Jerome Sinclair

For me its an admirable policy but we would never have won all those trophies under Houllier without McAllister.

And Man Utd wouldn't have won half as much as they have in the last 5 years if they hadn't kept Scholes/Giggs/Neville on and bought experienced players like Van der Sar in. Probably been the difference between them and Arsenal who get rid of all their experienced players after they pass a certain age.
 
Lucaaas said:
For me its an admirable policy but we would never have won all those trophies under Houllier without McAllister.

And Man Utd wouldn't have won half as much as they have in the last 5 years if they hadn't kept Scholes/Giggs/Neville on and bought experienced players like Van der Sar in. Probably been the difference between them and Arsenal who get rid of all their experienced players after they pass a certain age.
Click to expand...

Let's go get Klose, Lucio, Guti, and Villa. <ok>
 
Brendan Rodgers has said ''If you're good enough, you're old enough''. Sinclair must have impressed more than Jordan Ibe, seeing as Ibe is with the 21s and Sinclair was with the 18s. Okay both are the same age, but one must have leap-frogged the other.
 
OzzieAssaidi said:
Brendan Rodgers has said ''If you're good enough, you're old enough''. Sinclair must have impressed more than Jordan Ibe, seeing as Ibe is with the 21s and Sinclair was with the 18s. Okay both are the same age, but one must have leap-frogged the other.
Click to expand...

It goes down to maturity as much as talent to.
 
OzzieAssaidi said:
Brendan Rodgers has said ''If you're good enough, you're old enough''. Sinclair must have impressed more than Jordan Ibe, seeing as Ibe is with the 21s and Sinclair was with the 18s. Okay both are the same age, but one must have leap-frogged the other.
Click to expand...

Think it may be more cos Sinclairs a 9 and we are weak there , where Ibe is a winger where we have more options IMO
 
Dirtyfrank said:
Lol Billy; I did say it might not be a good plan.

I personally think it was a risky cost driven plan, made riskier by not getting the 2-3 "experienced" players BR wanted as well. As said above; a long term objective has been forced by short term cost cutting and bad communication exacerbated it from plan to out & out gamble.

I hope it works too.

And yes, there are various ways to look at youth development vs injury risk vs resale/profit. Yours might be more sensible but I think I described the path our owners have decided to take. Lets hope they have more luck than they have up to now

I do think personally its a balancing act player to player. Some can survive early fire, others can't. I hope the supporting team around ours is better than it ever has been.

The likes of Owen etc had almost medieval support (not having a dig)in comparison to now, short as time between as that is. I mean with Owen it took them 4 years to realise it wasn't his hamstrings it was his lower back but by that time it was too late.
Click to expand...

You did indeed say it might not be a good plan and again I think we can agree that it actually is a good and admirable long term plan. However you can't always squeeze a long term plan into a short term space otherwise it wouldn't have needed to be a long term plan in the first place....if you follow my drift <laugh> Also I'm not an expert by any means but its always wise for any long term plan to have a certain inbuilt "flexibility".

Does a long term aim have to induce short term pain. In this instance it didn't...but it probably does now. So we get on with it because we have no choice but to do so...same as we always do <ok>

Again I agree about the Owen injury situation but there was a simpler solution to all his woes even in those days. Houillier played him too much and relied on him because he "suited his style" and Robbie didn't (<yikes>). Had GH utilised both Owen would have been at less risk of exactly the sort of injuries he suffered.
 
the artist known as Billy El Pistolero said:
You did indeed say it might not be a good plan and again I think we can agree that it actually is a good and admirable long term plan. However you can't always squeeze a long term plan into a short term space otherwise it wouldn't have needed to be a long term plan in the first place....if you follow my drift <laugh> Also I'm not an expert by any means but its always wise for any long term plan to have a certain inbuilt "flexibility".

Does a long term aim have to induce short term pain. In this instance it didn't...but it probably does now. So we get on with it because we have no choice but to do so...same as we always do <ok>

Again I agree about the Owen injury situation but there was a simpler solution to all his woes even in those days. Houillier played him too much and relied on him because he "suited his style" and Robbie didn't (<yikes>). Had GH utilised both Owen would have been at less risk of exactly the sort of injuries he suffered.
Click to expand...

He played every game for England to.
 
wouldn't say the squad is thin because these kids are getting game time. You look at our midfield of Downing, Henderson & Sahin and that is our 2nd string midfield. It's only because we have 2 senior strikers, Borini & Suarez that we look thin because Morgan, Pacheco, Yesil are back up to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back