6, Sergi Roberto, Messi, Alba, Piqué, Busquests and Iniesta.
Youth development is NOT relevant for us!
- Thread starter nick2004
- Start date
I made this exact same thread a year ago and got rinsed for it.
Watching lvg try to bring through a lot of youth players this season ( with the best intentions!) and those players not being remotely good enough I still stand by my point.
Football is a global game the biggest teams can only remain relevant if they scour the globe for the very best talent or buy the best nationally...martial and smalling are great examples.
I'll try to link to my old thread at some point
Watching lvg try to bring through a lot of youth players this season ( with the best intentions!) and those players not being remotely good enough I still stand by my point.
Football is a global game the biggest teams can only remain relevant if they scour the globe for the very best talent or buy the best nationally...martial and smalling are great examples.
I'll try to link to my old thread at some point
Most people cannot understand what happened with football money in the past 10 years.
I don't like it either. But I don't think we can change it.
I don't like it either. But I don't think we can change it.
If they did not have the front three, they would be mid-table. And they did buy all three of them, Messi, Neymar and Suarez. They are not even from Spain.
What? United dominated with a youth core a decade and a half ago. Barcelona dominated with a youth core 4-8 years ago. And Bayern dominated with a youth core 2-3 seasons ago.
So not sure how your hugely exaggerated post has any relevance.
I do agree somewhat that there will be a trend towards generally greater spending and less youth development, but I personally believe that a team which still has youth players in it will naturally have an edge over ones which don't.
at least after seeing this post I now know you're just a muppet who its pointless discussing things rationally with.They sell most of their academy players with buy back clauses. Instead of playing them in first team.
Alba and pique spent most f their developing years in other clubs. It would be like us claiming shawcross was developed by us.
They've had different front threes over the years when they were winning trebles. Busquets, Iniesta, Pique are still here, they're the core of the team, the base of it. Messi came to their academy when he was like what, 12? Hard not to call him an academy product then. We've got Giggsy from City's academy when he was around the same age, is he not our product?
And if they didn't have their midfield three they would be in midtable too.
In a way it's simple, is developing your own players a recipe to success? no. But developing them will allow you to spend more on less pkayers and therefore will allow you to buy the likes of Neymar and Suarez.
Also the UEFA and the FA require the registration of academy and homegrown players.
There's a trend here with posters saying youth development is no longer relevant but, for me, that is incorrect/incomplete on a few counts:
1) Youth relevant is not relevant or irrelevant, it's either a preference or not. For nick2004 on redcafe, it isn't important. For amolbhatia50k on redcafe, it definitely is.
2) When people speak about Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Bayern and their success using youth, it's usually regarding a combination of genuine youth products, as well as purchased young players. So it includes United giving an 18 year old frustrating Cristiano Ronaldo a lot of time to develop, who wasn't an academy product.
3) I mentioned a few clubs in point 2. All of those clubs, and many others, have successfully at various times or in some cases, consistently, used young players in their successful years. So it is being done, even by elite clubs.
4) Most importantly, and tying into point 1 regarding preference - this is IMO WHY it makes sense:
1) Youth relevant is not relevant or irrelevant, it's either a preference or not. For nick2004 on redcafe, it isn't important. For amolbhatia50k on redcafe, it definitely is.
2) When people speak about Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona, Bayern and their success using youth, it's usually regarding a combination of genuine youth products, as well as purchased young players. So it includes United giving an 18 year old frustrating Cristiano Ronaldo a lot of time to develop, who wasn't an academy product.
3) I mentioned a few clubs in point 2. All of those clubs, and many others, have successfully at various times or in some cases, consistently, used young players in their successful years. So it is being done, even by elite clubs.
