Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellowrider120

'Young side' - RUBBISH

Recommended Posts

One of the long standing myths perpetuated by Farke, Webber, the owners and even the gullible local media is that City are 'such a young team'. It is straightforward garbage yet no fan seems to pick this up and query it.

Take the starting line up on Saturday. FIVE players were age 30 or over and the average age was just short of 27 and a half. 'Young side', do me a favour. Not one single teenager in the starting line up. 'Inexperienced at PL level' yes but 'young' most definitely not.  Those who perpetuate this myth do so purely as an excuse for this seasons embarrassing shambles. Expect to here more of this truck over the next few days from those in power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

One of the long standing myths perpetuated by Farke, Webber, the owners and even the gullible local media is that City are 'such a young team'. It is straightforward garbage yet no fan seems to pick this up and query it.

Take the starting line up on Saturday. FIVE players were age 30 or over and the average age was just short of 27 and a half. 'Young side', do me a favour. Not one single teenager in the starting line up. 'Inexperienced at PL level' yes but 'young' most definitely not.  Those who perpetuate this myth do so purely as an excuse for this seasons embarrassing shambles. Expect to here more of this shy te over the next few days from this numpty

Fixed it for the rest of us

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness this post is correct, An average age of 27 isn’t a young side. The problem we have is that 3 of the youngest and most inexperienced players in the team are all playing in the back 4 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've also played much younger average age sides this season, just because it wasnt yesterday..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

We've also played much younger average age sides this season, just because it wasnt yesterday..

When?

Sure Cantwell would normally have started but that's it as far as so called 'youngsters' are concerned. Others who might have played are Hanley (28), Zimbo (27), Rupp (29), Drmic (27). Again - doesn't support this notion of .............'City have so many youngsters in the team', 'the youngsters are all still learning' etc. Three of the back four are 'young', rest of the squad is (pretty much) late 20's, early 30's yet that fact doesn't support the myth does it? If Idah, Josh Martin and the likes of the ones we have just signed can all be part of the first team next season (if good enough of course) then the average age may (at best) stabilise at current level in view of the fact that our current first team youngsters are most likely set to leave!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

One of the long standing myths perpetuated by Farke, Webber, the owners and even the gullible local media is that City are 'such a young team'. It is straightforward garbage yet no fan seems to pick this up and query it.

Take the starting line up on Saturday. FIVE players were age 30 or over and the average age was just short of 27 and a half. 'Young side', do me a favour. Not one single teenager in the starting line up. 'Inexperienced at PL level' yes but 'young' most definitely not.  Those who perpetuate this myth do so purely as an excuse for this seasons embarrassing shambles. Expect to here more of this truck over the next few days from those in power.

Fair point. We are not a young side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

When?

Sure Cantwell would normally have started but that's it as far as so called 'youngsters' are concerned. Others who might have played are Hanley (28), Zimbo (27), Rupp (29), Drmic (27). Again - doesn't support this notion of .............'City have so many youngsters in the team', 'the youngsters are all still learning' etc. Three of the back four are 'young', rest of the squad is (pretty much) late 20's, early 30's yet that fact doesn't support the myth does it? If Idah, Josh Martin and the likes of the ones we have just signed can all be part of the first team next season (if good enough of course) then the average age may (at best) stabilise at current level in view of the fact that our current first team youngsters are most likely set to leave!!  

3rd average youngest starting lineup in the prem this season

Screenshot_20200712-201559_Chrome.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Fair point. We are not a young side. 

We are though. The third youngest in the league and only just been promoted so equally the least experienced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hogesar said:

We are though. The third youngest in the league and only just been promoted so equally the least experienced. 

Yes because we play four very young players that greatly reduces any average. The point made is about the team as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Yes because we play four very young players that greatly reduces any average. The point made is about the team as a whole. 

So what's your point? No one has said "our entire starting eleven are all young players"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

So what's your point? No one has said "our entire starting eleven are all young players"

I’m not making any point, I’m agreeing with the original poster and you tried to peddle some absolute **** on me in response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Terminally Yellow said:

I’m not making any point, I’m agreeing with the original poster and you tried to peddle some absolute **** on me in response. 

