No, that's why I put a question mark there! I do think we were a bit spoiled though. They were rare talents, I think the latest crop are not showing quite the same promise hence not getting chances.
Until they get a chance we won't know how good they really are. Hesketh, Gape and Reed and Wood, Seager have all played well for the youngsters. Hesketh has had 30mins maxin the first team and Gape 5mins? Hesketh has pushed on since he last was given a chance. The. We have Mugabe, Stephens, McCarthy (on loan). Then we have a Sims who just needs to bulk up a little and a few more. There is plenty of talent in our academy.
Yep. Came off the bench at home to Utd, and then started away to Burnley. But Michael Keane (I think) made sure that he wasn't even able to last until HT.
I have no doubt that they are doing well but i believe that if there were a shaw, bale, Walcott or chamberlain there the club would be just as keen to get them on the pitch as we are.
I seem to recall him getting booked early in the game for an enthusiatsic challenge. Then when he got injured not long after it was a `welcome to the Premier league son` moment.
I think something that Ronald said in a presser not long ago has relevance in this case. He said, roughly, that he doesn't share the opinions of managers who say "ok, I'm building a team, and after two years, after the end of that project, we will have a very good team and be in a great position". No, Ronald believe in results, here and now, and when that's your stance, you will want to get your best player on the pitch as often as possible.
Any youngster breaking into a top 8 premium team has to be very talented considering they are taking the spot in all likelihood of an established international. It's easy to have a strong academy in the championship; different story altogether at the top of the prem.
People keep saying this, but it really isn't true. If anything, youngsters on teams in the top spots have gotten more playing time, because their clubs have the luxury of more games in which they can throw such a player on, either because they're leading comfortably or because the remainder of the squad is strong enough that a kid isn't likely to have too much of an adverse effect on performance (or because they're simply willing to do so; Manchester City has repeatedly thrown a 19 year old academy product on when needing a goal, to good effect). It's the clubs at the bottom, struggling to survive, that are much more reticent that play kids...they cannot afford to think of the future. Ultimately though, we're neither a premium-quality team this season nor a relegation struggler. We don't feature excessive, highly-talented depth at every position, and we aren't in particular danger of going down. If anyone can afford playing time for youngsters, it's us.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. As for the second I suspect we will end up mid table but don't think we want to be bedding in youngsters in such a tight league a run either way could see us fight for top six or be in trouble. If the youngster is already good enough different story but I assume koeman thinks rightly or wrongly they are not.
The facts bear it out. Seven players currently 20 years of age or younger have 500+ minutes. In order, they play for Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, Manchester United, Watford (on loan from Chelsea), Villa and Liverpool. Almost all teams chasing Europe. Extend that to 250+ minutes and you get another two more Man U players (one would be Shaw), two more for Liverpool, and one for Arsenal (that'd be Chambers), plus Matt Targett. Extend it down to 150+ minutes and you get another Chelsea player, and one from Man City. If we simply don't have the luxury of bedding in youngsters because being in 12th is too tight top to bottom, we never will. There isn't a single team in the Prem with the 6+ points of separation from both the European places and drop zone that we currently enjoy.
It's a tough comparison. The top clubs do probably find more playing time for young players. But they also spend a ton more because they are skimming off the best players from other clubs, and also they purchase a zillion. So it's not any easier for a young player to break into a larger side than it is for them to play for us. The very best young starlets manage to break into their squads and get consistent playing time, but those are players that they bought elsewhere at prices and wages we could not afford. The more generic good young players from their academy or even from ours don't fare any better than they would here, IMO. For example, Chambers would probably have logged as much or more minutes with us as he has with Arsenal. But we didn't pay 16m for him, and he would be on half the wages. It's not unreasonable to assume that Chambers is better than say, Turnbull or Stephens, as otherwise it would have been one of those two playing for us that year instead. Targett would be behind Nacho Monreal at Arsenal just as he is behind Bertrand here. He might be behind Gibbs as well. So to me, I'm not sure it's any different than anything else. The big clubs play the best talent at all age levels because they can pay top dollar to acquire them... both in terms of paying more for the absolute best and in being able to buy in quantity to spread the risk.
Though in the case of Arsenal, a large part of the reason that Chambers hasn't logged more minutes is that he lost out to another youngster and academy product: Hector Bellerin, who joined Arsenal as a 16 year old.
Exactly - we probably never will unless they are exceptional e.g. the next the walcott ------------------ I think you mis understood my point in my original post - or I wrote it badly.
But there's no reason why that should be the case. If it is, no young player would ever be developed, which is both terrible management (developing squad-calibre players in a hell of a lot cheaper than buying them these days) and a complete abrogation of whatever responsibility teams have to the future of the sport. We spent years tut-tutting that top teams didn't use their resources to develop good English talent, instead buying foreign players to squeeze them out. Now, we suggest that midtable is too precarious to even countenance finding minutes for kids, while the top teams manage to work them in. If that's our future, it's a pretty sad change in direction.
True. But we could not have landed Bellerin. And, they are paying him 45k per week. And they paid 16m for Chambers. So you can look at it like the cost of having a really good 20 year old CB in their first team was like 16m plus 55k in wages. Which is more than Van Dijk costs. I'm just saying, it's not quite so simple as those teams being able to play guys because they are often leading. They spend a ton of money to have the best young players possible, that are capable of breaking into the team. For Arsenal, I believe they still come out ahead by doing this and I would like us to move towards that model. But you need enough cash reserves to able to absorb the cost of the ones that don't make it, and I'm not sure we can do that yet. If we had blown 30m on Shaw plus wages and he got hurt, we'd be screwed this season. And Shaw might not ever be the same, in which case we'd be super-screwed.
They have also brought through quite a few kids who weren't purchased. Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshire involved no spending that I'm aware, and they've had success buying academy-aged players (Chesney, Joel Campbell, etc) for not too much, a model I'd absolutely like to emulate. If we're forced to spend in the shallow end of the pool, I'd much rather that we spend a mil or two buying highly-talented youngsters from lower/foreign leagues rather than Cuco Martinas. Our academy's reputation would help there, but only if it's maintained.
I don't think anyone is complaining about lack of first team opportunity - we have to play our best XI if we want to stay competetive. The complaints come in games where we are comfortable, and we still don't give them a look in. When we are playing lower ranked teams in the cup, and still not giving youth a chance when we are 5-0 up, I think it's fair to ask the question.
