In England, and in lots of leagues, three defeats and you're on the cusp of being sacked.
It'll take a massive culture shift to allow your managers to bring through the youngsters, both in terms of the club approach and the fan approach. Fans today want immediate success so wouldn't be forgiving - and if the kids aren't doing it you'd be clamouring for the big money signings.
Was it all down to a certainty that they'd come good right away? Or was he happy to play the 'long game' knowing he was secure in his job?
.............
Those connected to the club knew what they had with those guys.
ACE's favourite person once stated that it was the main reason why SAF wouldn't have been fired if Marc Robins hadn't have scored that goal.
The board were well confident with how the club was being run behind the scenes.
Obviously you cant tell for certain how young players will adapt to first team football. But when you have five or six players coming through it isn't by luck.
Considering Sarri's motive is to get the squad playing his football, on top of maintaining his job security, he can't really be blamed for not integrating any player (young or old) if he feels they can't hack it, but we knew this when we appointed him.
If I was in his position I'd start giving CHO chances because my focus atm would be setting the table to experiment with Hazard as a false 9, but that's just my prospective.
Seems that getting sacked early on in football management contract is a highly profitable business for the recipient Why hang about?
Was a different era and managers got more time.
I think the 'how much time have I got' line is overused, personally.
The idea that these youngsters couldn't hold their own against some of the more average PL teams - or that they're so much worse than some of the dross brought in from abroad, is nonsense.
Most of the big clubs and managers of those clubs should hang their heads in shame at the lack of youth development on offer.
The clubs even more so, because whilst that is bad enough, what's even worse is hoarding these players to keep them away from rival clubs - something Chelsea have been particularly bad at.
I have always been proud of United's commitment to youth development but in recent years, under Mourinho, it simply hasn't been good enough.
Chelsea and City are surely the worst culprits, though.
We're easily the best club in England at developing youth right now, they just don't wind up playing for us
To most people, I'd imagine, youth development means integrating them into your first team and a regular PL player.
Not much of that going on at Chelsea.
I think SAF felt confident that the leaders he had in his squad like Keane, Bruce, Cantona, Schmeikes and co could look after the kids on a way many teams these days don’t have such leaders
Plus back then you could lose a few games and win the league. So the pressure wasn’t as high as now when you need 95 plus points to win the league
Was it all down to a certainty that they'd come good right away? Or was he happy to play the 'long game' knowing he was secure in his job?
..........................................
Tbf it’s a bit of myth that he threw them in and they clicked, some of them went out on loan, played cup games, dead rubber European games, the odd PL game at home against below average teams. It was 2-3 years in the making.
Giggs was a prodigy and made it into the side before the rest, Phil Neville was a utility/squad player, Scholes was in and out of the team as a AM/number 10, Becks and But broke through in 95/96 and Gary Neville had been introduced the season before. The likes of Chris Casper, John O’Kane and Terry Cooke played the odd game here and there before being sold.
SAF had the support of Martin Edwards and once we’d won back-to-back titles, including a double it gave the manager the authority to do as he pleased and every time he won something, it vindicated Edwards’ decision to stick by SAF.
But of course, SAF KEPT winning which is the key to longevity, be succesful and you can do what you like, especially in the 1990’s/early 00’s.
To most people, I'd imagine, youth development means integrating them into your first team and a regular PL player.
-------------------------------------------------------
Many Chelsea products are involved in several PL first teams, just not ours
Yes I know what you mean. Christensen's the only credible example since Terry and he's already rotting on the bench. Half our problem is the fact we tend to hire managers with strong tactical philosophies, so when we replace them any player can be cut out of the team at the snap of a finger.
I personally don't believe managers of the Top clubs have any excuse really. Especially nowadays, with the transfer fees out of control. There is no reason why a manager couldn't look at a problem position and throw in a young lad, this was something I liked about LVG. A case in point is Jose crying about his centre backs and sending TFM and Tuanzebe on loan. Although I'd love to see Timbo given a go in Matic's position.
They also are expected to win most games they play so you would think throwing in a young lad for half an hour in a PL (even when struggling) wouldn't hurt. So frustrated on Tuesday night with our attack being so poor and Chong sat on the bench. What is there to lose in that situation?
It's important for longevity, in my opinion that there is a core of the squad that hold a real affinity with the club. That could come from being there a long time or being a product of the academy.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Fergie, job security and class of 92....
Page 1 of 1
posted on 25/10/18
In England, and in lots of leagues, three defeats and you're on the cusp of being sacked.
