Shola Shoretire

Bigsid

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
193
Eh? You've just listed 5 players who had really successful loans and then said "but they only started playing well at United when they started playing for United". Well...yes? I mean, with the exception of Kieran Richardson of course who was shite, but that loan at West Brom was the best football of his career probably.

I think Dalot is a particularly bad example, he was absolutely atrocious for us until his loan to AC last season and now he appears to have worked his way into our first team after relatively few chances in our first XI. Do you think these loans didn't improve these players or that they would have got more game time at United? Do you think Dean Henderson didn't improve for getting the first team experience he did for example? He'd have been worth £30m playing for our reserves?
Top players don't always go on loan. They break through at the top clubs like Rashford and Foden.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,624
Top players don't always go on loan. They break through at the top clubs like Rashford and Foden.
And other top players do go on loan. Like David Beckham. I still don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that Evans would have been world class if not for going on loan to Sunderland or something? End of the day most players just never manage to become top class, loan or not.
 

Bigsid

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
193
And other top players do go on loan. Like David Beckham. I still don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that Evans would have been world class if not for going on loan to Sunderland or something? End of the day most players just never manage to become top class, loan or not.
Going back a few years with Beckham! The very best generally come through at their own club as they are that special they are ready at 18 or 19. Greenwood would be seen in that group. Evans has never been world class. And agree very few top class players come through anywhere.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,624
Going back a few years with Beckham! The very best generally come through at their own club as they are that special they are ready at 18 or 19. Greenwood would be seen in that group. Evans has never been world class. And agree very few top class players come through anywhere.
Not that I'm saying these guys are all world class or anything but Arsenal have a bunch of youngish players coming through, largely of a good standard so let's look at them as recent examples from another club. Don't think Saka has been on loan, Smith-Rowe has twice, Martinelli hasn't but also played first team football in Brazil before he got to Arsenal, Odegaard got loaned out a lot at Real (including to Arsenal), Ben White their £50m CB got loaned out by Brighton to Leeds, Aaron Ramsdale was loaned out by Bournemouth twice.

These are all quite good young players, perhaps without being absolutely top class although time will tell, and some of them needed or benefited from loans and others didn't. Not every player is a superstar at 18, it's just how it goes. Incidentally Aubameyang was loaned out 4 times when he was at Milan and he actually was a world class player at one point. Same goes for Thomas Partey who was loaned out twice. Lacazette was never loaned out. Just depends on the player and what they need Vs what their club can offer them.

Another more recent (future) world class player to be loaned out would be Reece James at Chelsea. Chelsea will be full of loanees in fact, some good, some not so good.
 

Mickson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,234
Location
Vidal's knee
Shola is nowhere ready for a loan. Still only 17 and needs to keep training with the first team and play U23 games.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,782
Serious question...not at all being smart...when has a six month loan done any good for anyone? In fact, when have any of our loans really worked out. Chong was showing promise at Birmingham but he had two or three before that which were awful. The rest, in recent memory have been shocking.

Shoretire might improve as a professional and mature by going on loan but I don’t think that is directly linked to him breaking into the first team. By that I mean a loan experience may benefit a certain type of player in certain ways but will not ultimately determine if the player is good enough.

Even after a loan, you need to be given opportunity to show you’re good enough- that doesn’t mean minutes in the Carabao cup inside a team of other semi fit and squad fillers that hasn’t ever played together before. It’s giving these type of top level talents minutes in a proper starting 11 so they have top class around them and covering the inevitable errors and most importantly giving then security and confidence to express themselves. Ronaldo benefited from Ferguson’s persistence...Giggs...more recently Greenwood....as examples of not needing loans. Are any of our youth players, including Shoretire, at those levels for their respective ages? I’m not sure- possibly. But there are countless examples of youth players who DID go on loan but didn’t come back and shine until the boss gave them proper first team minutes -Beckham,Richardson, Evans, Tuanzebe, Dalot...all needed runs in top level competition surrounded by top players to show their ability.

In short, a six month loan spell in and out of a championship side or on the bench in the PL is going to do fuk all for Shoretire. Get the kid in the team and see what he’s made of.
But a 6 month loan, playing every week, would be really useful.

On a seperate note, to anyone citing Beckham as sn example of a loan working. He made 5 appearances for Preston. I'm guessing not all as a starter. Does anybody really believe those 5 apps shaped his career?
 

