What are we arguing here? At which point did I say I've not seen much of him? I said I've seen the gif and video that have been reposted ad nauseam, because, well, it gets posted ad nauseam when people talk about Ravel Morrison. Does this translate/equate to "I've not seen much of him" to you? When did I say he didn't make it for XYZ reasons or "our coaches and youth watchers just talk up our prospects when they're not all that"? Is this a reading comprehension issue?
I say I never understood the hype around him.
Someone else replied implying that I was "putting him down" and that the hype was justified because our youth watchers and coaches saw him tear up youth club football.
I then questioned how am I putting him down by saying I never understood the hype? and said that coaches are not infallible and often talk up their prospects/players. This isn't inherently wrong, in fact, I believe it's what they're supposed to do, but this doesn't mean I'm saying this is the reason Ravel's failed or that it was even the particular case here. I was simply letting that poster know I don't take statements from coaches as the be all end all in terms of corroboration.
Because anyone that saw him at youth level would agree he was a top prospect with a lot of talent. I honestly am baffled anyone could think he wasn't talented.
I refuse to believe anyone saw him and thought he wasn't all that and it was simply a case of supporters/coaches talking up their own youth player. His first touch, his close control, his end product, etc... were all top class. What about his performances at youth level would lead you to think it was simply a case of others clearly overhyping him?
" People seem to believe football coaches are infallible. People tend to talk up their prospects/players. "
I'm not sure how Ravel failing was a case of coaches proving they're infallible or people talking up their own player. There is nobody who could look at Ravel and have some insight that would guarantee he wasn't all that apart from attitude (which isn't seen on the pitch). This is why I brought up Rashford and Gribbin. Nobody could watch the two and have some insight to show that Rashford would make it and Gribbin wouldn't based on ability.
Its completely different from comparing Ravel to say Tunnicliffe. Anybody that watches could point to Tunnicliffe's obvious deficiencies as a player. Lack of technique being obvious. Or Zidane Iqbal from Ravel. Although the career of Iqball is still quite open, my point is to say that although he has the technique that Tunnicliffe doesn't have, anybody that watches the youth sides could tell you that Iqbal hasn't dominated the u18s.
In the case of Ravel, he clearly was talented and clearly proved his talent was warranted at youth level.
If this discussion is about Ravel at first team level, then it's an entirely separate discussion which has nothing to do with our coaches or the hype behind him because it was clearly based on his time at youth level, not at first team level. I don't see anyone basing any type of hype on his first team level performances.