Jack Rodwell - young English talent NOT to sign for City

[kun]

Nothing wrong with what Rodwell is saying. Basically saying he found out the hard way that if you're not good enough to play for City, don't sign for them.

this

 

[franksinatra]

My case in point is Rekik. 19 years of age, played for the Dutch national side, provisional 30 for the world cup and he is fifth choice, at best, centre back

Just because he made the dutch national side doesn't make him good enough for ours, only a handful of the dutch squad would make our squad. Age isn't the barrier, its ability, and those not at the level required won't make it here, exactly why Rodwell has had to move on.

You are correct being a Dutch international does not mean he is good enough to be in our squad. But that is exactly the point? If we continue to stockpile players without leaving positions for young players to get into our squad that will always be the case.

When Barclay/Stones started playing were they good enough for Citys squad?....No

Was Sterling good enough to get in..No.

These players need game time and experience to be good enough. If we never give them the opportunity they will never be good enough to be in our squad.

 

[LoveCity]

We are using the loan market better now for our own young players. Listen to Vieira's recent interview... they are talking to managers of clubs, making sure they will play the kid in the right position and regularly. Lopes to Lille, Huws to Wigan, Zuculini to Sunderland all sound lime promising loans. Guidetti from last season is probably an exception, but there is more to that than meets the eye according to Guidetti.

This should help development. If you look at Boyata and Weiss - they could have been much better than they turned out had they had better loans. Both were badly misused by Owen Coyle at Bolton. But look at how much Huws grew as a player at Birmingham.

 

[BillyShears]

My case in point is Rekik. 19 years of age, played for the Dutch national side, provisional 30 for the world cup and he is fifth choice, at best, centre back

Just because he made the dutch national side doesn't make him good enough for ours, only a handful of the dutch squad would make our squad. Age isn't the barrier, its ability, and those not at the level required won't make it here, exactly why Rodwell has had to move on.

You are correct being a Dutch international does not mean he is good enough to be in our squad. But that is exactly the point? If we continue to stockpile players without leaving positions for young players to get into our squad that will always be the case.

When Barclay/Stones started playing were they good enough for Citys squad?....No

Was Sterling good enough to get in..No.

These players need game time and experience to be good enough. If we never give them the opportunity they will never be good enough to be in our squad.

Everton and Liverpool could/can afford to blood youngsters who aren't good enough and let them develop in their own first team because they aren't fighting for titles. To a lesser extent the same applies to Arsenal. 8 trophy less years whilst the likes of Wilshere, Ramsey, Walcott, Ox, Gibbs, Chamberlain, etc have been able to develop.

Our priority is to be a top club who regularly wins big titles. Not just winning the top 4 trophy every May.

 

[cleavers]

You are correct being a Dutch international does not mean he is good enough to be in our squad. But that is exactly the point? If we continue to stockpile players without leaving positions for young players to get into our squad that will always be the case.

When Barclay/Stones started playing were they good enough for Citys squad?....No

Was Sterling good enough to get in..No.

These players need game time and experience to be good enough. If we never give them the opportunity they will never be good enough to be in our squad.

So you'd prefer we played a weakened side, just to let youngsters get game time ? I wouldn't, we're aiming to be the top club in europe, and this means that if youngsters aspire to play for us then they will have to be the best youngsters in europe, we're ambitious, so they need to match our ambition.

 

[We're not really here]

"Ask yourself are you good enough". The answer to that Jack is an emphatic NO! A mid table plodder end of story.
If you play at City now you have to be quality, top quality. He wasn't, and never will be, top quality.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

When Sunderland, complete with Rodwell and Johnson, are competing for a top six finish then we may get to thinking that English talent is right up there with the best. We might also see Roy Hodgson paying the North East a visit or two as he aims to restructure the England squad for the Euros and the next WC. But as others here have said, if the two I have named were really as good as they both claimed, they would have been selected just as regularly for both club and country as any other member of either squad.

 

[taleofbluehalves]

if your better than yaya or silva or hart or zabba then you will play even if your 19 you will play
looking at the bench last season rodwell was never ready always had a injury and was he really fighting for a place????? the EDS there is talent but nothing standing out

but if your not better then you must fight for a place show willing but in the end jack your not a top 4 player and your level of fitness is what lets you down at manchester city you must put it in
week in week out not just 1 game you have to start for 20 games and rip up tree's

if i was 16 I would jump at the chance to sign for man city just like 10 years ago I will have jump to sign for united its what the best on offer at the time and you must be mad if you looked at the Etihad campus and turn it down

I agree Ancoats the academy and facilities from an outsider looking in appear to be outstanding, the concern is the disconnection between the young players coming through and opportunities at first team level.

No one is going to leave the academy and be better than Silva or Yaya their development will only take place with first team opportunities.

My case in point is Rekik. 19 years of age, played for the Dutch national side, provisional 30 for the world cup and he is fifth choice, at best, centre back and in my opinion Sagna would play before him. Where is his route to the first team? Surely in home matches against the West Hams/Stokes etc he is good enough now for game time.

Take Barclay he has developed this year, to the hottest prospect, by playing first team football, so have Stones, Sterling etc. Where as our kids our still miles from being given an opportunity. It must be disheartening. Until that changes the criticism about young players and City will mot stop.

I agree we should bring through young players but they need to be ready. Did Rekik look ready in pre-season? I don't think so. If we only signed Mangala and we sold Garcia etc. and the rest of the squad was promoted from EDS I think we'd fall short for what we want to achieve. We'd all soon be moaning on here too. It's taken a long time for Arsenal to win anything with their approach, Everton haven't won anything either. Youth will be promoted when they are good enough.