P-Nut

fan of well-known French footballer Fabinho
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
20,172
Location
Oldham, Greater Manchester
But a 6 month loan, playing every week, would be really useful.

On a seperate note, to anyone citing Beckham as sn example of a loan working. He made 5 appearances for Preston. I'm guessing not all as a starter. Does anybody really believe those 5 apps shaped his career?
I'm not sure in Beckhams case, but sometimes the benefits of a loan move aren't always related to how many minutes they play. It can be beneficial to move away from the comforts of United and have to grow up in some ways. Without looking into specific examples I know a few have said it changed how they trained and appreciated what they had at United etc
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,782
I'm not sure in Beckhams case, but sometimes the benefits of a loan move aren't always related to how many minutes they play. It can be beneficial to move away from the comforts of United and have to grow up in some ways. Without looking into specific examples I know a few have said it changed how they trained and appreciated what they had at United etc
Yeah maybe but a few weeks at Preston aren't a pivotal moment for Beckhams career.

Back then, even at United, young players weren't pampered like they are now. It's not like he needed Preston to bring him back down to earth.

I just think a lot of people keep citing Beckham without realising how short a spell it was.

But for Shola I think it'd be great if he could play every week in properly competitive game. He's physically ready. Ignore the baby face and check the size of his legs.
 

Marquee Moon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
35
The Beckham loan should never have happened. If he was kept with the first team squad where he was already getting games we may not have all those injuries and meltdowns. I seem to remember thinking he should have played the cup final against Everton that time too. The loan and the general lack of faith SAF showed in him that year possibly cost us a domestic double. Only on redcafe could a month long loan that happened 27 years ago be cited so often as something exemplary that needs to be repeated.
What gets me though is the way we totally neglect the reserve team. It makes a difference. It's no coincidence we lost 6-0 to West Ham in the reserves and then within 24 hours we lost 5-0 to Liverpool in the league. It's about momentum and just doing things right as a club, putting out good teams. It's absurd for the club to complain about the standard of the reserves, send players on ridiculous loans that prove nothing, then go out with a weakened team and get beat 6-0.
It also happens often that redcafe automatically assumes the loaned guy will be good enough upon his return to make meaningful contributions. Everyone here presumed that Pereira and Tuanzebe would be good to go, based on performances that had nothing to do with Manchester United. It's funny how the club shares the opinions of this forum too: for me that's the real troubling part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultan

Mickson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,234
Location
Vidal's knee
Yeah maybe but a few weeks at Preston aren't a pivotal moment for Beckhams career.

Back then, even at United, young players weren't pampered like they are now. It's not like he needed Preston to bring him back down to earth.

I just think a lot of people keep citing Beckham without realising how short a spell it was.

But for Shola I think it'd be great if he could play every week in properly competitive game. He's physically ready. Ignore the baby face and check the size of his legs.
He is nowhere ready for the men's game IMO, particularly not The Championship or League One.
 

Mickson

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,234
Location
Vidal's knee
What age would you suggest as he's 18 pretty soon.
I don't know but he drifts in and out of U23 games even and has not looked remotely ready the few times he has played in the first team. Remember that players like Garner, Elanga, Amad etc have completely dominated at U23 level. Physically and technically.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,047
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
The Beckham loan should never have happened. If he was kept with the first team squad where he was already getting games we may not have all those injuries and meltdowns. I seem to remember thinking he should have played the cup final against Everton that time too. The loan and the general lack of faith SAF showed in him that year possibly cost us a domestic double. Only on redcafe could a month long loan that happened 27 years ago be cited so often as something exemplary that needs to be repeated.
What gets me though is the way we totally neglect the reserve team. It makes a difference. It's no coincidence we lost 6-0 to West Ham in the reserves and then within 24 hours we lost 5-0 to Liverpool in the league. It's about momentum and just doing things right as a club, putting out good teams. It's absurd for the club to complain about the standard of the reserves, send players on ridiculous loans that prove nothing, then go out with a weakened team and get beat 6-0.
It also happens often that redcafe automatically assumes the loaned guy will be good enough upon his return to make meaningful contributions. Everyone here presumed that Pereira and Tuanzebe would be good to go, based on performances that had nothing to do with Manchester United. It's funny how the club shares the opinions of this forum too: for me that's the real troubling part.
No idea if this post is a wind up or not....but the first part makes no sense at all given the number of games Beckham actually played in for United prior to his loan. In addition, his performances in the games he did play in gave nothing to suggest he should warrant a starting place in the Cup Final ahead of Keane, Butt, Ince and Sharpe. Secondly, I don't see any correlation to Beckham's development as a 19 year-old and any fallout with Ferguson nearly 10 years later? If you read Beckham's book, Ferguson's books and the one on the Class of 92...they all say the same thing about his three weeks at Preston. It had nothing to do with any 'lack of faith' and certainly didn't 'cost us a domestic double'. That is a big leap!

