I never said any of the above. I said they attracted all the youngsters without having to try. However, at no stage did I say any of them 'made' it. Indeed, very few prospects reach the standard top clubs demand - which is why rags, Chelsea etc don't play them unless it's a dead rubber. You imply scum give more youth players a chance. My argument is that when we bridge the timescale gap, we'll give youth at least the same chance as any other top club. At the moment, those players are only just reaching 16/18.
I am sure Giggs does miss the day when utd could field full internationals who spent almost their entire utd careers in the second system, Gibson Evans O`Shea and brownI have no interest in what they win, our academy is better, irrespective. But Giggs has a fair argument when he suggests that the current reserve league is not fit for purpose & that older players should also play in it, to pass on their experience to team mates & provide stiffer test in opposition. It's an argument many agree with.
Without that older help,their team would not win it though.
It's fair to say that we now have a young kids team who are mostly not quite ready. A few are still good enough to be tested though & should be.
But we have moved out most of the kids who should have been tested in the first team in recent seasons & most will never come back. They were old enough & good enough imo.
It's human nature.
So many complacent people on here, just accepting everything will be alright & we just do nothing.
I'm absolutely convinced that if the team from a few seasons ago, with Barker, Kean Bryan etc, had been given the opportunities they deserved, at the right time, we would now be fairly relaxed watching one or two of them playing first team football for City.
It has to change, quickly, or the academy will become just a set of buildings.
Barker has always been a good prospect and that was his pinnacle. He was given chances at a higher level but always looked physically challenged and out of his depth and comfort zone. So what happened, same thing that always happens he was never going to be given a lengthy run on his showing so he was loaned out to what was considered to be an appropriate level of competition for him at that time. For Barker you could read many names, what's wrong with that strategy?
Unfortunately I am starting to agree with some of the sentiments of the article. If Pep spends 35 million on a 23 year old goalkeeper with only 37 semi meaningful games since 2015, before giving Angus Gunn, a supposed prospect for the future England number one slot, it tells me that Pep has no intention of using the accademy. I can't help but think it's £35 million we could spend better elsewhere.
Barker has always been a good prospect and that was his pinnacle. He was given chances at a higher level but always looked physically challenged and out of his depth and comfort zone. So what happened, same thing that always happens he was never going to be given a lengthy run on his showing so he was loaned out to what was considered to be an appropriate level of competition for him at that time. For Barker you could read many names, what's wrong with that strategy?
That's a crazy sentiment. We have 1 goalkeeper with experience. We would be 1 injury away from using a totally untried keeper just to keep the media happy. Whilst Gunn might be one for the future he needs to gain experience in games that 2 or 3 errors do not see him crucified. As Chelsea set the benchmark for winning the league with only 5 losses all season a simple hamstring injury to our one experienced keeper could see our league hopes disintegrate before the end of September. Whilst Ederson may only have 37 "meaningful" games they have been first team league and Champions league level. You cannot be seriously saying that Gunn is at the same level.
When was he given these 'chances' ? Was he so terrible in the ten mins at Chelsea ? Why wasn't he picked much earlier when he was on top form, why the wait ?
What about all the others, & those before ? What did Rony Lopes do that was so bad he couldn't have had a few more sub appearences ? Why didn't Denayer play a single game when he returned from Celtic ? Why didn't Devante Cole get even five mins, just in case he could nick us a goal ? It doesn't matter whether they would have made it or not, they were all at some point, worth the chance. It would have been no harsdhip to us to try them, none at all. It could have maybe helped us pick up points with wild cards coming on.
Why do almost all other clubs seem to find a way of getting these kind of kids on the pitch fro time to time & so often we see them have an impact, yet for us it's impossible & dangerous ?
That's a crazy sentiment. We have 1 goalkeeper with experience. We would be 1 injury away from using a totally untried keeper just to keep the media happy. Whilst Gunn might be one for the future he needs to gain experience in games that 2 or 3 errors do not see him crucified. As Chelsea set the benchmark for winning the league with only 5 losses all season a simple hamstring injury to our one experienced keeper could see our league hopes disintegrate before the end of September. Whilst Ederson may only have 37 "meaningful" games they have been first team league and Champions league level. You cannot be seriously saying that Gunn is at the same level.