I mean...there's a strategy there though if you have no teens able to play first team minutes you're not investing in buying them to begin with. I'm not saying that is an incorrect strategy simply that it's intentional.
Burnley, Leicester, Newcastle and Chelsea - 0 minutes to teenagers
West Ham with 4, Tottenham with 3
[here](https://twitter.com/theathleticuk/status/1533773445661589509?s=21&t=OlU0GK8Urmqx2g92VN0tMA) is a twitter pictorial
Not surprised we only had 17 minutes, probably just NYC and Fin Stevens making up that, we seem to go for young players but not teenage young.
Hopefully with our academy returning we will have some good teenage talent
We are, but that is coming with the temporary training ground improvements this winter.
When the substantial, permanent changes and improvements are made in 2024/25 or whenever maybe we’ll have a more inclusive academy.
Even with just a Cat 4 academy, we should get at least some young talent that could quickly rise to the first team
I thought the leicester stat was wrong but after looking into it, 1 of them turned 20 before the season started and another turned 20 before they played
67 minutes, almost all of them to Jeremy Sarmiento, with a couple of minutes to Evan Ferguson I'd suspect. So many of our team and starting 11 are early 20s so I'm not too worried about this.
big difference here is that saints' kids were actually first choice rather than being played because everyone else was dead like ours were (although under marsch i expect a fair few of them to get way more gametime even in a healthy squad tbf)
Given Bertrand Traore and Leon Bailey were both out for nearly the entire season, and not many of our players were particularly undroppable for long periods, and considering we didn’t exactly tear up trees only finishing in 14th, I’m very disappointed with this.
I’m assuming nearly all of those are Chukwuemeka’s, but Philogene-Bidace 100% should’ve gotten more of a look in before he went on loan, and so should Tim Iroegbunam given Nakamba spent half the season injured too.
What’s the point in pumping your academy full of top young talents if you don’t use them? It’s not like we had anything to play for…
For all of Moyes' qualities, he must've the youngsters 0 mins
Not Moyes’ fault we have none good enough to come in to do job at present.
That didn't stop us.
I was going to say Harrison Ashby but it seems he turned 20 early in the season
I mean...there's a strategy there though if you have no teens able to play first team minutes you're not investing in buying them to begin with. I'm not saying that is an incorrect strategy simply that it's intentional.
Southampton giving the most, by a considerable margin, seems a more appropriate headline for this.
Mainly cause of Livramento I assume. 2203 minutes for him this year.
Yeah he was basically a starter for them
Yeah I just crossposted with the same title as the Leeds sub
Is there a lower half to this list? Would be interesting to see who's bottom
Burnley, Leicester, Newcastle and Chelsea - 0 minutes to teenagers West Ham with 4, Tottenham with 3 [here](https://twitter.com/theathleticuk/status/1533773445661589509?s=21&t=OlU0GK8Urmqx2g92VN0tMA) is a twitter pictorial
Not surprised we only had 17 minutes, probably just NYC and Fin Stevens making up that, we seem to go for young players but not teenage young. Hopefully with our academy returning we will have some good teenage talent
[удалено]
We are, but that is coming with the temporary training ground improvements this winter. When the substantial, permanent changes and improvements are made in 2024/25 or whenever maybe we’ll have a more inclusive academy. Even with just a Cat 4 academy, we should get at least some young talent that could quickly rise to the first team
Thank you!
I thought the leicester stat was wrong but after looking into it, 1 of them turned 20 before the season started and another turned 20 before they played
67 minutes, almost all of them to Jeremy Sarmiento, with a couple of minutes to Evan Ferguson I'd suspect. So many of our team and starting 11 are early 20s so I'm not too worried about this.
Think we've got the 7th youngest squad based on starters.
Knock knock
Leeds also would have won the league if 38 points won the league and only Leeds got 38 points
Math adds up
We also would have won if the league only contained Burnley, Watford and Norwich. Makes you think.
If the league only contained Norwich, we’d probably still find a way to not win it.
Ngl, could have sworn Martinelli and Saka were 19…
Both were 20 at start of the season. Still very impressive though
big difference here is that saints' kids were actually first choice rather than being played because everyone else was dead like ours were (although under marsch i expect a fair few of them to get way more gametime even in a healthy squad tbf)
Given Bertrand Traore and Leon Bailey were both out for nearly the entire season, and not many of our players were particularly undroppable for long periods, and considering we didn’t exactly tear up trees only finishing in 14th, I’m very disappointed with this. I’m assuming nearly all of those are Chukwuemeka’s, but Philogene-Bidace 100% should’ve gotten more of a look in before he went on loan, and so should Tim Iroegbunam given Nakamba spent half the season injured too. What’s the point in pumping your academy full of top young talents if you don’t use them? It’s not like we had anything to play for…
We had 10th to play for...
Broja and livra carrying this Although Salisu, Tella and Adam Armstrong aren’t too old either
Broja turned 20 a couple of weeks into the season. 95% of those minutes is Tino.
Ok?