 

[Blue Mooner]

It is not just young english players it is young players in general. This might be hard to accept but our record of late of giving young players a chance or developing them is appalling.

Liverpool have brought through sterling, flanaghan, arsenal, wilshere, gibbs and will be playing nineteen year old chambers next year. United cleverley, welbeck, Everton barclay, stones. We have produced absolutely nothing.

While everyone is rejoicing at the possible signing of Mangala, Nastasic who suffered a loss of form and injuries will now be fourth choice. Rekik who is twenty years old in december, has represented his country and in the provisional squad 30 man squad will now be fifth choice. How are we developing him?

Rodwell has now gone, the last academy graduate Richards is the next to leave. It may be an inevitable consequence of being successful but lets not get sensitive when the blatantly obvious is pointed out. Our development of players has been appalling

Also to those who keep pointing out Zaha, like it or not young players have come through and been given opportunities at Old Trafford.

Totally disingenuous piece and surprising coming from a City fan but then again nothing surprises me with the agenda deniers

You quote Sterling and Flanagan, Sterling was effectively poached from QPR at 16, Flanagan played last year but they have just signed Manquillo who will no doubt replace him

Arsenal, Wilshere and Gibbs, they have now signed Ozil who will replace Wilshere and they spent 10 million on Monreal at left back who had he not flopped was no doubt intended to replace Gibbs and you can't claim spending 10 million on another English left back is a sign of arsenals youth development. Notice they have also just got rid of jenkinson on loan.

Welbeck and Cleverley, yes they have been given chances, Cleverley much less so, but the only reason they have got in the side is due to a shortage of quality, but at the end of the day it's still only two players who will be gone as soon as better replacements are found. Cleverley has effectively been replaced already by the arrival of Herrera

Everton, Barclay and Stones of all these teams they are always the most likely to develop their own as they lack the money to buy players.

I also notice that you conveniently ignore Chelsea and Spurs who don't seem to attract the same criticism and yet have similarly failed to develop new talent.

The point here is that it boils down to two things, the quality of the players coming through, and the amount of money available to buy players. If you lack money to invest young will look to youth, however, if you want to win things the players coming through have to be better than the first team and with the quality we have at our disposal that is going to be a tough ask.

All clubs are the same, that if there are better players that they can buy, then all teams will prioritise tried and trusted players over youth. If you are short in a position, or don't have the money for replacements then you will logically look to youth team players to plug the gaps and have to take the risks associated. For Everton distins injury and a lack of cover gave Stones the chance and he took it, nothing to do with them valuing youth more than us.

This whole article also ignores the fact that we are doing more than any other club to invest in youth with the etihad campus, but the results of that cannot be seen for 4-5 years.

 

[aguero93:20]

It is not just young english players it is young players in general. This might be hard to accept but our record of late of giving young players a chance or developing them is appalling.

Liverpool have brought through sterling, flanaghan, arsenal, wilshere, gibbs and will be playing nineteen year old chambers next year. United cleverley, welbeck, Everton barclay, stones. We have produced absolutely nothing.

While everyone is rejoicing at the possible signing of Mangala, Nastasic who suffered a loss of form and injuries will now be fourth choice. Rekik who is twenty years old in december, has represented his country and in the provisional squad 30 man squad will now be fifth choice. How are we developing him?

Rodwell has now gone, the last academy graduate Richards is the next to leave. It may be an inevitable consequence of being successful but lets not get sensitive when the blatantly obvious is pointed out. Our development of players has been appalling

Also to those who keep pointing out Zaha, like it or not young players have come through and been given opportunities at Old Trafford.

Totally disingenuous piece and surprising coming from a City fan but then again nothing surprises me with the agenda deniers

You quote Sterling and Flanagan, Sterling was effectively poached from QPR at 16, Flanagan played last year but they have just signed Manquillo who will no doubt replace him

Arsenal, Wilshere and Gibbs, they have now signed Ozil who will replace Wilshere and they spent 10 million on Monreal at left back who had he not flopped was no doubt intended to replace Gibbs and you can't claim spending 10 million on another English left back is a sign of arsenals youth development. Notice they have also just got rid of jenkinson on loan.

Welbeck and Cleverley, yes they have been given chances, Cleverley much less so, but the only reason they have got in the side is due to a shortage of quality, but at the end of the day it's still only two players who will be gone as soon as better replacements are found. Cleverley has effectively been replaced already by the arrival of Herrera

Everton, Barclay and Stones of all these teams they are always the most likely to develop their own as they lack the money to buy players.

I also notice that you conveniently ignore Chelsea and Spurs who don't seem to attract the same criticism and yet have similarly failed to develop new talent.

The point here is that it boils down to two things, the quality of the players coming through, and the amount of money available to buy players. If you lack money to invest young will look to youth, however, if you want to win things the players coming through have to be better than the first team and with the quality we have at our disposal that is going to be a tough ask.

All clubs are the same, that if there are better players that they can buy, then all teams will prioritise tried and trusted players over youth. If you are short in a position, or don't have the money for replacements then you will logically look to youth team players to plug the gaps and have to take the risks associated. For Everton distins injury and a lack of cover gave Stones the chance and he took it, nothing to do with them valuing youth more than us.

This whole article also ignores the fact that we are doing more than any other club to invest in youth with the etihad campus, but the results of that cannot be seen for 4-5 years.

Plus Gibbs was poached from Wimbledon.