scram

I get what you're saying but i do think it's difficult to outright compare players who play in different positions ZZ of course was a better player than Beckham for the value he gave a team generally - but not in Beckham's position he wasn't One of England's problems in the past was trying to shoehorn players into positions they didn't suit - just because they were very good players - Scholes or Jope Cole wide left for England - Gerrard on the right etc No wonder they didn't have shining international careers because they were largely a waste of a shirt in those positions Ironically we had 3 world class central midfielders in Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard - yet never played a central 3 - because then that created a problem of where would Beckham play - well he he should have still been right of a midfield 5 to make the most of the players we had imo

Not as a wide midfielder he wasn't - nowhere near as good out wide as Beckham

I never mentioned weaker parts of his game

So he demanded these clubs pay him big money and put him in their teams? They were forced to? Ok i get it You're just looking for a reaction Well done

He went to Preston

I hnestly don't get posts like this Do you think Beckham played for the worlds biggest clubs beacuse of his media hype? Why isn't Harry Stiles or James Corden playing for Barca then? Beckham was an outstandong player - mainly pulled up by the ignorant because they diodn't wanna focus on the brillienace of his strengths but preferred to dwell on the weaker parts of his game But because it's just an inane binary choice out of the 2 players then ZZ woukld be everybody's pick i guess - he is one of the best ever But if you needed a right-sided wide player to complete the puzzle then i think DB would be the pick of most football stategists

Yes undoubtedly some are let go too soon - i wasn't disputing that tbf It only has to be seen how many players disappear then pop up elsewhere and make a good impression Some just do need time - unfortunately not many are prepared to give that And sometimes the players and agents themselves need to take a good look in the mirror when deals don't happen

Too many are kept on too long too - to play academy football at u23... Like i said - go back to 3 year scholarships and u17/u19 age groups

Vardy was released at a younger age and for different reasons Most u18's who spend their 2nd year as u18's are unlikely to have made enough of an impression unless there is a compelling reason otherwise - ie major timeloss to injury or the player is a late maturer and needs more physical development time for eg

He wasn't really Man U's first team head of performance since Mourinho started there - he always takes his own fitness guy with him Strudwick was mainly working with the academy He is extremely well regarded and it's a wise move by Bruce - because our injuries are way more about how we prepare, train, play and recover than they are about training surfaces and clinical staff

Agree with that - but the flip side to the coin are those boys who have the world at their feet, they are given every chance, given contracts and allowances way above their ability - yet they choose to throw it all off by shyte attitude,being lazy, disrespectful and an extreme sense of entitlement Non league and parks football is littered with them

I don't think it is a dilemma tbh Our u18's were an older group regularly going up against other teams who were younger - because those clubs promote their players to challenge and stress them (in the right way!) It's kinda the main reason that league tables in the academy were abolished below u18 level some years ago - some people argued it was anti-competitive but all i'd say is those people obviously don't watch academy football because that is far from the case. The reason to abolish the tables was to remove the onus from the result and allow it to be more focused on development. West ham got relegated from the top tier of Cat 1 at u23 level - but had 5 academy first team debuts this season (through choice not necessity) There are regionalised cup comptetitions starting to creep back in at younger age group levels I think there's a very strong argument to abolish u18 and u23 national leagues - play limited regionalsed and/or group games - with maybe a national weekend of tournament to round it off in say January - then organised league-style fixtures end and the clubs can design their own fixture list based on their own needs until the end of a more formal season I'd go even further tbh and abandon u23's - go back to 3 year scholarships with u17 and u19's - with the latter allowed up to 3 overage outfield and a GK

Do what most clubs do and promote players to older age groups. It's pretty normal for an u23 team to contain many u18 and even u16 players. We had an old u18 team last year with the amount of 2nd years regularly playing- it might have helped us win a bauble but not sure it has done much for player development And that's the reason for having an academy

What a lot of people don't take into account is that more players get deals simply because we have to ensure we can field an u23 team And that is the dichotomy - players are retained because we have commitments to play matches and not necessarily because we (or any club) sees potential first team players The main thing having a mandatory u23 team has done has been to move the attrition rate from 18 year olds to 19 year olds It's why the biggest clubs such as Spurs and Man U have railed against the EPPP - because it is hopelessly discredited and based on hugely flawed research

Dunno when but it should be at Hillsborough