Charlie McNeill

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
28,997
Location
xG Zombie Nation
He was a Man City youth team product.
He trained at United a fair bit as a younger child. Gary Neville said Peter brought him a lot outside of that too so he was around the club a lot. He was at City for 3 years.
 

ghagua

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
5,642
He trained at United a fair bit as a younger child. Gary Neville said Peter brought him a lot outside of that too so he was around the club a lot. He was at City for 3 years.
That would be logical when he was younger as his father played for United, but he was never considered a United youth team graduate. Maybe you would know, but was he officially on United's books at any time?
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,612
Location
Daenerys' pants
I don't see the point of you guys arguing with @Beaucoup. He has actually seen the coaching first hand and he believes it could be better. It's not like he is saying we are the worst. In his opinion it could and should be better. And also not like he is saying all the coaches suck. I don't see how Rashford and Greenwood are evidence he is wrong. If they are brilliant talents they would make it anyway despite some coaching not being so great. Maybe if we had better coaching at lower level we could do even better?

My point is he may be wrong he may be right. But it's hard to argue without actually us also seeing what he is talking about.
@Beaucoup I’ve always felt that our individualistic approach to coaching causes some problems with attitude and culture with our more recent youth players I.e egotism and selfishness that I do tend to see with players like Pogba and Rashford on the pitch. Barca’s and Ajax’s collectivist philosophy I think produces better professionals and team players that are also more tactically aware. Is that fair?
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
@Beaucoup I’ve always felt that our individualistic approach to coaching causes some problems with attitude and culture with our more recent youth players I.e egotism and selfishness that I do tend to see with players like Pogba and Rashford on the pitch. Barca’s and Ajax’s collectivist philosophy I think produces better professionals and team players that are also more tactically aware. Is that fair?
No, it is not fair, and where exactly did you pull this crap about Pogba and Rashford being selfish. Can't believe those stupid cliches are still being thrown about.

Barca and Ajax can't magically make average talents good, no matter how much you coach them.
 

In Rainbows

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
5,445
Think you only see bad results in regards to wins/losses at lower levels really. Which isn't really a downside. You'll see us lose foreign tournaments sometimes resulting in huge losses. Like Atleti just dominated us in a youth tournament once. If you look at individual skill, it's quite similar.

But results at lower levels don't matter really. It's all about developing players or helping them reach their full potential by providing them great opportunities and managing their drive to become pros.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,612
Location
Daenerys' pants
No, it is not fair, and where exactly did you pull this crap about Pogba and Rashford being selfish. Can't believe those stupid cliches are still being thrown about.

Barca and Ajax can't magically make average talents good, no matter how much you coach them.
Wasn't actually asking you.... would like to hear from someone who knows the setup well.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
Wasn't actually asking you.... would like to hear from someone who knows the setup well.
Whether someone knows the setup well or not is irrelevant, as what you are asking is utterly stupid crap that is not even true.

Pogba and Rashford are not selfish for a start, then Pogba nd Rashford are not even from the same age group.

Also, we got Pogba when he was 16, while Rashford was with us from a younger age, so they are in no way similar situations.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,612
Location
Daenerys' pants
Whether someone knows the setup well or not is irrelevant, as what you are asking is utterly stupid crap that is not even true.

Pogba and Rashford are not selfish for a start, then Pogba nd Rashford are not even from the same age group.

Also, we got Pogba when he was 16, while Rashford was with us from a younger age, so they are in no way similar situations.
Either way I think this comes back to Ole saying he wants to change the culture. There’s a lot of head down playing for yourself that i see from our attacking players compared to Dutch, German and Spanish teams. I think you can tell from Ole’s previous comments about how our attackers Need to look for players in better positions to themselves and pass to them.

It’s my opinion anyway and I think is part of an English thing not just a United thing. Though it seems amplified with us due to the social media platform and other platforms we give to players.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
Either way I think this comes back to Ole saying he wants to change the culture. There’s a lot of head down playing for yourself that i see from our attacking players compared to Dutch, German and Spanish teams. I think you can tell from Ole’s previous comments about how our attackers Need to look for players in better positions to themselves and pass to them.

It’s my opinion anyway and I think is part of an English thing not just a United thing. Though it seems amplified with us due to the social media platform and other platforms we give to players.
Ole saying he wants to change the culture at the first team level has nothing to do with the academy, which is another area of the club that is handled by completely different people.