4) Most importantly, and tying into point 1 regarding preference - this is IMO WHY it makes sense:
There just something magical for me about a young player becoming a star at Manchester United. It's not easy to explain but there's something romantic and easy relate to, about it. And it can be brilliant for your club too. Sometimes, you get a batch of Schweinsteiger, Lahm etc, or Iniesta, Xavi, Messi etc, or Giggs, Scholes, Beckham etc, and sometimes you get Fletcher, Oshea, Brown etc. And in both scenarios it can contribute to varying degrees to your success. But if you can get a bunch of players through the academy and into the first team, whether of the first type or the second, there's a certain a) understanding of the club, and b) understanding of each other, that just comes to them more naturally than, say, the same players bought from three different continents. THIS for me, is what the OP fails to mention. It's not as simple as "Oh but what are the chances they'll be world class". That completely ignores the unit aspect of football. To get 3-4 players in your team that have spent a lot of their early years playing and developing together - it gives a certain of the club to the team, and makes it easy to build unity/ cohesion/ togetherness.
I see it differently, developing a player include the time at the academy and also the begining of his career until 22-23. A player can be developed by two clubs.
I missed it, sorry.
One of the reasons that I made this thread is that a lot of people are saying that they don't want Mourinho because he is not good for "youth development". Which is irrelevant. It is like saying "I don't rate SAF because in the past 15 years he did not develop a single great young player"!
Let me make the example more extreme: It is like people are saying "I don't want Mourinho because he is not a great musician!". Well, we are hiring the first team manager to win us trophies. That is his job.
I would say development up to 18, because any player who joins after 18 is technically not part of the youth set up but a senior player so really his progress isn't due to a solid youth system but a solid coaching system.
This thread is stupid anyway, the soul of this club is being ripped out from all angles.
TODAY, if we could buy any player from Barca, what would you prefer to buy?
1. Messi, Neymar and Suarez.
2. Everyone else that the Barca academies have produced. Together. Ten, twenty, thirty players, whatever.
Two choices. Pick one.
Sergi Roberto, Messi, Alba, Piqué, Busquests and Iniesta are all key players in this current Barca side. Again, You have a youth system to compliment the players you purchase, it doesnt have to be one or the other. Oh and I see you are trying to claim Messi isn't a product of their youth system? Are you nuts? He's been there since he was 13.
No you didn't, you're trying to move the goal posts here and hope no one notices. Show me where in your OP you said that? You've said youth development is no longer relevant to Man United or any club in the modern era, at no point did you say it was just irrelevant to our current problems.
I understand your point but there is a problem here, if United appointed Mourinho as a head coach, it wouldn't be a problem but United hires managers and they have to take care of every aspects of the club and the academy is part of it.
Now, with the increase of revenues in the PL, the mid table clubs don't really need to sell their best homegrown players and therefore they won't sell them for cheap, we are now talking about 40m for these players.
So unlike what people think the increase in revenue will make the good academies even more valuable because it is mandatory to have homegrown players and they are by far the most expensive players in England.
This is silly. You start a topic worth discussing and then fill the thread with pointless drivel like this.
"BEST PLAYERS ON PLANET ARE NOT ACADEMY PRODUCTS. SCREW ACADEMY, YO" seems to be the gist of your well-thought argument.
I know that you're ignorning what doesn't suit your argument (like you do with calling Messi non-academy product) but you know that those three can do whatever they want to do up front thanks to what they have behind them?
Messi isn't an academy product? Wut?
Last edited:
But imo a player's development is more important around 18-22. We had lots of players who looked potentially world class or at least good enough for United but then due to lack of proper development they ended up nowhere close enough for even PL level. The ability to nurture talents is not for the top teams anymore though.
I think Barca s sell with buy back clause is a good ploy tbh. Players like januzaj and Wilson will be developed more if they weren't on loan.
If anything, the OP highlights a lot of what is wrong with the analysis of Manchester United.
Just because you're, as the OP puts it, a RICH club, it doesn't mean that a solid organisational and managerial structure, sensible purchases, squad building, good coaching, a strong squad core, adequate leadership qualities etc. don't apply to you. It's as if people have suddenly decided that because we're rich we can just do whatever the heck we want and exist in a different world as other clubs. Our money is relevant, but it doesn't mean that everything else isn't. We can still choose to spend wisely, we can still choose to have a well put together management structure, we can still choose to prioritize youth and so on.
