Jordan Chapell

[Bergen Blade]

No it's not time to do that, Bergen, because this is not FIFA 13. It's time to put the best side out that we can in league games, and if Wilson does not think these lads should be part of our best side that's fine by me.

Miller would still be behind Cresswell in the pecking order if we never tried to see what unproven players could offer us. Long would still be the next Jamie Annerson if we'd brought in some old geezer to stand between the sticks for a while when Howard was injured.

 

[Pinchy]

Let's face it, the last player we brought through willingly was probably Monty

Personally, I had to be forced at gunpoint!

 

[Balham]

Personally, I had to be forced at gunpoint!

He made a half decent right back once upon a time

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Your argument is ultimately impossible to disprove if you saying that players who United did not give a run to failed to develop because they were not given a run.

Surely one way to disprove it is by asking how many players who United didn't give a run to went on to play at a high level elsewhere. The answer to that is ONE (Billy Sharp).

We've had a few others who've played regularly in the lower divisions (Forte, Harwood, Law, McFadzean) but at the time they were with us, we needed Premiership/Top Championship quality players. That's why they didn't get a chance and the managers who said they weren't good enough for that level were ultimately proved right.

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Good discussion . I find it hard to believe that DW who, sees these players train together everyday, would continually choose a lesser player, though older over a better but younger player but reading the reports and seeing the occasional game this is what he is doing. There is a big difference between youth and senior football and there are thousands of stories of promising kids who just don't develop into top senior pros and their development has to be handled properly. Players like Ross or even Law, who was never really given a chance after a promising start, maybe if we had been a Championship side when he started he might have developed and received more opportunities?
Players like Kennedy, McFazdean, Harriott, Chappell have all come in to the side for a game done OK and then never been seen again as DW returns to non performing older players. Really see no point in bringing on Cressy for 5 minutes at the end of every game. Long is a good point as Bergen says, if we had the money for a loan of Coyne then Long would still be on the bench.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Surely one way to disprove it is by asking how many players who United didn't give a run to went on to play at a high level elsewhere. The answer to that is ONE (Billy Sharp).

We've had a few others who've played regularly in the lower divisions (Forte, Harwood, Law, McFadzean) but at the time they were with us, we needed Premiership/Top Championship quality players. That's why they didn't get a chance and the managers who said they weren't good enough for that level were ultimately proved right.

To simplify things:

All youngsters who were given a chance became good players.

All youngsters who were not given a chance became poor players.


As the theory is that introduction to a high level of football at a young age is needed for players to reach their full potential you can't use players who weren't given that chance as proof.

 

[Darren]

To simplify things:

All youngsters who were given a chance became good players.

All youngsters who were not given a chance became poor players.


As the theory is that introduction to a high level of football at a young age is needed for players to reach their full potential you can't use players who weren't given that chance as proof.

But that's why your argument is undisprovable and thus ultimately pointless (I don't mean that in a perjorative sense). If, by definition, all players who were not given a chance cannot become good players, we will never know if it was right not to give them a chance as we will never know whether their subsequent lack of progress is due to them not being good enough per se or to due to the fact that they were not given a chance.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

To simplify things:

All youngsters with potential were given a chance and went on to fulfill that potential and became good players.

All youngsters without potential were not given a chance and went on to fulfill that lack of potential and became poor players.

 

[Bergen Blade]

But that's why your argument is undisprovable and thus ultimately pointless (I don't mean that in a perjorative sense). If, by definition, all players who were not given a chance cannot become good players, we will never know if it was right not to give them a chance as we will never know whether their subsequent lack of progress is due to them not being good enough per se or to due to the fact that they were not given a chance.

The argument being undisprovable doesn't mean there's not something in it that the club should take into consideration.

If the club made it their real policy to give more youngsters a chance in the first team, not just the world beaters, then we'd surely see a mix of players ultimately proving good enough or not good enough for us. We may find that some of them will be adequate as inexpensive squad players which may mean fewer Jonathan Fortunes, Marcus Williamses and Ryan Frances will be brought in, leaving more funds for key signings?


To be more concrete, I think it was good that McFadzean, Chappell, Ironside and DeGirolamo were given some playing time yesterday and would like us to do this with more regularity. In the league we haven't dared to do something like that as it is considered too risky. The youngsters are usually just making numbers up on the bench.

Last night's experience will be good for them and it will show the rest of the U18s that it may be possible to get into this team and add something. We didn't fall apart when the three young subs came on, we equalised, away, against an in form Coventry side with a pretty strong XI. I think we should have the guts and faith in the youngsters to try this more often.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Players like Ross or even Law, who was never really given a chance after a promising start, maybe if we had been a Championship side when he started he might have developed and received more opportunities?

I don't buy this argument. There are plenty of examples of players that we've shipped on to the lower leagues after virtually no opportunities that eventually rise back up. Sharp's a recent example, Mendonca's another - probably the best one is Kevin Davies. If they have the talent, they will show it in the lower leagues and progress upwards. Some players have early promise, but simply don't meet expectations. Plenty of those will end up as above-average League 1/2 players with reasonable careers - like Kevan Hurst or Nicky Law. Quite a few will continue to progress downwards until you have to do some intensive google searching to discover where they are now - like Tyrone Thompson, Colin Cryan, Ian Ross, Chris Bettney. And a whole host of other youngers that I can't even remember because, shock horror, they disappeared into obscurity.

NW used to get absolutely slaughtered for 'ignoring the youth' despite giving opportunities to Jags, Monty, Tonge, Law, Stephen Quinn, Forte, Doane. A lot of people seem to think that Naughton's emergence under Blackwell was unintentional, as he only got his opportunity when Sun Jihai was sent off - but he'd been in and around the first-team squad for a while without making his debut, and had Sun's sending off not happened Naughton would have had his opportunity sooner rather than later. Had Naysmith not been injured at the end of 08-09, Walker probably would not have made his way into the team at the time he did - that might simply have delayed his emergence to the next season, as he was clearly highly-rated by the coaching staff.

There is an element of good fortune to the time that these players emerge, but not in my opinion to them emerging - it would have happened at some point. Someone like McFadzean might potentially be the next Stephen Quinn. Then again, he might be the next John Reed. Danny Wilson sees these players regularly - and I trust him to be able to judge whether a player is ready to come in at the expensive of an established first-team player.

 

[ghandi]

I think one thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that Wilson rarely sees the development squad in training nor the academy teams as his concentration almost entirely on the first team therefore he must rely heavily on any u-18 game he sees and reports from Morgan etc.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Someone like McFadzean might potentially be the next Stephen Quinn. Then again, he might be the next John Reed.

Actually John Reed is my father, and... oh forget it.

 

[Darren]

Actually John Reed is my father, and... oh forget it.

He may not have been the best footballer, but you have to admire Reed's literary skills as the author of Ten Days that Shook the World. I often wonder how he managed to combine his footballing and literary careers as well as Mick Jones did his careers as punk guitarist and United icon of the 60's.