As for your perception of our attackers, that is not true obviously, and simply non-sense that you have assumed on your own. I think Martial Rashford are at the top of having assisted one another on the league. Our problems at the first team level have nothing to do with the academy, and certainly not when these two were in it, as plenty has changed from back then. If you want to talk about the first team and its players, do it in their respective threads.

Yes, it is your opinion obviously, but a wrong one and one that is completely filled with non-sense and generalisation of the 'english' game, which has little to do with our academy.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,612
Location
Daenerys' pants
Jesus fecking Christ get a grip. I’ve watched all of our games this season and watched the interviews afterwards to base that opinion on. The reaction of some of our attackers when the others score says a lot.
Regardless, even if you think I’m wrong there’s no need to cry about it. I think this issue runs throughout the club.

this tangential conversation started after you answered a post that wasn’t meant for you.
 
Last edited:

Beaucoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
1,017
@Beaucoup I’ve always felt that our individualistic approach to coaching causes some problems with attitude and culture with our more recent youth players I.e egotism and selfishness that I do tend to see with players like Pogba and Rashford on the pitch. Barca’s and Ajax’s collectivist philosophy I think produces better professionals and team players that are also more tactically aware. Is that fair?
You can definitely tell that both Rashford & Lingard have come through our Academy system by their style of play.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
Jesus fecking Christ get a grip. I’ve watched all of our games this season and watched the interviews afterwards to base that opinion on. The reaction of some of our attackers when the others score says a lot.
Regardless, even if you think I’m wrong there’s no need to cry about it. I think this issue runs throughout the club.

this tangential conversation started after you answered a post that wasn’t meant for you.
The only one that needs to get a grip is you. Whether you watched games, interviews etc. is irrelevant, as your opinion is entirely ridiculous. You are trying to form some scenario that is simply not true, trying to gauge the first team performance on the academy as if that has any connection when our first team has went through 4 different managers since SAF retired, and these players have played some very different styles of football.

First team football and the academy are two different areas of the club, if you want to talk about the first team, do it in their respective threads, don't bring that crap here.

Also, if you only want to talk to certain members then DM them, if you post in this thread anyone can reply to you, especially of the post is filled with non sense.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
You can definitely tell that both Rashford & Lingard have come through our Academy system by their style of play.
They are nothing alike, and no you can't tell anything from their style of play.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
28,997
Location
xG Zombie Nation
That would be logical when he was younger as his father played for United, but he was never considered a United youth team graduate. Maybe you would know, but was he officially on United's books at any time?
I don't think he was ever officially on the books. It was Danny Simpson who said Fergie helped influence Leicester's title win and had Schmeichel as one of the players he'd influenced.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
When did I say they were alike?
You said that you can tell they were coached in our academy by watching their style of play, hence implying that they are alike or have something in common. Except, their style of play is very different and have little in common. So, making any conclusions on that is not accurate.

maybe you should stay off the forums Jesse as this is clearly getting to you.
Or maybe, keep your ridiculous opinion for the Football or Man United section, where it belongs. I pointed out that your assumptions and opinions were wrong, and instead of accepting that you have ended up posting more non sense and derailing this thread.

For the last time, the first team and the academy are two different things. This part is about the academy, don't bring conversation and discussion about the first team here where it does not belong.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
7,091
I don't see the point of you guys arguing with @Beaucoup. He has actually seen the coaching first hand and he believes it could be better. It's not like he is saying we are the worst. In his opinion it could and should be better. And also not like he is saying all the coaches suck. I don't see how Rashford and Greenwood are evidence he is wrong. If they are brilliant talents they would make it anyway despite some coaching not being so great. Maybe if we had better coaching at lower level we could do even better?

My point is he may be wrong he may be right. But it's hard to argue without actually us also seeing what he is talking about.
I asked the question earlier and rejoined the thread now. Facts seem straight forward. City have produced very few players. United have produced several. I'm leaning towards United having the better academy based on results.

Rashford, Greenwood, Laird, McT, Axel and Williams do not look like the result of stone age coaching. If that guy is concerned his son might turn out like them (god forbid) he should probably move him on quickly before his talent gets wasted. Good players parents rarely feel the need to front load the excuses though.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,612
Location
Daenerys' pants
I asked the question earlier and rejoined the thread now. Facts seem straight forward. City have produced very few players. United have produced several. I'm leaning towards United having the better academy based on results.