As it happens, youth development is a choice, but this whole idea that "we're Man United, we're big" and little emphasis on all the rest, suggests an imbalanced view IMO.
Just because you're, as the OP puts it, a RICH club, it doesn't mean that a solid organisational and managerial structure, sensible purchases, squad building, good coaching, a strong squad core, adequate leadership qualities etc. don't apply to you. It's as if people have suddenly decided that because we're rich we can just do whatever the heck we want and exist in a different world as other clubs. Our money is relevant, but it doesn't mean that everything else isn't. We can still choose to spend wisely, we can still choose to have a well put together management structure, we can still choose to prioritize youth and so on.
As it happens, youth development is a choice, but this whole idea that "we're Man United, we're big" and little emphasis on all the rest, suggests an imbalanced view IMO.
Amen to the first bit.
to the second. "MESSI AINT A BARCA YOUTH PRODUCT COZ HE (PROBABLY) HIT PUBERTY BEFORE HE WAS SIGNED INIT DOH"They found Messi when he was 10 and he was already an exceptional talent. And he also needed medication which cost money and Barca could pay this, but his team in Argentina could not pay it.
This is an exception to the exception.
In my opinion it is more an example of scouting than an example of academies. And money played a very important role. Yes, at age 10.
But if you want to call him a product of Barca academies, then OK I agree, no problem.
Edit: He relocated to Spain at 13, not 10. Before that he played for 6 years at Newell's Old Boys and scored 500 goals! He relocated to Spain for medical treatment. He stayed with the Barca academies 2 years before moving to Barca C, B and then to their regular team at age 17, four years after his arrival to Spain. Interesting story and very unusual:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi
Last edited:
That seems a tad selective. Rooney was already a beast of a young player when he came to us at 18. It differs for every player but I reckon the whole period until you actually mature is important (usually 22/23). Pique spent 7 years of his youth career at Barcelona from the age of 10 till the age of 17. He then spent 4 years at United from 17 to 21, and the last 7 years again at Barcelona. It would be a bit generous to attribute all of his learning and development as a footballer to us, and none to Barcelona who I imagine helped him become a top teenage talent.
Also, when he did leave us, everyone here felt Evans was the better defender of the two. So Barcelona, after developing greatly in his teens, again took him from a decent defender to one of the world's best.
Exactly this.
I would also add that having youth team players in the squad ensures that the "ethos" of the club remains strong and the first tesm isn't just a playground for rich mercenaries.
Indeed, and as I mentioned earlier, it's also easier to develop an understanding with each other, when you've played together from a young age, whether that's 15 onwards, or even 18-20 onwards. That's not to say that you can't have that otherwise - as Cole and York showed, or Barcelona's front three are showing, but it makes it easier to build harmony on and off the pitch when you've grown up together, in more ways than one.
Option 2; just with Messi, Iniesta, Thiago, Alba, Busquets, Piqué, Sergi Roberto, Rafinha, Valdes. I have a strong enough basis and can spunk the Suarez and neymar money on players like Martial, Laporte and take back Montoya.
What a driveling snot pile of a thread
Top clubs don't need academies as they buy all their players, ( I really hope no one mentions the six first team academy products at barca, or any of the Bayern ones!)
Ok, damn it, they noticed that, well at least I can mention messi isn't an academy player. (Oh no, they noticed that is wrong as well, I'm really struggling here!)
I know, ill change what I'm actually trying to say and hope no one notices, oh dear god they noticed that as well! It's like trying to steal poirots moustache!
Damn it I'll come clean, someone said something about Saint Jose and I don't like it.
Top clubs don't need academies as they buy all their players, ( I really hope no one mentions the six first team academy products at barca, or any of the Bayern ones!)
Ok, damn it, they noticed that, well at least I can mention messi isn't an academy player. (Oh no, they noticed that is wrong as well, I'm really struggling here!)
I know, ill change what I'm actually trying to say and hope no one notices, oh dear god they noticed that as well! It's like trying to steal poirots moustache!
