Ja, they used to come down to my school with vans and grab kids and make them play for them. Same with the England schoolboys team.
edit: the mackems and the smoggies do the same too
spmado
BT Rep: +2
Ja, they used to come down to my school with vans and grab kids and make them play for them. Same with the England schoolboys team.
edit: the mackems and the smoggies do the same too
As long as I've got a face
You've got a place to sit
effendi
More than half of Man Utd's current first team squad have come thro' the youth team.Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I reckon it's been the same over the last five years.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Clevar answer.More than half of Man Utd's current first team squad have come thro' the youth team.
I reckon it's been the same over the last five years.
How many who actually play, on the park.
I can think of Scholes and Giggs off the top of my head. Neither of whom came through in the last 5 years.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
effendi
Are you trying to point out that their youth policy of late hasn't produced players as talented as back in the halcyon days when Giggs, Scholes, the Nevilles, Butt and Beckham broke thro' into the first eleven.Clevar answer.
How many who actually play, on the park.
I can think of Scholes and Giggs off the top of my head. Neither of whom came through in the last 5 years.
I think the whole world agrees with you. That was a once in a lifetime thing.
The players that have been produced in the last five years, blokes like Darren Fletcher, John O'Shea, Keiron Richardson, Guiseppe Rossi and Chris Eagles, aren't in the same class and altho' they get games and represent their country on a regular basis, they're fringe players for United at best.
Of course, five years is too small a period to guage the success a youth policy because the club can reap benefits from a single player for up to fifteen years.
The other point to make is that buying an established world star is not something that United do that often, sure there has been some over the years but as a rule their policy is usually to take a talented young player and turn him into a world star. Chelsea's approach is in stark contrast to this - they usually buy an established star, like Ballack, Shevchenko, Carvalho, Essien, Drogba etc augmented with the occasional emerging player like Obi or Kalou.
Both models obviously have their merits and both have proved successful - but I would rather the club I support do it United's way.
It really is quite the coincidence that I support them
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Ferdinand, Rooney, Veron, Nistelroy, Carrick.
5 of the top 10 most expensive players in England. Evar. Neither Arsenal or Liverpool have any in the same list.
Your youth policy argument is sweet, however the bottom line is that you aren't producing players for your own first team. One or two who get a place on the subs bench, yes. However your policy of buying has changed substantially. As has your willingness to pay mental wages (I'm just guessing that bit).
I think the half billion debt might have fundamentally changed the club in more ways than one.
The bottom line is that you used to get away with bringing the youth thro' because Arsenal was the only competition, so your own youth were good enough. Now you have to compete in the buying market as well.
You know it's true.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
effendi
Nah, you've got it all wrong. Even the time-line cos every one of the the 5 of the 10 most expensive buys, save Carrick, happened before the Glazier take-over. I really can't see your point with the debt changing the policy.
The youth policy hasn't changed in the slightest - it's just that the players that are being produced aren't quite good enough to be first team regulars. It happens like that sometimes but the number of scouts, staff and the youngsters being recruited are just as numerous as ever -- also, United can't compete with Chelsea in the transfer market and cut their cloth accordingly.
Carrick, Evra and Vidic rather than Essien, Ballack and A. Cole. Chelsea's financial power has, if anything, pushed United into buying players with potential rather than buying established internationals on a more regular basis. Which they did more of in the pre-chelski era.
That bottom line remark you made is quite funny. We 'got away with' bringing Giggs, Scholes and Beckham et al thro' because Arsenal was the only competition. Never mind the fact that that they are outstanding players and were complimented by British record transfer singnings.
Last edited by manker; 01-28-2007 at 06:25 PM.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Giggs is a diver.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
effendi
I was grandstanding
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
You, non.I was grandstanding
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
effendi
Yes indeed.You, non.I was grandstanding
Most of the time I simply want to enlighten a single soul as to their cuntery.
Not on this occasion, nosireebob.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks