Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Has the academy production line broke down?


Recommended Posts

Maybe none of our youths are just not good enough - yet. I'll trust the entire management and youth team to decide that. They need to develop at a lower level. 5 minutes here and there won't make much difference to their development.

 

Regarding Zuculini and Stephens, do we even have a defensive midfielder in the youths that is even remotely ready? While they didn't play much and mainly sat on the bench they had decent experience should they be needed i.e. Stephens at old trafford.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

There is some good arguments to both sides..

 

I think we also all have an element of 'Rose Tinted' views of our youth players!

 

Who remembers the Steele V Butland conversations from a few years back. Those who couldn't understand why Butland was being picked over Steele at England U21's - why because Butland is the better keeper as is demonstrated by where there career path have gone.

 

Equally being outstanding at U19 or U21 level has no baring on where a professional career will go. How many wonder kids have disappeared into League 1/2 or even Non-League obscurity.

 

We have to trust in the decisions made by the coaching staff at the club... They are the only people who sees players day in day out and are able to make the judgement call. I think it would be naive to think the likes of Dave Parnaby don't have a say on where and if youth players go out on loan- why only suggest that's it's Karankas decision.

 

Personally I'd rather see our youth players playing at the highest level their current progress allows. If that's deemed to be League 2 that's fine.

 

If you need a player on the bench who 99 times from 100 won't get a game - I'd rather that not be one of our youth players, who otherwise could be out on loan gaining experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they are out on loan as the likes of Morris, Ripley, Halliday etc are then that's fine. But if we're bringing in loans just to fill one or two small holes in the squad then I'd rather that void was filled by a capable youth player. Not a bench full but one or two max on a matchday bench would be good sight for me. But end of the day if karanka and his team doesn't deem them capable then the point is mute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be naive to think the likes of Dave Parnaby don't have a say on where and if youth players go out on loan- why only suggest that's it's Karankas decision.

 

 

 

I've been trying to make that point for ages, but it keeps getting ignored in favour of the game of 'blame the foreigner'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No more of a sweeping statement than you writing off many peoples opinions because they regularly agree with our managers decisions, as Will said earlier, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Changing Times

You think the problem with what you said is that it's a sweeping statement???  Please don't compare that with anything I've said thanks. They are a million miles apart.

 

As I said yesterday, what I was talking about wasn't people always agreeing with the manager.  It was about the same people always feeling the need to defend him regardless of what is actually being said. There's a way of thinking on this forum that if Karanka makes a decision then it must be right because he has made it and therefore we can't question him. 

 

I asked some questions yesterday regarding Dael Fry and how he fits into what people have said on this thread.  The fact is he doesn't really fit in because you've got a young player that as far as most people were concerned wasn't ready because Karanka wasn't including him.  But now it turns out that when we need him to play he actually is coping more than adequately. So that's a bit of a problem isn't it because either it means that Fry suddenly improved and we know from seeing him at Preston that he did just as fine then or he has been ready all along but wasn't getting a chance because....

 

It's this 'because' where there is a difference of opinion.  Was it simply because we had better players?  Yeah quite possibly.  Was it because Karanka is hesitant to take risks and he views our academy players as risks?  Yeah quite possibly.  Is it really that much of a problem if people think it's the latter?  It's not like there's a ton of evidence to suggest otherwise.  People forget that Kalas was picked at MK Dons before Fry was given his opportunity again.  I think that like me Karanka really doesn't fancy Kalas as a central defender but was reluctant to give Fry another go because he's concerned it's a risk.  I don't have a problem with that, it's hardly the most idiotic thing I'd have ever heard if it turned out to be true.  Nobody is saying it makes Karanka a terrible person or for that matter a bad manager but it could have an impact on how we are able to bring players through from our academy and that is worth considering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the foreigner????

 

How silly it was of me to suggest that Powlay was wasting his time posting this thread on this forum :(

 

I still don't understand why you made that suggestion in the first place. Are you suggesting that we only discuss things we all agree on, preferably something that's contrary to our club and manager's priorities?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think the problem with what you said is that it's a sweeping statement???  Please don't compare that with anything I've said thanks. They are a million miles apart.

 

As I said yesterday, what I was talking about wasn't people always agreeing with the manager.  It was about the same people always feeling the need to defend him regardless of what is actually being said. There's a way of thinking on this forum that if Karanka makes a decision then it must be right because he has made it and therefore we can't question him. 

 

I asked some questions yesterday regarding Dael Fry and how he fits into what people have said on this thread.  The fact is he doesn't really fit in because you've got a young player that as far as most people were concerned wasn't ready because Karanka wasn't including him.  But now it turns out that when we need him to play he actually is coping more than adequately. So that's a bit of a problem isn't it because either it means that Fry suddenly improved and we know from seeing him at Preston that he did just as fine then or he has been ready all along but wasn't getting a chance because....

 

It's this 'because' where there is a difference of opinion.  Was it simply because we had better players?  Yeah quite possibly.  Was it because Karanka is hesitant to take risks and he views our academy players as risks?  Yeah quite possibly.  Is it really that much of a problem if people think it's the latter?  It's not like there's a ton of evidence to suggest otherwise.  People forget that Kalas was picked at MK Dons before Fry was given his opportunity again.  I think that like me Karanka really doesn't fancy Kalas as a central defender but was reluctant to give Fry another go because he's concerned it's a risk.  I don't have a problem with that, it's hardly the most idiotic thing I'd have ever heard if it turned out to be true.  Nobody is saying it makes Karanka a terrible person or for that matter a bad manager but it could have an impact on how we are able to bring players through from our academy and that is worth considering.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Changing Times

I'm saying it's a waste of time discussing something if a lot of people think that every bit of criticism is an attack on the manager so rush to his 'defence' and won't accept that it might just be a valid concern. That Karanka can get things wrong but still be a good manager or that he can get things wrong and actually not be as good a manager as some people think. That Karanka might be getting things wrong and it's ok for us to say so. That he isn't always right and this might be a case where he isn't.

 

So my point to Powlay was that his post was wasted because people would read it as an attack on Karanka and would leap to his defence, which is exactly what happened.

 

Why would I of all people suggest that we only discuss things we all agree on? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some good arguments to both sides..

 

I think we also all have an element of 'Rose Tinted' views of our youth players!

 

Who remembers the Steele V Butland conversations from a few years back. Those who couldn't understand why Butland was being picked over Steele at England U21's - why because Butland is the better keeper as is demonstrated by where there career path have gone.

 

 

 

That sums it up for me, fans seem to massively overrate anyone who has come through our youth system. There are alot of posters on here saying we should be playing certain members of the reserve team when they haven't actually seen them play a single game. 

 

People were suggesting that instead of signing Zucculini that we should have played Cooke, Maloney etc when they clearly haven't seen them play. Just a thought, what if these players that Karanka sees every day arnt actually good enough, and a player who has played over 100 games by age 21 is a better option?

 

Look at Luke williams, people couldnt understand why he never got a chance, he is playing in league 1 now, why would he get a game in a team chasing promotion? Our youth system isn't as good as people are making out, its not like we have loads of youngsters who are ready for Championship football who Karanka is refusing to play

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Changing Times

 

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.

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...