Class of 2021?

[Le Duan]

Wondering if we have a group of young Academy players who could really make an impression, and break through into the first team? A la Scholes, Beckham, Neville, etc. Or are we more likely to see them coming through in phases? Ta

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Phases I would have thought, out the next batch I like Glatzel but think he may go out on loan like Brewster as he had a year out injured. The Koumetio kid looks a monster already. Clarkson and Cain are decent in midfield while O’Rourke up top looks decent. Cannot see any this season myself but what do I know.

[Ron B]

One thing that does get overstated with the ‘Class of 92’ is the idea that they all swept into the side in one go. Although it was a remarkable crop of players, they established themselves over the course of a couple of waves.
 

If you want to include Giggs, he broke into the side virtually overnight during the 1991-92 season. 

Butt was first in after that, being a semi-regular (35 games) as a teenager in 1994-95

 

Beckham went from having played less than a dozen matches for them to becoming a regular at age 20 in 1995-96; Neville was probably six months ahead of him but only fully established himself that same season. 
 

Neither Scholes nor Phil Neville managed 30 league games in a single term until 1997-98. 
 

None of which is to be sniffed at, but it’s revisionism to believe they all arrived fully-formed and simultaneously (which I know isn’t @Le Duan’s point but is worth remembering when we ponder our own awesome youngsters). 
 

TAA can be our trailblazer who establishes himself first - like Giggs, but without knobbing his sister-in-law. If others need time to be ready, that’s totally fine. 

[Le Duan]

On 24/08/2020 at 23:21, Ron B said:

One thing that does get overstated with the ‘Class of 92’ is the idea that they all swept into the side in one go. Although it was a remarkable crop of players, they established themselves over the course of a couple of waves.
 

If you want to include Giggs, he broke into the side virtually overnight during the 1991-92 season. 

Butt was first in after that, being a semi-regular (35 games) as a teenager in 1994-95

 

Beckham went from having played less than a dozen matches for them to becoming a regular at age 20 in 1995-96; Neville was probably six months ahead of him but only fully established himself that same season. 
 

Neither Scholes nor Phil Neville managed 30 league games in a single term until 1997-98. 
 

None of which is to be sniffed at, but it’s revisionism to believe they all arrived fully-formed and simultaneously (which I know isn’t @Le Duan’s point but is worth remembering when we ponder our own awesome youngsters). 
 

TAA can be our trailblazer who establishes himself first - like Giggs, but without knobbing his sister-in-law. If others need time to be ready, that’s totally fine. 

Nice one - thank you. I’ve obviously and unwittingly bought into that mantra of the Class Of 92, without challenge. The power of the media and a message repeated as nauseum! Good to be reapprised of that, and that in itself bolsters my confidence that we can benefit greatly from our own youth players coming through. Cheers

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 24/08/2020 at 23:21, Ron B said:

One thing that does get overstated with the ‘Class of 92’ is the idea that they all swept into the side in one go. Although it was a remarkable crop of players, they established themselves over the course of a couple of waves.
 

If you want to include Giggs, he broke into the side virtually overnight during the 1991-92 season. 

Butt was first in after that, being a semi-regular (35 games) as a teenager in 1994-95

 

Beckham went from having played less than a dozen matches for them to becoming a regular at age 20 in 1995-96; Neville was probably six months ahead of him but only fully established himself that same season. 
 

Neither Scholes nor Phil Neville managed 30 league games in a single term until 1997-98. 
 

None of which is to be sniffed at, but it’s revisionism to believe they all arrived fully-formed and simultaneously (which I know isn’t @Le Duan’s point but is worth remembering when we ponder our own awesome youngsters). 
 

TAA can be our trailblazer who establishes himself first - like Giggs, but without knobbing his sister-in-law. If others need time to be ready, that’s totally fine. 

So, basically, anyone who said "You'll win nothing with kids" in 1995/6 was spot on.

[Ron B]

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

So, basically, anyone who said "You'll win nothing with kids" in 1995/6 was spot on.

Haha, well yes... and no. 
 

Yes, you’ll win nothing if you rely solely on kids. But that side had Schmeichel, Irwin, Bruce, Pallister, Keane, Keane and Cole. That’s a pretty strong and experienced spine. The boldness came from shipping out Ince (at his peak), Kanchelskis (ostensibly likewise), and Hughes (past his best) without any major transfers coming in. 

No, because those kids did play a lot of games collectively. To pick out the ones who played 20-plus matches across all competitions (after all, who cares that Ben Thornley came on as a substitute in one league game?), there was:

Nick Butt - 41 matches (20 years old at the start of the season);

Gary Neville - 39 (20);

Paul Scholes - 31 (21);

Phil Neville - 34 (18);

David Beckham - 40 (20). 
 

So they did use young players quite a lot. But those young players weren’t that young, the team did have a lot of experience throughout the side, and those young players had been blooded over several years. Plus, whilst the players got a lot of minutes, I’ll add that Scholes was more of a super-sub (18 starts versus 13 games where he came on as a replacement), the youngsters were far more likely to get their matches in domestic cup games than were older pros, etc. 

There’s no need to rush Harvey, Curtis, etc into the team. Even if we replicate exactly what happened with them back in 1995-96, we’d still be ludicrously impatient expecting our own youth players to be forcing their way into the first team already.