It'll take a massive culture shift to allow your managers to bring through the youngsters, both in terms of the club approach and the fan approach. Fans today want immediate success so wouldn't be forgiving - and if the kids aren't doing it you'd be clamouring for the big money signings.
posted on 25/10/18
Was it all down to a certainty that they'd come good right away? Or was he happy to play the 'long game' knowing he was secure in his job?
.............
Those connected to the club knew what they had with those guys.
ACE's favourite person once stated that it was the main reason why SAF wouldn't have been fired if Marc Robins hadn't have scored that goal.
The board were well confident with how the club was being run behind the scenes.
Obviously you cant tell for certain how young players will adapt to first team football. But when you have five or six players coming through it isn't by luck.
posted on 25/10/18
Considering Sarri's motive is to get the squad playing his football, on top of maintaining his job security, he can't really be blamed for not integrating any player (young or old) if he feels they can't hack it, but we knew this when we appointed him.
If I was in his position I'd start giving CHO chances because my focus atm would be setting the table to experiment with Hazard as a false 9, but that's just my prospective.
posted on 25/10/18
Seems that getting sacked early on in football management contract is a highly profitable business for the recipient Why hang about?
posted on 25/10/18
Was a different era and managers got more time.
posted on 25/10/18
I think the 'how much time have I got' line is overused, personally.
The idea that these youngsters couldn't hold their own against some of the more average PL teams - or that they're so much worse than some of the dross brought in from abroad, is nonsense.
Most of the big clubs and managers of those clubs should hang their heads in shame at the lack of youth development on offer.
The clubs even more so, because whilst that is bad enough, what's even worse is hoarding these players to keep them away from rival clubs - something Chelsea have been particularly bad at.
I have always been proud of United's commitment to youth development but in recent years, under Mourinho, it simply hasn't been good enough.
Chelsea and City are surely the worst culprits, though.
posted on 25/10/18
We're easily the best club in England at developing youth right now, they just don't wind up playing for us
posted on 25/10/18
To most people, I'd imagine, youth development means integrating them into your first team and a regular PL player.
Not much of that going on at Chelsea.
posted on 25/10/18
I think SAF felt confident that the leaders he had in his squad like Keane, Bruce, Cantona, Schmeikes and co could look after the kids on a way many teams these days don’t have such leaders
Plus back then you could lose a few games and win the league. So the pressure wasn’t as high as now when you need 95 plus points to win the league
posted on 25/10/18
Was it all down to a certainty that they'd come good right away? Or was he happy to play the 'long game' knowing he was secure in his job?
..........................................
Tbf it’s a bit of myth that he threw them in and they clicked, some of them went out on loan, played cup games, dead rubber European games, the odd PL game at home against below average teams. It was 2-3 years in the making.
Giggs was a prodigy and made it into the side before the rest, Phil Neville was a utility/squad player, Scholes was in and out of the team as a AM/number 10, Becks and But broke through in 95/96 and Gary Neville had been introduced the season before. The likes of Chris Casper, John O’Kane and Terry Cooke played the odd game here and there before being sold.
SAF had the support of Martin Edwards and once we’d won back-to-back titles, including a double it gave the manager the authority to do as he pleased and every time he won something, it vindicated Edwards’ decision to stick by SAF.
But of course, SAF KEPT winning which is the key to longevity, be succesful and you can do what you like, especially in the 1990’s/early 00’s.
posted on 25/10/18
To most people, I'd imagine, youth development means integrating them into your first team and a regular PL player.
-------------------------------------------------------
Many Chelsea products are involved in several PL first teams, just not ours
Yes I know what you mean. Christensen's the only credible example since Terry and he's already rotting on the bench. Half our problem is the fact we tend to hire managers with strong tactical philosophies, so when we replace them any player can be cut out of the team at the snap of a finger.
posted on 26/10/18
I personally don't believe managers of the Top clubs have any excuse really. Especially nowadays, with the transfer fees out of control. There is no reason why a manager couldn't look at a problem position and throw in a young lad, this was something I liked about LVG. A case in point is Jose crying about his centre backs and sending TFM and Tuanzebe on loan. Although I'd love to see Timbo given a go in Matic's position.
They also are expected to win most games they play so you would think throwing in a young lad for half an hour in a PL (even when struggling) wouldn't hurt. So frustrated on Tuesday night with our attack being so poor and Chong sat on the bench. What is there to lose in that situation?
It's important for longevity, in my opinion that there is a core of the squad that hold a real affinity with the club. That could come from being there a long time or being a product of the academy.
Page 1 of 1