Devante Cole: "City don't care about English kids"

[Phil1]

I'd say it's not subjective at all, the staff know exactly who's ready or not.

I'm surprised slimshadyrusky or whatever his name is hasn't been on yet, he must have watched a YouTube goal from Cole and can't understand why he hasn't replaced Aguero yet.

I guess the argument is unless you actually give them minutes in the first team it's hard to say with conviction wherever they're up to the task or not. The coaches will know an awful lot, but as to wherever a particular player sinks or swims is up to the player, the manager, the game, the position they're asked to play, all sorts really that could either help,or hinder.
I'd rather us not take unneccessary risks though in order to find out. I appreciate that some have the complete opposite view though, as is their right.
I don't fancy havin Neville Kneville going ballistic at me... Haha!

 

[Neville Kneville]

It's amazing that people see a failure to make it in football, as proof of a lack of talent. Therefore there are only a handful of people in the world as talented as Alexander Kolarov. If there were others, they would all make it, as the system is flawless. Yeah right.

It is also amazing that there are people who genuinely believe that it's possible to look at a kid in a reserve or youth team, or in training, & decide whether he can cope with first team football or not, more amazing when you hear managers, players etc on a daily basis, explaining that on the whole, the only way you find out if kids can make the grade is by playing them. They tell you this.
But people on here spout this fucking trash, as if it's a rule, that our superstaff just look at a player & 'know' when the accepted rule in football if there was one, would be the complete opposite & people don't 'know' at all.

It is also amazing that there are people on here who claim it is somehow dangerous to the health of a first team, to use kids in some games, when the facts are actually staring them in the face that this is in fact complete bullshit & that pretty much all successful clubs have done it & are doing it.

Another bullshit story is that for a kd to get games in a first team, he has to be a proven potential worldbeater before he gets there & that to use someone otherwise, would again be hazardous to the first team. This again is PROVEN bullshit. Proven even by our much heralded potential manager Pep Guardiola who, at Barca, used nearly two teams worth of kids as additions to the squad there, most of whom nobody has heard of since. What damage this did to Barca. Again. total bullshit.

All of these opinons are based on people trying to justify the fact that City hardly ever use any kids in the first team anymore & people openily bullshitting in order to pretend this is typical & a neccessary evil of being successful, then other bullshitters coming on & repeating it, as if it's some kind of football law.

It isn't. You people are telling lies.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

It's amazing that people see a failure to make it in football, as proof of a lack of talent. Therefore there are only a handful of people in the world as talented as Alexander Kolarov. If there were others, they would all make it, as the system is flawless. Yeah right.

It is also amazing that there are people who genuinely believe that it's possible to look at a kid in a reserve or youth team, or in training, & decide whether he can cope with first team football or not, more amazing when you hear managers, players etc on a daily basis, explaining that on the whole, the only way you find out if kids can make the grade is by playing them. They tell you this.
But people on here spout this fucking trash, as if it's a rule, that our superstaff just look at a player & 'know' when the accepted rule in football if there was one, would be the complete opposite & people don't 'know' at all.

It is also amazing that there are people on here who claim it is somehow dangerous to the health of a first team, to use kids in some games, when the facts are actually staring them in the face that this is in fact complete bullshit & that pretty much all successful clubs have done it & are doing it.

Another bullshit story is that for a kd to get games in a first team, he has to be a proven potential worldbeater before he gets there & that to use someone otherwise, would again be hazardous to the first team. This again is PROVEN bullshit. Proven even by our much heralded potential manager Pep Guardiola who, at Barca, used nearly two teams worth of kids as additions to the squad there, most of whom nobody has heard of since. What damage this did to Barca. Again. total bullshit.

All of these opinons are based on people trying to justify the fact that City hardly ever use any kids in the first team anymore & people openily bullshitting in order to pretend this is typical & a neccessary evil of being successful, then other bullshitters coming on & repeating it, as if it's some kind of football law.

It isn't. You people are telling lies.

What age would you say a player would stop being a kid and be considered a player?

 

[Neville Kneville]

What age would you say a player would stop being a kid and be considered a player?

I think more or less 21,but it depends on the kid & how many opportunities they have had. By the 21 stage imo, the kids should have had first team opportunities off the bench etc or become regular squad members or gone, we should know about them.

If we were using our kids now,it would become clear which ones were comfortable & could be useful, which were out of their depth completely & needed moving on straight away & which showed the required promise but needed loaning out & then testing again. By the time they were 21, we'd have a very good idea if they had a chance to stay or whether we should cash in.

But while some kids elsewhere at 21, have had years of top football either as squad players or starters, many of ours will have done nothing, so are still kids at 21 when it comes to actual football experience. Some kids whom ours have skinned & battered at various levels, are now becoming players, whilst ours are still kids.

 

[lazza]

Name a team in England that has any genuine ambition of winning the title regularly plays a player that has come through their academy ?, Tired of this nonsense , the City of ten years ago , would have brought players through ,but there is too much at stake now , we are at a different level . And i dont want to here any bollocks about the academy being a waste of time and money , we will develop a lot of young players who will end up with mid table premiership and championship teams , and the fees we receive for these players will easily pay for the costs of our academy , and with any luck we just might develop one youngster a season , to play in one of the best squads in europe. Thats the reality , the club will not throw youngsters in , when we have to challenge for 4 trophies every season

Exactly this. I sometimes think that this point is missed quite often.