Finally, I have no idea how how our depleted reserves losing 0-6 at West Ham affected the first team result against Liverpool?

I don't always agree with the clubs loan policy and often wonder how really effective it is (which I guess is your point)...and often wish we would play our strongest team at youth level. However, the club has a clear plan about winning v development which is focused on bringing players through to the first team which we are pretty good at. So something is working.

The loan system is fraught with uncertainty in numerous ways and as far as United is concerned it has rarely worked to our favour. There are too many factors to manage so it becomes a bit of a lottery. It worked for Beckham, Welbeck, Evans and a few others but overall no club really manages it well.

To my mind the loan system/strategy at United has four major upsides:

1. It provides a pathway for young players who need that next step and probably aren't going to make it at United
2. It provides spaces in the U/18 and Reserve teams for the next group to come through
3. In 5% of cases we might get a player back who can contribute positively to the first team
4. It attracts young players to the club

That's why we use the loan system the way we do.
 
Last edited:

captaincantona

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
994
Eh? You've just listed 5 players who had really successful loans and then said "but they only started playing well at United when they started playing for United". Well...yes? I mean, with the exception of Kieran Richardson of course who was shite, but that loan at West Brom was the best football of his career probably.

I think Dalot is a particularly bad example, he was absolutely atrocious for us until his loan to AC last season and now he appears to have worked his way into our first team after relatively few chances in our first XI. Do you think these loans didn't improve these players or that they would have got more game time at United? Do you think Dean Henderson didn't improve for getting the first team experience he did for example? He'd have been worth £30m playing for our reserves?
Sorry, reading. That back I wasn’t very clear. What I meant was that regardless of how the loans went, these players were then integrated into strong starting 11s at united and given proper game time as opposed to what we have seen from Ole which seemed to be only giving these types of players either 7 minutes at the ends of games or 90 minutes in a completely under strength lineup who have, for the most part, never played together before.

In short,even when loans are successful, they are only part of the jigsaw. Players need to be trusted and given a proper chance to show their worth.
 

Marquee Moon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
35
No idea if this post is a wind up or not....but the first part makes no sense at all given the number of games Beckham actually played in for United prior to his loan. In addition, his performances in the games he did play in gave nothing to suggest he should warrant a starting place in the Cup Final ahead of Keane, Butt, Ince and Sharpe. Secondly, I don't see any correlation to Beckham's development as a 19 year-old and any fallout with Ferguson nearly 10 years later? If you read Beckham's book, Ferguson's books and the one on the Class of 92...they all say the same thing about his three weeks at Preston. It had nothing to do with any 'lack of faith' and certainly didn't 'cost us a domestic double'. That is a big leap!

Finally, I have no idea how how our depleted reserves losing 0-6 at West Ham affected the first team result against Liverpool?

I don't always agree with the clubs loan policy and often wonder how really effective it is (which I guess is your point)...and often wish we would play our strongest team at youth level. However, the club has a clear plan about winning v development which is focused on bringing players through to the first team which we are pretty good at. So something is working.

The loan system is fraught with uncertainty in numerous ways and as far as United is concerned it has rarely worked to our favour. There are too many factors to manage so it becomes a bit of a lottery. It worked for Beckham, Welbeck, Evans and a few others but overall no club really manages it well.