Damn it I'll come clean, someone said something about Saint Jose and I don't like it.
So, our great academies, if we properly straighten them ... ... ... ... when do you think they are going to produce someone like Messi?
Ten years? Twenty? Fifty?
Are you willing to wait?
I do not. And I really hope that our owners, who make these decisions, do not have that much patience!
Ten years? Twenty? Fifty?
Are you willing to wait?
I do not. And I really hope that our owners, who make these decisions, do not have that much patience!
Even more silly then. Because "youth development" in this perspect is not only developing acadamy-players. If you look at the best and most successfull clubs in the world their success is a result of player development. Buying "world class" have been our recipe to failure. Real Madrid is the only club who runs like this.
Even Neymar, who was an extremely expensive player, was first and foremost an exceptional talent from Brazil. We should not focus on buying Neymar. We should focus on trying to buy the next Neymar when he becomes available.
And we should of course not hire a manager who was not willing to develop talents like de Bruyne or Lukaku.
I agree OP. Signing Pique and Pogba at 15 is the future, not local 9 year olds.
I am not a betting man, but I would bet against any of you that in the next 5 years we are going to produce ZERO world class or noteworthy players! 
The club has failed in that respect - a mistake that should but probably wont be rectified in the next few years
Players who are 15 years old are youth. 9 year olds are juniors.
So you disagree with him and agree with everyone else.
Messi is possibly the best player ever. If you think that just because we may not produce a player of that calibre through our academy we should give up completely, then you are a colossal idiot.
Barcelona's success in recent years has been based around players brought through their youth system. Contrast their success with that of Madrid who don't gave many opportunities to their youngsters and buy established stars.
I'd love to see a few local lads make the grade at United. For me, it's very important.
It just resource management at the end of the day.Youth is a resource, if you don't use it you're wasting it.But when you have a lot of money you can afford to massively waste your resources and not being punished.Instead of spending those years to develop a James Wilson you can buy a peak version of James Wilson in the market.Sometimes it just a matter of preferences like whether you want to eat out or cook by yourselves.Obviously every big club will have to buy stars from other clubs from times to times, not only in this era but historically however it has nothing to do with whether youth development should be abandoned.
The second point is about loyalty and fighting spirit.It's far from 100% black and white,but due to being at the club for a long time (in some cases as young as 6 years old) youth players generally tend to more loyal and willing to fight for the shirt more than expensive buys.
Another important point is the emotional attachment towards a youth product (if they're good enough).Fletcher for example is more loved by United fans than many other players of his calibre playing for this club.Football is not just about winning trophies or making money, it's a mean of entertainment so emotion is as important as everything else.United fans (well at least the old generations) due to the history of the club are generally more excited about a youth product despite might be less proven than an import of the same calibre of talent.Of course there are fans who don't mind us turning into a Chelsea or "Galaticos".This is again just a matter of preference but due to our history the amount of fans who want to see youth products would likely outweigh those who aren't.Some U21s games have very good crowd, and we all know that most of the U21s won't make the 1st team.They are still part of the club.
The second point is about loyalty and fighting spirit.It's far from 100% black and white,but due to being at the club for a long time (in some cases as young as 6 years old) youth players generally tend to more loyal and willing to fight for the shirt more than expensive buys.
Another important point is the emotional attachment towards a youth product (if they're good enough).Fletcher for example is more loved by United fans than many other players of his calibre playing for this club.Football is not just about winning trophies or making money, it's a mean of entertainment so emotion is as important as everything else.United fans (well at least the old generations) due to the history of the club are generally more excited about a youth product despite might be less proven than an import of the same calibre of talent.Of course there are fans who don't mind us turning into a Chelsea or "Galaticos".This is again just a matter of preference but due to our history the amount of fans who want to see youth products would likely outweigh those who aren't.Some U21s games have very good crowd, and we all know that most of the U21s won't make the 1st team.They are still part of the club.
Last edited:
Can you skip the name-calling please?
I did not bring up Messi. Other people did as an example of the great Barca academies.