To put it another way, the real reason for the Academy is to generate money that can be fed back into the club to buy better players. Generating 1-2 first team players every 5 years would be great, but the vast majority won't make it at City. Say we have 20 players each year coming through the Academy, 50% of whom have a future in professional football; half of these sell for next to nothing or maybe even up to half-a-million, and two or three of them sell for £1-3million, and maybe one or two even go for £5-10 million. That's £10-30 million revenue that can help balance the accounts when buying players in, and it's effectively "free" money in the eyes of FFP, as I'm pretty sure the costs of running the Academy and developing players does not count as a club expense. So in reality, it's a round-about way of pumping additional funds into the club. And on top of that, we have a chance of developing a world-beater every now-and-then.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

I think more or less 21,but it depends on the kid & how many opportunities they have had. By the 21 stage imo, the kids should have had first team opportunities off the bench etc or become regular squad members or gone, we should know about them.

If we were using our kids now,it would become clear which ones were comfortable & could be useful, which were out of their depth completely & needed moving on straight away & which showed the required promise but needed loaning out & then testing again. By the time they were 21, we'd have a very good idea if they had a chance to stay or whether we should cash in.

But while some kids elsewhere at 21, have had years of top football either as squad players or starters, many of ours will have done nothing, so are still kids at 21 when it comes to actual football experience. Some kids whom ours have skinned & battered at various levels, are now becoming players, whilst ours are still kids.

I would go along with that, this week we see the departure of George Evans who is 21 and no real first team experience and the papers link us with Barkley who is 22 and has almost 100 matches of PL experience. Those "adult" minutes are crucial, sadly George was miles behind the curve and unlikely to ever catch up.
The use of Barcelona though is not a great example. They have a "B" team in an adult league. Guardiola knew who could cut the mustard mentally and physically and they did not need to go to the likes of Walsall to get adult time. It was kept in house using facilities Walsall could never provide and playing with team mates who could transfer into the first team with both players having had adult time and time together. We cannot do that. Guardiola was taking much less of a risk. It will be interesting, if he comes, how he will get around that.
You do raise a very valid point though and it is a problem we have. Finding a solution is not easy.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Exactly this. I sometimes think that this point is missed quite often.

To put it another way, the real reason for the Academy is to generate money that can be fed back into the club to buy better players. Generating 1-2 first team players every 5 years would be great, but the vast majority won't make it at City. Say we have 20 players each year coming through the Academy, 50% of whom have a future in professional football; half of these sell for next to nothing or maybe even up to half-a-million, and two or three of them sell for £1-3million, and maybe one or two even go for £5-10 million. That's £10-30 million revenue that can help balance the accounts when buying players in, and it's effectively "free" money in the eyes of FFP, as I'm pretty sure the costs of running the Academy and developing players does not count as a club expense. So in reality, it's a round-about way of pumping additional funds into the club. And on top of that, we have a chance of developing a world-beater every now-and-then.

The reason we have the academy is to get players into the first team, not only that but 'in the near future'. We are planning on a core of the first team coming through from the academy. This is the stated aim by the chairman, the head of development & by the captain of the first team.

And it's bollocks to say that title chasing teams don't use homegrown players. They all do & always have. It's City & Chelsea who are out of step with that, not everyone else.

All of the top sides in the world, use academy players. That doesn't mean they are first choice or all play at the same time, but they ALL use them.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I would go along with that, this week we see the departure of George Evans who is 21 and no real first team experience and the papers link us with Barkley who is 22 and has almost 100 matches of PL experience. Those "adult" minutes are crucial, sadly George was miles behind the curve and unlikely to ever catch up.
The use of Barcelona though is not a great example. They have a "B" team in an adult league. Guardiola knew who could cut the mustard mentally and physically and they did not need to go to the likes of Walsall to get adult time. It was kept in house using facilities Walsall could never provide and playing with team mates who could transfer into the first team with both players having had adult time and time together. We cannot do that. Guardiola was taking much less of a risk. It will be interesting, if he comes, how he will get around that.
You do raise a very valid point though and it is a problem we have. Finding a solution is not easy.

It is a problem for us compared to Spain as regards large groups of players, but it shouldn't be a problem re one or two. If you look at Harry Kane for example. He gets a game, loaned out, comes back & has another go, loaned out, comes back & tries again, 20 goals. Utd did the same with Beckham.

When Devante Cole went to Barnsley, he should have got some minutes for City on his return & see how he goes, but was just farmed straight back out to sit on the bench at MK Dons. Same with Evans, Denayer, Rony Lopes. Some of the kids we have now, should be occasionally getting minutes & see if any take to it, then maybe they could be loaned out & return etc etc. We didn't fold up because Bersant Celina got on the pitch v Norwich.

 

[Centurions]

I guess the argument is unless you actually give them minutes in the first team it's hard to say with conviction wherever they're up to the task or not. The coaches will know an awful lot, but as to wherever a particular player sinks or swims is up to the player, the manager, the game, the position they're asked to play, all sorts really that could either help,or hinder.
I'd rather us not take unneccessary risks though in order to find out. I appreciate that some have the complete opposite view though, as is their right.
I don't fancy havin Neville Kneville going ballistic at me... Haha!

Lol, I've only got 1 person on my ignore list. Bet you can't guess who...

 

[Rammyblues]

So we have ruined Englands chances of the world cup and Euros, well maybe not but that is how yon press will see it. What a load of old codswallop. Maybe I am out of touch with things but my understanding is that the academies are there to give chances to young people for playing football professionally whether in the lowest or highest division dependent on their ability. Further if they failed to make the grade then they would have a decent education as normal school kids and be able to obtain a career outside football. If any were good enough to actually play for us then that would indeed be a bonus but should not be used as a yardstick to judge the whole of our youth programme.