To my mind the loan system/strategy at United has three major upsides:

1. It provides a pathway for young players who need that next step and probably aren't going to make it at United
2. It provides spaces in the U/18 and Reserve teams for the next group to come through
3. In 5% of cases we might get a player back who can contribute positively to the first team
Thanks for the reply. I don't know how many games he played prior to the loan. I must have been impressed with the little I saw because my memory tells me that he should have been in the team more often that year. We had quite a few missing. The cup final midfield has no width on the right. Kanchelskis was injured and I probably assumed at the time that Beckham was the logical choice. 4_4_2 was the go back then with two wide wingers.
I have to admit I've always been in favour of playing youngsters if they're good enough. I won't apologize for that. That's just me. Anyway he was about 20 then, probably.
I don't believe you can run a successful club by sending some weak teams out to get thumped like that. Morale is contagious. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
Those points you made towards the end of your post reflect my views perfectly, and I couldn't have articulated those concerns any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,047
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
Thanks for the reply. I don't know how many games he played prior to the loan. I must have been impressed with the little I saw because my memory tells me that he should have been in the team more often that year. We had quite a few missing. The cup final midfield has no width on the right. Kanchelskis was injured and I probably assumed at the time that Beckham was the logical choice. 4_4_2 was the go back then with two wide wingers.
I have to admit I've always been in favour of playing youngsters if they're good enough. I won't apologize for that. That's just me. Anyway he was about 20 then, probably.
I don't believe you can run a successful club by sending some weak teams out to get thumped like that. Morale is contagious. I don't know how you could see it any other way.
Those points you made towards the end of your post reflect my views perfectly, and I couldn't have articulated those concerns any better.
Prior to his loan he started in four games...three in the League Cup against Port Vale and Newcastle plus once in the European Cup against Galatasaray in which both clubs played weakened teams in a dead rubber. In addition he came on as a sub in the FA Cup tie against Wrexham.

In his five first team games and one reserve team game for Preston he played in central midfield.

In the 20+ reserve games he played in the 1994/95 season he was in central midfield playing in the #6 and #8 positions. The wide players were Gillespie, Thornley, Davies and Cooke. So Beckham would never have been considered as a wide player for an FA Cup Final. If anyone was the logical choice it would have been Keith Gillespie or Simon Davies. As a central midfielder, he would have to oust Ince, Keane or Butt who were all superior players at that time.

Ferguson converted Beckham into a regular wide player once he reached the first team proper in 1995/96.

As for sending out teams to get thumped...no one plans to do that. That's football and we have gad some really good reserve teams in the past who have won titles also lose heavily in matches. It's not the norm so personally I'm not too concerned.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,613
Prior to his loan he started in four games...three in the League Cup against Port Vale and Newcastle plus once in the European Cup against Galatasaray in which both clubs played weakened teams in a dead rubber. In addition he came on as a sub in the FA Cup tie against Wrexham.

In his five first team games and one reserve team game for Preston he played in central midfield.

In the 20+ reserve games he played in the 1994/95 season he was in central midfield playing in the #6 and #8 positions. The wide players were Gillespie, Thornley, Davies and Cooke. So Beckham would never have been considered as a wide player for an FA Cup Final. If anyone was the logical choice it would have been Keith Gillespie or Simon Davies. As a central midfielder, he would have to oust Ince, Keane or Butt who were all superior players at that time.

Ferguson converted Beckham into a regular wide player once he reached the first team proper in 1995/96.

As for sending out teams to get thumped...no one plans to do that. That's football and we have gad some really good reserve teams in the past who have won titles also lose heavily in matches. It's not the norm so personally I'm not too concerned.
Just to note, Gillespie was at Newcastle after January 1995 so couldn’t have made the cup final.

I seem to recall Terry Cooke getting one or two starts on the right at the start of 95/96 - the 3-0 victory at home to Bolton stands out. Can’t remember if Beckham had already consolidated his place in the starting XI at that stage?
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
11,818
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
Fergie sometimes liked to play his young central midfielders out wide for a season or two before he attempted to play them central. Well that was the case with Fletcher and Beckham. Beckham just happened to become world class on the wing. I always thought he was a bit slow and lightweight for cm but his delivery from wide areas was obviously amazing. He had a crazy engine too getting up and down.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,624
Sorry, reading. That back I wasn’t very clear. What I meant was that regardless of how the loans went, these players were then integrated into strong starting 11s at united and given proper game time as opposed to what we have seen from Ole which seemed to be only giving these types of players either 7 minutes at the ends of games or 90 minutes in a completely under strength lineup who have, for the most part, never played together before.

In short,even when loans are successful, they are only part of the jigsaw. Players need to be trusted and given a proper chance to show their worth.
Ah ok well yeah, I definitely agree with that. If they have a good loan then they deserve to either get a decent chance with the first team, another good loan or to get sold so they can capitalise on it in their careers in my view. Reserve team football isn't too helpful at that point I don't think.
 

