand for a longer chain of logic. I understand that given the choice Pellegrini would probably be swimming in young kids (wait...you know what I mean), but Pellegrini himself is in a situation where he seems to feels that he has to focus on the short term results rather than the risk/reward uncertainty of backing a youth player. Occasions like the early round of the cups, games where we have been comfortably ahead, etc are all times where a manager without the big pressure on results would look to his bench and think "get out there and show me something exciting" with a young player on the breakthrough. Unfortunately the pressure he is under to maintain both results and game time spread through the squad has forced his hand in regards to the youngsters.

I use the West Ham game where we were up by 6 goals from the first leg in the cup as a good example of the latter point. We had to go there right in the middle of a really stocked run of fixtures as we were in 4 competitions. Surely a chance to play the kids right? I mean, we're 6-0 up against West Ham. Pellegrini played almost a full senior team including Aguero and Negredo who got his shoulder injury there and never came back from it (Lopes was the one exception in the squad). His bench in a game where he was up 6-0 against a deflated West Ham was Hart, Zabaleta, Dzeko, Kolarov, Rodwell, Demichelis and Jovetic. This to me was as baffling a decision as Sinclair this season and was the first time I really thought his commitment to youth, which remember was one of the plus points we were sold on when he joined, might have been overstated a little. The warning signs were there very early on as he was playing full senior teams against Championship opposition.

When I say "he won't play youth", what I actually mean is that "due to a variety of factors mostly surrounding the need to keep the whole senior squad fit and the relative uncertainty that youth players bring into a game, he has consistently chosen the safer and more short term option of keeping the first team moving then investing in the future of the club by clocking some game time for some of our promising future stars". I mean at the end of the day the teamsheet really is his choice; it's not that I don't understand his choice it's just that I disagree with it at this specific point in City's development.

More to this point, people don't seem to realise that we will never again have a manager who is not under pressure so we cannot allow this to be a good reason why the young players don't get played

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.

But there is a truism involved here. We haven't seen any youth players get any sort of consistent chances to determine whether they are good enough or not. I've always remained unconvinced by the loan system's ability to make that judgement and although it can tell us whether a player is talented or not (which we could easily determine here) and it will give players game time (which we can easily do here), it cannot tell us whether he can play City's football in City's team. Just as Fernando was a great player at Porto but looks a bit lost in Manchester, it's almost exactly the same risk involved in the loan system.

Not to suggest that all loan deals are bad of course. Devante Cole and those type of lads who are probably never going to get in our squad but deserve to be helped to develop into Premier League or Championship standard players have a wonderful avenue for player and club in the loan system. I just think the idea of loaning out our top youth talent rather than us playing our top youth talent is ultimately self defeating.

This idea that we can bring back a player who is better than anybody who we could go out and buy is in my opinion a near impossibility. Sterling is better than Lopes at the moment. But Lopes cost us about £5m and Sterling will cost us £50m, and Lopes hasn't been given the opportunity to shine like Sterling has. You can only determine the usefulness of soemthing by actually using it, not really lending it to somebody else and asking whether they think it's good enough for us.

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.

But really the emboldened bit wasn't rubbish, it's probably something you agree with if put in another context. Here's the context:

Are the Carling Cup teams fielded by the top clubs the best possible team that they can field?

This is what I mean, sacrifices to other concerns rather than the certainty of results are constantly made in football whether that it aesthetic or future proofing. Maybe you play Jovetic rather than Aguero as you have Barca on Wednesday - this is a sacrifice away from the result for a greater concern.

It's not inaccurate to state that in the days of 4 competitions that could play 70 games a season, the cost of the average youth player being around £3m to the club, the changes in legislation made regarding homegrown players and the expensiveness of the English player in general that other concerns apart from "is this the finest team I can put out today?" have to be considered.

My overall point is that I don't think anybody really believes that at a club like ours with the ambitions and stated direction, that 0 youth players in 7 years is good enough. We used to have a built in excuse for this that we had a change from a midtable level to a top level. I understood this at the time, and I definitely bought into it. But then we went on a spending spree where out 200 strong network of scouting talent around the world started to identify the best young talent of their generation and we landed as many of them as we could. Now this generation are coming to the point of requiring first team action and the old excuse of "we used to be midtable" is wearing thin after 7 years. This has now being replaced by "well if they aren't as good as a first team player then they shouldn't get in" which is an impossible benchmark as a 28 year old midtable player is always going to be better than an 18 year old young player because they have knowledge and a mentality built from years of experience. Some people literally seem to be asking for us only to promote savants which is not something I think we can afford to do as a business and not something that I think we will really be looking at doing.