What, like a fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

We are though. The third youngest in the league and only just been promoted so equally the least experienced. 

So they needed some experienced heads brought in to help them...which we can never afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

No a statistic that proves you missed the point by a mile. 

Hmm...the OP used one fixture to dismiss the fact we are a young side.

Saying "yeah but only some of our players are young therefore it doesnt count" is nonsense. The averages I posted is across the board, same rules apply to all teams.

Comparatively we have had one of the youngest starting elevens in the league. It's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

So they needed some experienced heads brought in to help them...which we can never afford.

Yep. Could have done with more than just Tettey and Krul. Maybe a fully fit Klose all season would have helped, who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Hmm...the OP used one fixture to dismiss the fact we are a young side.

Saying "yeah but only some of our players are young therefore it doesnt count" is nonsense. The averages I posted is across the board, same rules apply to all teams.

Comparatively we have had one of the youngest starting elevens in the league. It's a fact.

Having young players in your side (which is what an average shows) is very different to having a young team. Which is the point made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

3rd average youngest starting lineup in the prem this season

Screenshot_20200712-201559_Chrome.jpg

That article is from September after only a few games. Link here:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1336761

 In a similar article done during the lockdown in May, we had the seventh youngest squad. Link here:

https://www.football365.com/news/ranking-average-age-premier-league-starting-xis

So it is still a young side, but not quite as young as some make out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2020 at 20:32, hogesar said:

We are though. The third youngest in the league and only just been promoted so equally the least experienced. 

Just promoted or just relegated? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2020 at 16:37, yellowrider120 said:

One of the long standing myths perpetuated by Farke, Webber, the owners and even the gullible local media is that City are 'such a young team'. It is straightforward garbage yet no fan seems to pick this up and query it.

Take the starting line up on Saturday. FIVE players were age 30 or over and the average age was just short of 27 and a half. 'Young side', do me a favour. Not one single teenager in the starting line up. 'Inexperienced at PL level' yes but 'young' most definitely not.  Those who perpetuate this myth do so purely as an excuse for this seasons embarrassing shambles. Expect to here more of this truck over the next few days from those in power.

I've picked up on it, as have many others. 

 

It was a poor excuse all last season and completely untrue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2020 at 16:37, yellowrider120 said:

One of the long standing myths perpetuated by Farke, Webber, the owners and even the gullible local media is that City are 'such a young team'. It is straightforward garbage yet no fan seems to pick this up and query it.

Take the starting line up on Saturday. FIVE players were age 30 or over and the average age was just short of 27 and a half. 'Young side', do me a favour. Not one single teenager in the starting line up. 'Inexperienced at PL level' yes but 'young' most definitely not.  Those who perpetuate this myth do so purely as an excuse for this seasons embarrassing shambles. Expect to here more of this truck over the next few days from those in power.

The bit in bold actually weakens the argument somewhat as inexperience at that rarefied level can basically lead to its own brand of naivety, although the basic numbers don't lie. There wasn't a lot of top-flight experience (and the loanees who had it didn't do well either, none of Fährmann, Amadou, or Duda did much during the season). Even some of our older players didn't have much top-flight experience in their native countries either, let alone in England. Zimmermann and Stiepermann were two obvious members of that club. Obviously, none of our youngsters had any Premiership whatsoever until this season as well, and as other stats showed, we gave ex-academy players more minutes than any other Premiership team.

I think it's understandable that we're a bit hurt and angry after a streak we've been on, but as ever when it comes to statistics - they're like miniskirts. What they show is revealing. What they hide is vital. And I think top-flight experience trumps age here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old saying goes you do not win anything with Kids. It is all about the blend and balance. We play four or 5 young players on a regular basis which is good, they need to be supported by more street wise older players who can help the youngsters. Youngsters have potential but as part of their development they will make mistakes. We would be in a muddle if our average age was about 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think E would be my choice if it was a 'Post a single vowel of your choosing' type thread

Edited by First Wazzock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...