Marquee Moon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
35
Prior to his loan he started in four games...three in the League Cup against Port Vale and Newcastle plus once in the European Cup against Galatasaray in which both clubs played weakened teams in a dead rubber. In addition he came on as a sub in the FA Cup tie against Wrexham.

In his five first team games and one reserve team game for Preston he played in central midfield.

In the 20+ reserve games he played in the 1994/95 season he was in central midfield playing in the #6 and #8 positions. The wide players were Gillespie, Thornley, Davies and Cooke. So Beckham would never have been considered as a wide player for an FA Cup Final. If anyone was the logical choice it would have been Keith Gillespie or Simon Davies. As a central midfielder, he would have to oust Ince, Keane or Butt who were all superior players at that time.

Ferguson converted Beckham into a regular wide player once he reached the first team proper in 1995/96.

As for sending out teams to get thumped...no one plans to do that. That's football and we have gad some really good reserve teams in the past who have won titles also lose heavily in matches. It's not the norm so personally I'm not too concerned.
I'm not conceding upon any point you made unless you can provide proof. He scored in the Champions league in December 1994. Was he playing centre midfield that time?
Are you suggesting that SAF sold Kanchelskis and went into 1995/6 without a right flanker, and that Beckham was converted to the right wing as an afterthought? That's hard to believe.
Nothing you say tallies with my memory.
As for what position he played in the reserves, I have no idea. I wasn't there. I don't think I've even heard of those guys you mentioned, besides Gillespie. I distinctly recall wondering why there was no one for the right flank that cup final. I certainly never regarded Butt as a superior player to Beckham. Never, not even from day one. I looked at Wikipedia just to see if I can confirm anything you say. Beckham replaced Kanchelskis as a sub in his debut. Did that signify a change of formation, I suppose? Since Beckham wasn't considered as a winger then. Wikipedia says that he scored a goal directly from a corner playing for Preston. Was he playing central midfield then too I suppose. Wikipedia says he played four times in the league after his return. We were fighting for the title against Blackburn. How in a title race did he manage to play four games, by breaking into central midfield ahead of Ince & Keane, and the superior Butt? The injuries and suspensions that occurred towards the end of that season were Kanchelskis, Giggs and Cantona. I don't specifically recall Ince or Keane beîng unavailable.
So you can see why I'm a bit sceptical.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,047
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
I'm not conceding upon any point you made unless you can provide proof. He scored in the Champions league in December 1994. Was he playing centre midfield that time?
Are you suggesting that SAF sold Kanchelskis and went into 1995/6 without a right flanker, and that Beckham was converted to the right wing as an afterthought? That's hard to believe.
Nothing you say tallies with my memory.
As for what position he played in the reserves, I have no idea. I wasn't there. I don't think I've even heard of those guys you mentioned, besides Gillespie. I distinctly recall wondering why there was no one for the right flank that cup final. I certainly never regarded Butt as a superior player to Beckham. Never, not even from day one. I looked at Wikipedia just to see if I can confirm anything you say. Beckham replaced Kanchelskis as a sub in his debut. Did that signify a change of formation, I suppose? Since Beckham wasn't considered as a winger then. Wikipedia says that he scored a goal directly from a corner playing for Preston. Was he playing central midfield then too I suppose. Wikipedia says he played four times in the league after his return. We were fighting for the title against Blackburn. How in a title race did he manage to play four games, by breaking into central midfield ahead of Ince & Keane, and the superior Butt? The injuries and suspensions that occurred towards the end of that season were Kanchelskis, Giggs and Cantona. I don't specifically recall Ince or Keane beîng unavailable.
So you can see why I'm a bit sceptical.
As far as proof is concerned most of this information is all in the programmes and match reports from that season and also in the United Yearbook. In addition, in Beckham's book 'David Beckham' he talks all about on pages 59-62.

As I watched all the youth teams during that period, it was common discussion that Beckham wasn't the best player in that team. What happened in 1995/96, particularly in the second half of the season surprised everyone. I never thought he would turn into the player he did. That's a credit to him and all at United at the time.

As far as the 1995 Cup Final was concerned...it's all conjecture but clearly Ferguson didn't think he was ready otherwise he would have been in the squad.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
107,933
Location
Dublin, Ireland
But a 6 month loan, playing every week, would be really useful.

