Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Has the academy production line broke down?


Recommended Posts

 

When your starting pair are the best cbs in the league it's difficult to think of it as any more than "there are better players in front of him" tbh.

 

I agree mate, which is why I made that point.  But then you throw Amorebieta and Kalas into the equation and I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut?  Is there anyone right now that would prefer Kalas to play there instead of Fry?  I genuinely wouldn't, I don't want Kalas anywhere other than right back myself as he looks really shaky in the middle and doesn't inspire any confidence in me.  Are there people that really think Fry couldn't/shouldn't have been involved between Preston and this last couple of weeks?  If Amorebieta had still been here he'd have played against Leeds.  Do we benefit from that or do we benefit more from Fry getting that game time?

 

Of course Fry is only one example though and the point Powlay was getting at was whether bringing in other players was also possibly hindering one or two of our youngsters from being involved at different times.  Could Chapman really not have had some involvement instead of de Pena I guess being one example.

The quality of opposition that Chapman is playing against is awful, its easier for him to stand out in reserve games, De Pena clearly has quality and is just struggling to adapt to the english game, if Chapman proves himself in league 1 he will certainly get his chance next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Changing Times

I still haven't really seen people taking it as a direct attack on AK. People are backing him, yes, but that's more because they share his views and can see why he isn't picking youth.

 

Well I have so I'm allowed to say that aren't I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

De pena isn't a loan so isn't that a bit of a different situation?

 

But with amore and kalas I'd say that's just an experienced heads preferred for a promotion chasing campaign.

 

I still think it all comes down to experience. Bar the odd one or two all the loans we bring in are more experienced than the youths in our youth team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, CT, I agree with some of your points. I think Fry has been 'managed' in a sense. I don't think he necessarily is a last resort, but I can see why people would assume that. I certainly don't blame him for using a 30-year-old international defender (Amorebieta) ahead of a player still developing. But at the same time, I'm quite glad that the loan was ended early because it's meant we have had to use Fry, and he's been a revelation.

There seem to be a few different threads going on here:

1. That Karanka is using youth as a last resort.

2. That bringing in other team's players on loan is hindering youth prospects.

3. Youth players being on the bench vs being out on loan.

4. That the decisions around youth development are all down to the manager.

 

Point 1, I can kind of understand. He hasn't played a lot of academy players since he arrived. He's brought Gibson and Reach into the first team, but they had already been given debuts, and blooded Fry. I suppose where I am taking issue with this is that I think young players are brought through by necessity all the time, and it shouldn't be a case of finger pointing when they are. Would Mowbray have brought Gibson in if Woody and Williams had been fit? Would Strachan have started Steele if he'd been able to get the keeper he wanted (can't remember who it was)? Going back further, would Pallister, Cooper, Mowbray et al been given debuts if the club had had two pennies to rub together? Possibly, yes. But who knows?

 

Point 2, i do agree with. The likes of Amorebieta or Bamford I can see logic in, much more experienced or very highly regarded etc, but I don't really understand the Stephens loan, or Veljkovic. This could be down to Karanka not trusting youth players in that particular position, or as a favour to an agent or a club. i don't know, but on this I definitely disagree with the club.

 

Point 3 has been discussed at length. Is Chapman getting minutes at another club in League 1 better for him that being around our matchday squad but playing 5 minutes here and there? I don't know. I'm sure there are merits and drawbacks to both.

 

Point 4 kind of relates to that. I admit the 'blame the foreigner' comment was a bit out of order, and I apologise for comparing it to anything else that has been said. But it does seem a bit short sighted to only blame the manager for a lack of development squad players coming through. There are a team tasked with recruitment (which Karanka will be part of), and a team tasked with youth development (which he will also be part of), and there will be discussions about both subjects that he might be heavily advised by others. I think it would be very naive to assume that someone like Dave Parnaby isn't making major calls in Chapman's progression.

When Downing signed (and again with Rhodes), there were theories that the player wasn't the manager's signing, that other influences within the club had forced the player upon him. That may be the case, but if someone believes that, they also cannot hold Karanka responsible for the inclusion (or exclusion) of youth players. It goes both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me its not a question about being on loan vs being on our bench

 

A loan is better I think most agree to that, but when the player is not out on loan I rather see our own youths on the bench than I want a Zuccilini or a Stephens.

 

If we have all our talanted youth out on loan at the same time yes then maybe a Zuccilini and Stephens would be a good idea. But that was hardly the case at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me its not a question about being on loan vs being on our bench

 

A loan is better I think most agree to that, but when the player is not out on loan I rather see our own youths on the bench than I want a Zuccilini or a Stephens.

 

If we have all our talanted youth out on loan at the same time yes then maybe a Zuccilini and Stephens would be a good idea. But that was hardly the case at the time.

 

So of our current bench who could you replace with a youth player

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man utds situation is very different to ours in fairness.

 

Pretty unfair to compare the two, I feel.

 

With regards to the Zucculini and Stephens thing: do we have any youth defensive midfielders?

 

If all of our cms are more attack minded (I'm not saying they are I don't know every youth player) maybe that's why they're not considered because theyre not moulded into AKS style yet? Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me its not a question about being on loan vs being on our bench

 

A loan is better I think most agree to that, but when the player is not out on loan I rather see our own youths on the bench than I want a Zuccilini or a Stephens.

 

If we have all our talanted youth out on loan at the same time yes then maybe a Zuccilini and Stephens would be a good idea. But that was hardly the case at the time.

 

So of our current bench who could you replace with a youth player

Our current bench noone, and I havent said so either. I am questionings the loans of Zuccilini and Stephens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man utds situation is very different to ours in fairness.

 

Pretty unfair to compare the two, I feel.

 

With regards to the Zucculini and Stephens thing: do we have any youth defensive midfielders?

 

If all of our cms are more attack minded (I'm not saying they are I don't know every youth player) maybe that's why they're not considered because theyre not moulded into AKS style yet? Just a thought.

 

Cook and Maloney are box to box midfielders and ofc Morris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think our Academy is broken, but I think we have lost the days of a Cattlemole, Downing etc. And partly down to our current struggle to get into Premier League.

 

As many have said, now is probably not the right time to blood in these players. I think Fry is the only player in last few seasons that came out from our true championship days. Reach has been around for sometime and went out on loan a lot.

 

When I look at players of past they all went out on loans prior to playing first team

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man utds situation is very different to ours in fairness.

 

Pretty unfair to compare the two, I feel.

 

With regards to the Zucculini and Stephens thing: do we have any youth defensive midfielders?

 

If all of our cms are more attack minded (I'm not saying they are I don't know every youth player) maybe that's why they're not considered because theyre not moulded into AKS style yet? Just a thought.

 

Cook and Maloney are box to box midfielders and ofc Morris

 

Oh yeah, Morris, the guy that didn't impress in either of his loan spells in lower divisions.

 

Sure, lets whack him on the bench, why not.

 

Cooke and Maloney I can't really talk about because they've got literally 0 games between them. Neither seem to be excelling in the U21s Premier League though, although Cooke had a very good UEFA youth league with 4 goals and 1 assist in 5 games, suggesting he probably wasn't playing as a pure CM anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cook is Box to Box, they score goals, look at Leadbitter ;) Freekicks and penalties counts

 

And yes I would rather have Morris on the bench than Zuccilini or Stephens. You have to dare some and as you say they hardly get any minutes amyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...