youll never win anything with kids

[mattbianco1]

Yes. Let's leave it there.

final word

 

[1danewhitehouse]

But if you don't sell 'em you could build this:

Howard
Walker Maguire Jags Naughton
Lowton Williamson McDonald Quinn
Evans Sharp

Bench/Squad of:

Brayford
Long
Done
Blackman
Flynn
Adams
Harris
Baxter
Reed
Murphy
Killa#
Tonge#
Monty#
Kennedy*
Coutts*
Wallace*

# We'd be all debating why we were hanging onto the old un's
* As now we'd be discussing fitness.

Goalie: With a back four like that the forum would be in meltdown everyday about the weak link in the squad.

We certainly wouldn't be spending our fifth year in the third division.

Lowton in midfield!? I thought we'd all learned about square pegs in round holes!!!!!!

 

[1danewhitehouse]

My original point has been somewhat lost in the misquoting and semantics that has gone on since.

The OP compared our team to the Manchester United squad of "kids" won the title.

I pointed out the large difference as we only mentioned 4 'kids' from our squad and those 4 kids do not start every week.

Ergo, they aren't all playing regularly.

Yes. Let's leave it there.

Fixed it for you Pete.

I suppose the term regulalry is subjective. A fairer description might be "not automatic starters". How many league games have Wallace and Reed started? My guess would be around 50% of them.

 

[RMBlade]

We've played 12 league games:
Reed - 8 apps.
Wallace - 7 apps.
Adams - 8 apps.

No, they never play do they.

Just a side note, how many of those have been starts and how many have played the full 90?

I agree that they play a part in the first team but baring Adams will probably not play an integral part through out the course of the season.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Just had a look at the number of games started out of the 12 league games this seaosn and it's

Adams- 6 (50%)
Reed- 4 (33.3%)
Wallace- 4 (33.3%).

So there's definitely room to question how "regular" some of them are when only one of the four mentioned has started half of our league games this season.

 

[PeteBlade]

Fixed it for you Pete.

I suppose the term regulalry is subjective. A fairer description might be "not automatic starters". How many league games have Wallace and Reed started? My guess would be around 50% of them.

Thanks, I almost sound like I know what I'm talking about now!

 

[blade too long]

steven gerrard only played in 60 % of liverpools games last season
so hes not a regular then

 

[PeteBlade]

steven gerrard only played in 60 % of liverpools games last season
so hes not a regular then

Erm, he wasn't last season no.

He quit because of it.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

steven gerrard only played in 60 % of liverpools games last season
so hes not a regular then

He was certainly less regular and probably because of his advancing years and greater proneness to injury.

To my knowledge, Reed and Wallace have been available for every game. Most of Reed's starts came whilst Baxter was banned. That to me doesn't suggest "First team regular" as much as "Part of the first team squad".

Let's also remember that Wallace's competition (Harris, McEveley, Alcock and Freeman when Brayford is fit) is missing through injury too so the number of games he played would probably be less with a fit squad.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Lowton in midfield!? I thought we'd all learned about square pegs in round holes!!!!!!

Debating Lowton in midfield would be a lot better than debating Collins at centre back.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I think the point being made by some is that a comparison between our squad made up largely of journeymen and average but experienced footballers and supplemented by some promising youth and Manchester United’s squad of around 96 or whenever it was. I think (I may be out with the timings so stand to be corrected) that season they replaced the likes of Ince, Kanchelskis, McClair, Sharpe etc with the likes of Butt, Beckham, Giggs etc. (although Giggs broke through a bit earlier).

A fairer comparison would be if we move on most or all of the players out of contract next season and include say Reed, Adams, Wallace, McGahey, Dimaio, De Girolamo and DCL all as regulars in the match day squad with at least 4-5 starting more often than not.

Our team is not packed with exciting kids. It is one largely of experienced players which has one excellent young talent in Adams who is genuinely considered a firs teamer and supplemented by decent young players like Reed, Wallace, McGahey etc who come in and do a job when someone like Baxter, Harris, Edgar etc is missing.

 

[BushBlade]

I think you'll find they're all regular as NA ensures there is plenty of fibre in their diets. He's very wholistic.

 

[BushBlade]

I think the point being made by some is that a comparison between our squad made up largely of journeymen and average but experienced footballers and supplemented by some promising youth and Manchester United’s squad of around 96 or whenever it was. I think (I may be out with the timings so stand to be corrected) that season they replaced the likes of Ince, Kanchelskis, McClair, Sharpe etc with the likes of Butt, Beckham, Giggs etc. (although Giggs broke through a bit earlier).

A fairer comparison would be if we move on most or all of the players out of contract next season and include say Reed, Adams, Wallace, McGahey, Dimaio, De Girolamo and DCL all as regulars in the match day squad with at least 4-5 starting more often than not.

Our team is not packed with exciting kids. It is one largely of experienced players which has one excellent young talent in Adams who is genuinely considered a firs teamer and supplemented by decent young players like Reed, Wallace, McGahey etc who come in and do a job when someone like Baxter, Harris, Edgar etc is missing.

I don't understand the point anyway. No one has criticised the young players ( apart from a couple of comments on Freeman's positioning/defending). It's the senior players like Collins and McEv that are getting it.

 

[blade too long]

He was certainly less regular and probably because of his advancing years and greater proneness to injury.

To my knowledge, Reed and Wallace have been available for every game. Most of Reed's starts came whilst Baxter was banned. That to me doesn't suggest "First team regular" as much as "Part of the first team squad".

Let's also remember that Wallace's competition (Harris, McEveley, Alcock and Freeman when Brayford is fit) is missing through injury too so the number of games he played would probably be less with a fit squad.

think youll find man utd didnt play their kids in every game to start with


we eased kyle naughton and walker in gradually

thought you watched football

 

[PeteBlade]

think youll find man utd didnt play their kids in every game to start with


we eased kyle naughton and walker in gradually

thought you watched football

Anyone seriously comparing the Class of '92 and our couple of kids clearly can't.