On a seperate note, to anyone citing Beckham as sn example of a loan working. He made 5 appearances for Preston. I'm guessing not all as a starter. Does anybody really believe those 5 apps shaped his career?
Shape his career no, but help his career? Yes
Playing against grown men trying to kick you all over the pitch, different coaches, living away from home etc. lots to learn
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,782
Shape his career no, but help his career? Yes
Playing against grown men trying to kick you all over the pitch, different coaches, living away from home etc. lots to learn
Agree with all that for a full and proper loan. Like Shoretire could soon experience.

But this was Preston. I doubt he moved house. He was there for 4 week and made 5 appearances.

Put it this way, if Beckham didn't spend 4 week in Preston for those 5 appearances would his career would have been different?

It's just not a valid example of a succesful loan move.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
107,933
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Agree with all that for a full and proper loan. Like Shoretire could soon experience.

But this was Preston. I doubt he moved house. He was there for 4 week and made 5 appearances.

Put it this way, if Beckham didn't spend 4 week in Preston for those 5 appearances would his career would have been different?

It's just not a valid example of a succesful loan move.
You’re right that he probably didn’t move. But I bet he still learned a lot in those years.

how about Kane, he was doing the loans around?
Rashford was lucky by the way. He got his chance because the 4-5 ahead of him were all injured for the midgetland match
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,782
You’re right that he probably didn’t move. But I bet he still learned a lot in those years.

how about Kane, he was doing the loans around?
Rashford was lucky by the way. He got his chance because the 4-5 ahead of him were all injured for the midgetland match
It was 4 weeks
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
24,708
Location
My wit's end
I'm a big fan of Shoretire. Of all the youth players on the fringes of the squad, I think he's got the best chance of becoming a first teamer.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
12,790
Yeah maybe but a few weeks at Preston aren't a pivotal moment for Beckhams career.

Back then, even at United, young players weren't pampered like they are now. It's not like he needed Preston to bring him back down to earth.

I just think a lot of people keep citing Beckham without realising how short a spell it was.
True, but I don't think a lot of people understand how important that short spell was. David Moyes said the following about it (he was the manager of Preston at the time)

“The biggest thing was Sir Alex recognised after a month on loan that he was good enough to go into Manchester United’s first team, so he took him back and put him straight in."

“He was this wide right player, skinny as anything, pretty small looking and I’m thinking, ‘there’s no way he’s going to be good enough for the first or second division’," Moyes added.


“But I’ve got to say the minute he came in he was unbelievable, he was brilliant."
 

Rockets Redglare

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
1,403
True, but I don't think a lot of people understand how important that short spell was. David Moyes said the following about it (he was the manager of Preston at the time)

“The biggest thing was Sir Alex recognised after a month on loan that he was good enough to go into Manchester United’s first team, so he took him back and put him straight in."

“He was this wide right player, skinny as anything, pretty small looking and I’m thinking, ‘there’s no way he’s going to be good enough for the first or second division’," Moyes added.


“But I’ve got to say the minute he came in he was unbelievable, he was brilliant."
Moyes played alongside Beckham at Preston- he wasn’t manager until a good few years later.
 

wise_old_man

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 10, 2021
Messages
360
True, but I don't think a lot of people understand how important that short spell was. David Moyes said the following about it (he was the manager of Preston at the time)

“The biggest thing was Sir Alex recognised after a month on loan that he was good enough to go into Manchester United’s first team, so he took him back and put him straight in."

“He was this wide right player, skinny as anything, pretty small looking and I’m thinking, ‘there’s no way he’s going to be good enough for the first or second division’," Moyes added.


“But I’ve got to say the minute he came in he was unbelievable, he was brilliant."
This alone should have been a red flag when Fergie nominated Moyes for our manager role, as this proved Moyes's mindset was too old school (Like a lot of other British managers) and he would have missed out on Beckham as a talent.
 

Marquee Moon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
35
I'm a big fan of Shoretire. Of all the youth players on the fringes of the squad, I think he's got the best chance of becoming a first teamer.
I like the look of him too. I'm hoping we can get him in next season for some serious game time if we really mean business. The likes of Mata, Lingard etc need to be jettisoned and the younger talents need to see light at the end of the tunnel.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
11,818
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
I think we need to forget about 23s apart from players getting 6 months there after they graduate from 18s or coming back from loan/injury. It’s no good for a whole season unless the lads are 17. Loan all the best 18 and up kids out until we can shed some of the overly expensive squad players and make genuine spaces in the first team. See who does the best out of them over the next few seasons. Bring the best back and tie them down. Sell excess after being in the shop window on their current or slightly improved deals. I’d be looking to sell someone like Garner next summer or in this window, Chong too. If we would like to make some money we can’t afford to add youth that won’t play enough on big Utd squad player money to an already bloated squad.

