The title of this piece is lifted from a well known comment made by Alan Hansen, just after a youthful Manchester United side had been beaten by Aston Villa, and approximately nine months before that same Man Utd team lifted the Premiership trophy, several years ago. With that in mind, I was interested to read Danny's comments this week about wanting a new midfielder and his desire for experience in that position.
I can understand that, as the manager, he has players he rates and players he's not so keen on, as we all do. Personally, I liked Hulbert and Clist and would have been happy to see them both given further opportunities but Danny didn't, and that is his prerogative as manager.
I can also see the logic behind moving them on, as D.W. wasn't going to play them unless his hand was really forced and it was pointless paying the wages of players who weren't going to play.
Now that they are off the wage bill, he is talking of bringing in experienced cover in midfield, as we 'only' have Tinnion, Wilkshire, Doherty and Burnell competing for two places (I assume Danny no longer considers Carey to be an attacking midfielder. I'll put that down to a fit of pique last season). By anyone's standards in this division, having four first team players competing for two positions is an embarrassment of riches and I wonder what message it sends out when he releases statements like this:
"I would like to sign someone with experience. With the season reaching a crucial stage, you don't want to be relying on a youngster who might need time to find his feet in the team."
I can see the point he is making, to a degree, but is it really likely that we are going to find ourselves in a position where we're 'relying' on a youngster? Should we really be looking to spend more money, just on the off-chance that we lose two players from midfield? If so, I wonder where we draw the line. Perhaps we need experienced cover up front or experienced cover in the centre of defence too.
At some point, the youngsters have to be given their chance. After all, what is the point of the Academy if we aren't going to give the youngsters the incentive of getting into the squad when we need additional cover?
Furthermore, if the youngsters aren't going to get a chance at a crucial stage of the season, then when will they? Not only that, but how will they become experienced if they don't get an occasional opportunity when we are down to the bare bones in a particular position?
Also, I find it hard to equate his statement that "you don't want to be relying on a youngster who might need time to find his feet in the team" with his signing of Marc Goodfellow.
Is Marc not a youngster brought in at a crucial stage of the season who might have needed time to find his feet in the team? For that matter, was Lee Miller not a youngster brought in at a crucial stage of the season who might have needed time to find his feet in the team (unless the start of the season isn't crucial, of course. I don't know)? It seems odd that the manager is happy to rely on youngsters he buys in, but is less keen to pitch our Academicians into the fray.
I realise we had seven homegrown players in our starting XI on Saturday and I am not disputing that youth has been given its head, to a certain extent, under Danny. However, I am concerned that the management may be resting on its laurels somewhat in this department. And I do wonder what message this sort of statement sends out to the young players at the club who are desperately hoping for a chance to show what they can do.
I also wonder if this situation will only be amplified, should we get promotion. Can we then expect to hear “Well, you can't expect youngsters to come in and perform at this level.”, if we're in Division One?
Danny has signed some excellent young players this season in Miller, Wilkshire and Goodfellow, but I'd like to see him have the same level of faith and confidence in our own youngsters. Otherwise, what is the point of the Academy?