 

[Sirius]

My original point has been somewhat lost in the misquoting and semantics that has gone on since.

The OP compared our team to the Liverpool squad of "kids" won the title.

I pointed out the large difference as we only mentioned 4 'kids' from our squad and those 4 kids do not start every week.

Ergo, they aren't all playing regularly.

Yes. Let's leave it there.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzhzz

 

[PeteBlade]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzhzz

Well done on logging in to post that contribution.

 

[blade too long]

Anyone seriously comparing the Class of '92 and our couple of kids clearly can't.

you dont think relatively do you
at the level we are in a league of our peers,
where within any of my posts do I compare the ability of our youngsters to theirs

your arguments are as hollow as the space between your ears

 

[PeteBlade]

you dont think relatively do you
at the level we are in a league of our peers,
where within any of my posts do I compare the ability of our youngsters to theirs

your arguments are as hollow as the space between your ears

Their entire team was built around their youngsters, whereas it's been proven that ours are in and out of the side and don't play regularly.

Really not sure how you can argue against that.

 

[Gavlar]

Reading the posts on this thread and thinking.............

 

[sheffielder]

I need to speak to Blade Too Long's drug dealer. That's got to be some good shit

 

[1danewhitehouse]

think youll find man utd didnt play their kids in every game to start with


we eased kyle naughton and walker in gradually

thought you watched football

95-96 Season when Beckham and Co were 20 (same age as McGahey and Wallce). The season that the thread title comes from. Man United's first 10 league games goal tally

Paul Scholes- 6
Ryan Giggs- 3
David Beckham- 2
Nicky Butt- 2

13 league goals between them within the firts ten games. How does our kids's contribution look after 13 games? 4 league goals from Adams and none from any of the other kids.

That season, their league appearaces numbers looked like this

Paul Scholes 16(10)
Ryan Giggs 30(3)
David Beckham 26(7)
Nicky Butt 31(1)
Gary Neville 30(1)
Phil Neville 21(3)

They also had other kids like Thornley, O Kane, Cooke , Casper etc who played the odd game but ultimately didn't make the grade.

But the point is, all but Paul Scholes started over 50% of Manchester United's Premier league games with Scholes being the lowest at 42%. They contributed 30 league goals between them that season and clocked up 179 league appearances between them. I think it's fair to say their input into that seaosn will massively outweigh our youngster's involvement even at this level. Adams is an exciting player and some of the others show some promise but it's not like we have a whole contingent .

After the YC final when we had Maguire, Kennedy, Long, Lowton, Slew, Ironside, McFadzean, Harriett and Whitehouse all either involved or looking like they might make it would have been a more relevant time to bring this subject up. Even then, only Maguire and Lowton have gone on to be anything like top players.

 

[blade too long]

the point is man utds were exceptional
they had scouted and robbed them from other clubs, paid their families with back handers free cars etc
the young lads we have got are commensurate with our level
and our level of what we can afford

Why any one would begin to think I am comparing them directly to giggs scholes etc is quite baffling

all Im saying is Adkins is giving our young lads the opportunity to come in and grow and blossom

I never claimed in any post we would win the prem title

 

[raul]

t

Why any one would begin to think I am comparing them directly to giggs scholes etc is quite baffling

Maybe they read the OP?

 

[blade too long]

Maybe they read the OP?

I said directly
young players are young players
it had come to my notice we are in a division of a lower status with cheaper players

the op was


youll never win anything with kids

in that line where do you read sheffield uniteds current young players are as good as man utds of 1993
I dont see it

 

[PeteBlade]

"And now Adkins is pushing our own kids forward.

Didn't those youngsters win a title".

You missed out that bit.

 

[sheffielder]

I said directly
young players are young players
it had come to my notice we are in a division of a lower status with cheaper players

the op was


youll never win anything with kids

in that line where do you read sheffield uniteds current young players are as good as man utds of 1993
I dont see it

Rocket fuel

 

[1danewhitehouse]

=young players are young players

This might be the first factually correct statement I have seen you make on this forum. It's redundantly stating the obvious but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

the point is man utds were exceptional
they had scouted and robbed them from other clubs, paid their families with back handers free cars etc
the young lads we have got are commensurate with our level
and our level of what we can afford

Why any one would begin to think I am comparing them directly to giggs scholes etc is quite baffling

all Im saying is Adkins is giving our young lads the opportunity to come in and grow and blossom

I never claimed in any post we would win the prem title

In post 48 you imply that relatively, we have a pool of youth to make a similar impact at this level to the one Man U's made in the Prem. I used stats to point out that it is nonsense and even speaking 2 levels lower 2

a) do not have as many young players in the first team
b) do not have young players that will make as big an impact (even in League 1) as theirs did in the Prem.

Which kind of takes us back to the original point of the OP and the initial comparison (even on relative terms) to Man United's class of 92 being absolute bollocks.

 

[blade too long]

In post 48 you imply that relatively, we have a pool of youth to make a similar impact at this level to the one Man U's made in the Prem. I used stats to point out that it is nonsense and even speaking 2 levels lower 2

a) do not have as many young players in the first team
b) do not have young players that will make as big an impact (even in League 1) as theirs did in the Prem.

Which kind of takes us back to the original point of the OP and the initial comparison (even on relative terms) to Man United's class of 92 being absolute bollocks.

how do you know

nobody knew man utd would until they did
thats why the you wont win anything with kids became infamous

you are saying what Hanson said

we wont know till may

I didnt imply anything I posted an article where our manager praises our young players for doing well