Rashford, Greenwood, Laird, McT, Axel and Williams do not look like the result of stone age coaching. If that guy is concerned his son might turn out like them (god forbid) he should probably move him on quickly before his talent gets wasted. Good players parents rarely feel the need to front load the excuses though.
The time that we took on Rashford, Lingard etc we had a monopoly over the best local talent. That’s what it comes down to the most, talent, and coaching is supposed to turn that talent into an effective footballer.

we’ll only know how effective city’s academy Is in around 5 to 10 years time when they’re long tine products start to emerge. But if you ask people around both setups they’ll tell you city are ahead in terms of coaching and facilities right now. Just as we’re now seeing the pay off Chelsea made in their academy Investment about 10 to 15 years ago.
 

Ace of Spades

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,921
I asked the question earlier and rejoined the thread now. Facts seem straight forward. City have produced very few players. United have produced several. I'm leaning towards United having the better academy based on results.

Rashford, Greenwood, Laird, McT, Axel and Williams do not look like the result of stone age coaching. If that guy is concerned his son might turn out like them (god forbid) he should probably move him on quickly before his talent gets wasted. Good players parents rarely feel the need to front load the excuses though.
Well, looking at some of his posts, he seems to disregard the players we have developed to a good level as simply being too good not to make it, yet seems to believe that City are working with some talentless hacks when they have been aggressively hoovering up the best talent around.

The way he talks about our coaching to City's makes no sense. Apparently, City's coaching is far superior than ours, yet can't produce any decent players even with all the talent that they have aggressively gathered. Yet, our coaching is stuck in the 'dark ages', even though we have been developing players consistently at a decent level.

He seems to expect that this great 'coaching' should develop average talents in to good players, yet that is certainly not true with City and their superior coaching either. Talent is what matters them most in the end, it is why clubs around the world desperately struggle to get top talents in their clubs.

This does not mean that I necessarily disagree with him on the coaching matter. It is well known that we do not drill our players tactically in the younger age groups, but difficult to say that it is detrimental to the players when it does work. It just seems that his expectations of what coaching is able to achieve is a bit unrealistic when it comes to us.
 

Class of 63

Sourness
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
8,726
Location
At Home, minding my own business.
  1. Has he signed yet, are we actually interested in signing him??
  2. If we are do we risk going to tribunal, or pay what City want??
  3. He scores a few goals, but is he really that good a footballer?
  4. What position will he play?
  5. Does he deserve a 2nd chance at United?
 

Beaucoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
1,017
I asked the question earlier and rejoined the thread now. Facts seem straight forward. City have produced very few players. United have produced several. I'm leaning towards United having the better academy based on results.

Rashford, Greenwood, Laird, McT, Axel and Williams do not look like the result of stone age coaching. If that guy is concerned his son might turn out like them (god forbid) he should probably move him on quickly before his talent gets wasted. Good players parents rarely feel the need to front load the excuses though.
100% missed the point.
 

SteveW

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
7,091
100% missed the point.
Perhaps. To be honest I'd like to retract that slightly. I'm sure you're doing the best you can for your kid. It's not really my place to comment on that side of things and I genuinely mean no disrespect. I'm not happy with that comment on my part. Apologies.

Re the coaching I honestly don't know. I do not have any access to watch the coaching. I do still see a hell of a lot of good players coming out of an academy that's been slagged off for a decade though. I'm just wondering where the disconnect is. There is no way in hell I can watch someone like Greenwood and say that's a player who's received years of stone age coaching.
 

KM

I’m afraid I just blue myself
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
47,799
So the deal should be confirmed in two or three days.
 

Beaucoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
1,017
Perhaps. To be honest I'd like to retract that slightly. I'm sure you're doing the best you can for your kid. It's not really my place to comment on that side of things and I genuinely mean no disrespect. I'm not happy with that comment on my part. Apologies.

Re the coaching I honestly don't know. I do not have any access to watch the coaching. I do still see a hell of a lot of good players coming out of an academy that's been slagged off for a decade though. I'm just wondering where the disconnect is. There is no way in hell I can watch someone like Greenwood and say that's a player who's received years of stone age coaching.
No problem, maybe I've given the impression i'm a bitter parent with an axe to grind, I can assure you this isn't the case, my lad has been treated fairly, is doing fantastically well and I couldn't be happier with his development. However, my point about the coaching still stands and it isn't just my opinion, many other parents share the same view.

