Are we as good a destination for young players as we like to champion?...

[Damien]

The likes of Monaco, Dortmund, Lyon and Leverkusen are currently better. Clubs that are a step down but young players get plenty of games to develop and aren't frozen out.

For academy players, City is a bad place to break through but on the flip side they've brought in quite a fair amount of 23 and under players and the likes of Sterling and Sane had a huge role to play in them winning the title.

We've given young players a fair number of minutes but honestly can't say that any of them have improved this season and they've not been given a run of starts in the league to get the consistency like they would get at the aforementioned clubs. Lingard is 25 so he doesn't count.

We should be able to do all three...we have done in the past.

Bringing players in regularly isn't a problem...bringing 6-7 all in one go will have an negative impact.

People seem to think it's either/or when in fact it's about managing both.

Agreed. All about a balance.

 

[Decomposing In Paris]

Manchester United? Yes, we have continually given youth a chance, some of them have taken that chance, some have struggled for consistency, and others haven't made the grade.

Red Cafe? Not so much, we build them up and tear them down with greater frequency and dynamic than the English Press!

 

[AgentP]

Not anymore. But none of the other top teams are ideal either. Only youngsters who are already really good like Asensio, Mbappe and Sane can get into these teams. The competition and pressure is just too high in big clubs for a youngster to flourish. Relatively smaller teams like Dortmund, Ajax, Porto, Monaco, etc can afford to play youngsters as they don't have the same pressure to deliver results.