 

[Neville Kneville]

More kids should have been used as impact players to spice up the team. Few if any are ready to start games but they have the talent & athleticism to have an effect on games, especially seeing as the senior players have largely run out of ideas.

I'm surprised at the idea above that 'most' of the academy players have been bought for big money. That's simply not true at all. One or two have but some of the best ones are from Manchester.

But although I would love to see these kids play in the first team, some of the absolute shite I've read & heard coming from a minority of City fans since the first leg of the Youth Cup final, just makes me worry about exposing these kids to some of the clueless arseholes who 'support' the team.

I don't think they have the understanding of young players, or the patience, or in fact even the basic understanding of what the club is trying to do, so it may be these kids are better off being kept well away from them until they are older.

 

[Damocles]

I'm surprised at the idea above that 'most' of the academy players have been bought for big money. That's simply not true at all. One or two have but some of the best ones are from Manchester.

Just a small note; I didn't mean "most" as in over half of the 450 kids in the Academy, I meant "most of the ones on the fringes of breaking through into the first team". Essentially the better players from the EDS and the ones out on loan at the top clubs.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

There's no one ready for first team football yet especially barker! It could ruin him giving him first team football now he's
Still getting bullied in the kids league! A season out on loan for garcia, barker, angellino, maffeo, bryam, nemame, pozo, cellina all need time out on loan just look what its done for lopes, rekik, denyear!

 

[SilverFox2]

There's no one ready for first team football yet especially barker! It could ruin him giving him first team football now he's
Still getting bullied in the kids league! A season out on loan for garcia, barker, angellino, maffeo, bryam, nemame, pozo, cellina all need time out on loan just look what its done for lopes, rekik, denyear!

What about our expensive replacements, were they fit for purpose or would they have benefited from a season on loan to adjust to our football ?

 

[ancoats]

going back to the rule book can older age players play for the under 21s did I read something about utd playing Radamel Falcao maybe we should play some first team players in that other than sat on the bench and not playing that way you can mix with the youth aswell and may bring them on faster

but am 100% in that having them around the first team will bring them on faster than just staying in the EDS I don't think city have got this part of it right in the youth setup you need that next level to mix with

 

[uwe rosler 28]

There's no one ready for first team football yet especially barker! It could ruin him giving him first team football now he's
Still getting bullied in the kids league! A season out on loan for garcia, barker, angellino, maffeo, bryam, nemame, pozo, cellina all need time out on loan just look what its done for lopes, rekik, denyear!

What about our expensive replacements, were they fit for purpose or would they have benefited from a season on loan to adjust to our football ?

Our expensive signings are all experienced football players that have played at the highest level not young kids still learning there way! Not 1 of the current kids in the youth teams is ready to step up!

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Where I would make some changes is where we have really good prospects such as lopes and Denayer. I’d happily move lopes in to the squad for next season to be a 2nd choice option to Silva, big boots to fill but he has done it in the French league and there would be plenty of games and other midfielders to move him in and out dependent on how he goes. With Denayer the CB position is going to be hard to crack but I’d bring him in as 4th choice but also to cover the Fernando type roll. He is good enough to challenge for that spot and would be useful on the bench for closing out games. I would manage the squad with that in mind i.e. I’d let Boyata go if Denayer is coming back and if we lose 2 or 3 midfielders this summer I’d include Lopes as one of the replacements.

When we have exceptional youth players coming through we need to create the opportunities for them but they have to be good enough. Pozo for me has not done enough, his EDS performances have levelled of and I don’t have enough faith in him to suggest moving him up the order i.e. I would still want 3 senior strikers in front of him next season. Same with Boyata, good cover player but I wouldn’t retire MDM on the strength of what he has shown to date. Hopefully next year will see the start of some exceptional talent breaking through.

 

[pardoeofftomexico]

It is really difficult at the moment bringing young players in even for 20 minutes when every point is crucial. The other thing is the reception from supporters when it doesn't go well. Some on here are great supporters of the youth players and go to their games. What struck me a while ago was when we actually started with a young player. It may have been Pozo but I just can't remember. Anyway the team did not start well and whoever it was did next to nothing. When he was substituted a small number of people in my area of CB1 stood up and applauded. The majority sat on their hands. I thought at the time this was a poor response and couldn't have given him much encouragement. The only thing most people seem to want are superstars signed who will win everything in sight. However, I would agree that we play one or two in the Capital Cup and have the odd one of the bench should we ever get to a position where we are leading 3-0 with 20 minutes to go.