Regarding Greenwood, he's probably not a great example to champion our coaching as he's always been the stand out player in every age group since joining the academy at an early age. I've also never once stated the City's academy is better than ours, I've heard some absolute horror stories about that place and the way they treat kids. My point was about the recruitment of talent, if you hoover up enough top talent, regardless of coaching, you stand a better chance of churning them out at the other end, and to some extent City are proving this to be case with around 150m worth of academy talent sold over the last few years.

Anyway this is my last post in this thread, after all it's supposed to be about McNeill, however, if anyone wants to carry on this conversation i'm happy to do so in the relevant thread.
 

Beaucoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
1,017
  1. Has he signed yet, are we actually interested in signing him??
  2. If we are do we risk going to tribunal, or pay what City want??
  3. He scores a few goals, but is he really that good a footballer?
  4. What position will he play?
  5. Does he deserve a 2nd chance at United?
I sure I read somewhere that the City coaches didn't think he would progress much beyond U18 level, which does seem like a pretty strange thing to say. Regarding him as player, i'm not surprised he scored a stack of goals, he was fecking huge for his age. Will be interesting to see if he can keep it up.
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
1,934
The time that we took on Rashford, Lingard etc we had a monopoly over the best local talent. That’s what it comes down to the most, talent, and coaching is supposed to turn that talent into an effective footballer.

we’ll only know how effective city’s academy Is in around 5 to 10 years time when they’re long tine products start to emerge. But if you ask people around both setups they’ll tell you city are ahead in terms of coaching and facilities right now. Just as we’re now seeing the pay off Chelsea made in their academy Investment about 10 to 15 years ago.
That’s not true at all, I know for a fact that city’s facilities are ahead of ours and they are willing to pay for underage kids to get them in the door where united aren’t. However the standard of coaching at junior level is poor. United coaches are the best in the area. City’s model seems to be quantity over quality but United have the best and most innovative coaches in the area working with them.
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
1,934
Well, looking at some of his posts, he seems to disregard the players we have developed to a good level as simply being too good not to make it, yet seems to believe that City are working with some talentless hacks when they have been aggressively hoovering up the best talent around.

The way he talks about our coaching to City's makes no sense. Apparently, City's coaching is far superior than ours, yet can't produce any decent players even with all the talent that they have aggressively gathered. Yet, our coaching is stuck in the 'dark ages', even though we have been developing players consistently at a decent level.

He seems to expect that this great 'coaching' should develop average talents in to good players, yet that is certainly not true with City and their superior coaching either. Talent is what matters them most in the end, it is why clubs around the world desperately struggle to get top talents in their clubs.

This does not mean that I necessarily disagree with him on the coaching matter. It is well known that we do not drill our players tactically in the younger age groups, but difficult to say that it is detrimental to the players when it does work. It just seems that his expectations of what coaching is able to achieve is a bit unrealistic when it comes to us.
Our junior coaching is on another planet to City’s. They have spent ten years throwing money at any kid on Uniteds books. It’s produced nothing really as it’s not their first team plan. Actually it’s about now uniteds hard work and persistence, in the face of city breaching rules on payments to juniors, should start to pay off. In 12 years not a single player has made it into the first team at city really. Look at united again now....where will I get the chance if I’m a talented kid?
 

Jeppers7

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
1,934
No problem, maybe I've given the impression i'm a bitter parent with an axe to grind, I can assure you this isn't the case, my lad has been treated fairly, is doing fantastically well and I couldn't be happier with his development. However, my point about the coaching still stands and it isn't just my opinion, many other parents share the same view.

Regarding Greenwood, he's probably not a great example to champion our coaching as he's always been the stand out player in every age group since joining the academy at an early age. I've also never once stated the City's academy is better than ours, I've heard some absolute horror stories about that place and the way they treat kids. My point was about the recruitment of talent, if you hoover up enough top talent, regardless of coaching, you stand a better chance of churning them out at the other end, and to some extent City are proving this to be case with around 150m worth of academy talent sold over the last few years.

Anyway this is my last post in this thread, after all it's supposed to be about McNeill, however, if anyone wants to carry on this conversation i'm happy to do so in the relevant thread.
As a parent I’d be wary of thinking you know better than coaches who spend time and money developing ideas and techniques. I know for a fact the very best junior coaches in greater Manchester are united. I also know from my own experience in teaching, I’m not a football coach, you’ll always get a group of parents who know better than the coaches. (They don’t)
 

Beaucoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
1,017
Big difference between fantastic and poor/non-existant as you described it.
This years scholars consist of only 3-4 players that have actually come through our academy system. I'm sure you would agree that's pretty poor for a club of our size. It's about the talent you bring in, and believe me they've tried with this age group.
 