Im starting to think if players like Rashford and Williams and even Martial had spent a season or two on loan on the PL/Championship we’d have a much better idea of how they would turn out longer term and what their work rate is like etc hypothetically it should keep players hungry to build their reputation slightly later into their 20s while building value in players we eventually don’t use. We need to learn to use the loan system to our advantage a lot more.

The championship is where it’s at for youngsters. Laird looks ready for a PL loan next season, Garner not so much. I’d really like to see us give a few players to Rooney for the second half of the season and see how they get on. I feel like Hannibal and Amad would do really well at that level. Shola next season. It was almost criminal that players like Gomes and Puigmal never even got a chance to shine out on loan and left for almost nothing. There’s something broken in our process currently if we can’t further develop talented players like that or at least get decent money for them.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,047
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
Agree with all that for a full and proper loan. Like Shoretire could soon experience.

But this was Preston. I doubt he moved house. He was there for 4 week and made 5 appearances.

Put it this way, if Beckham didn't spend 4 week in Preston for those 5 appearances would his career would have been different?

It's just not a valid example of a succesful loan move.
In actual fact he did move to Preston for those few weeks as he wanted to. He played in a Reserve game first then five league games. He wanted to stay until the end of the season but Ferguson called him back due to loads of injuries at United.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,782
In actual fact he did move to Preston for those few weeks as he wanted to. He played in a Reserve game first then five league games. He wanted to stay until the end of the season but Ferguson called him back due to loads of injuries at United.
Yeah I think we confirmed earlier it was 5 apps.

Moved to Preston or not I don't think it matters. It was 30 - 40 mins away from his house.

If Shoretire was to go on loan to Bolton for four weeks I don't think any of us would be considering it as particularly significant. We'd all be saying what's the point of 4 weeks.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,624
Yeah I think we confirmed earlier it was 5 apps.

Moved to Preston or not I don't think it matters. It was 30 - 40 mins away from his house.

If Shoretire was to go on loan to Bolton for four weeks I don't think any of us would be considering it as particularly significant. We'd all be saying what's the point of 4 weeks.
The point was he demonstrated he was mentally and physically ready for first team football so we brought him back and gave him first team football. If we sent Amad or Shoretire out on loan and they performed well and we'd space in the team for him in the 2nd half of the season then I'd hope it would be a similar situation.
 

captaincantona

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
994
I think we need to forget about 23s apart from players getting 6 months there after they graduate from 18s or coming back from loan/injury. It’s no good for a whole season unless the lads are 17. Loan all the best 18 and up kids out until we can shed some of the overly expensive squad players and make genuine spaces in the first team. See who does the best out of them over the next few seasons. Bring the best back and tie them down. Sell excess after being in the shop window on their current or slightly improved deals. I’d be looking to sell someone like Garner next summer or in this window, Chong too. If we would like to make some money we can’t afford to add youth that won’t play enough on big Utd squad player money to an already bloated squad.

Im starting to think if players like Rashford and Williams and even Martial had spent a season or two on loan on the PL/Championship we’d have a much better idea of how they would turn out longer term and what their work rate is like etc hypothetically it should keep players hungry to build their reputation slightly later into their 20s while building value in players we eventually don’t use. We need to learn to use the loan system to our advantage a lot more.

The championship is where it’s at for youngsters. Laird looks ready for a PL loan next season, Garner not so much. I’d really like to see us give a few players to Rooney for the second half of the season and see how they get on. I feel like Hannibal and Amad would do really well at that level. Shola next season. It was almost criminal that players like Gomes and Puigmal never even got a chance to shine out on loan and left for almost nothing. There’s something broken in our process currently if we can’t further develop talented players like that or at least get decent money for them.
Odd point about Rashford and Martial, both are proven at the highest levels in CL, PL and internationally (ie. they are at that level not that they are world beaters). Both are easily good enough for top level sides on their day but decision making and attitude are questionable. Not sure what an early championship loan would have helpEd you figure out in that regard. What both needed was a proper manager who could recognise the limitations in their game and help them mature. You won’t get that type of nurturing as a loanee in the championship. I reckon LVG was the man for that with regard to Rashford and Martial. Pity his style of football wasn’t really a fit.