BringOnUnited

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
4
This years scholars consist of only 3-4 players that have actually come through our academy system. I'm sure you would agree that's pretty poor for a club of our size. It's about the talent you bring in, and believe me they've tried with this age group.
It's quite hard to find a player at the age of 9 and say that he can have a career good enough for Man Utd so of course some years you will have this happen. It's a bad look if it happens 4 or 5 years in a row but you can forgive 1 bad year every now and then IMO.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Talent spotter
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
5,612
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
Bringing kids in under 13/14 is always a challenge for a bunch of reasons.

Historically we have always brought in kids at 15-16 and in percentage terms most don't make it. The maths don't allow it.

Once kids reach 17 it becomes a different story and our success at youth level 16-18 is unrivalled with 34% of players who play in the FA Youth Cup (an U/18 competition) reaching the first team and 38% having a career in the game with other clubs. So from a players perspective if they are with United at 17 they have a 72% chance of making it in the game. Much higher than any other British club.

It's been mentioned in this thread that the likes of Greenwood would have made it if the coaching is bad. I probably agree. There are certain players who will just succeed regardless of where they are and what standard of coaching you get. Whiteside, Morrison etc Even Matt Busby said not to (over) coach George Best.

Then there are other kids who will not make the grade even if they have the best coaches in the world. But you don't know that at the time. So coaching is often about maximising those players in the 'middle ground'. There are so many factors that's it almost impossible to identify whether poor coaching is responsible. But it certainly has to be one of the factors.

I believe a club like United should have the best coaches available. (Not just coaches but in every role). The point being made in this thread is that maybe we don't. I wouldn't necessarily disagree based on things I've heard and seen.

But the bit I don't get...is that if our coaches are not the best, and taking Greenwood out of the equation, why do we get such high results with poor recruitment and coaching? There is a disconnect somewhere. And I know it isn't 83 years of luck.

The final point is that every parent wants their child to make it. Every parent thinks their child is brilliant. 30 years of attending Academy games has taught me not to buy into every parents perspective.

Like every club Academy we probably have a percentage of average players, average parents and average coaches. As long as our % is better than all the other clubs we will come out on top.

I think what the parent on this forum was saying is that there is room for improvement.

I think there always is.
 

Davie Moyes

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
286
Location
Up North
Bringing kids in under 13/14 is always a challenge for a bunch of reasons.

Historically we have always brought in kids at 15-16 and in percentage terms most don't make it. The maths don't allow it.

Once kids reach 17 it becomes a different story and our success at youth level 16-18 is unrivalled with 34% of players who play in the FA Youth Cup (an U/18 competition) reaching the first team and 38% having a career in the game with other clubs. So from a players perspective if they are with United at 17 they have a 72% chance of making it in the game. Much higher than any other British club.

It's been mentioned in this thread that the likes of Greenwood would have made it if the coaching is bad. I probably agree. There are certain players who will just succeed regardless of where they are and what standard of coaching you get. Whiteside, Morrison etc Even Matt Busby said not to (over) coach George Best.

Then there are other kids who will not make the grade even if they have the best coaches in the world. But you don't know that at the time. So coaching is often about maximising those players in the 'middle ground'. There are so many factors that's it almost impossible to identify whether poor coaching is responsible. But it certainly has to be one of the factors.

I believe a club like United should have the best coaches available. (Not just coaches but in every role). The point being made in this thread is that maybe we don't. I wouldn't necessarily disagree based on things I've heard and seen.

But the bit I don't get...is that if our coaches are not the best, and taking Greenwood out of the equation, why do we get such high results with poor recruitment and coaching? There is a disconnect somewhere. And I know it isn't 83 years of luck.

The final point is that every parent wants their child to make it. Every parent thinks their child is brilliant. 30 years of attending Academy games has taught me not to buy into every parents perspective.

Like every club Academy we probably have a percentage of average players, average parents and average coaches. As long as our % is better than all the other clubs we will come out on top.

I think what the parent on this forum was saying is that there is room for improvement.

I think there always is.
That's an awesome post. Great insight as ever Mr MUJAC. Nice to see you posting again in the Youth forum.