dozer wrote: FuB wrote:
Sid wrote:So a young player has to become Rooney or Ronaldo in order to justify their inclusion?
What a load of shite
Nani and Anderson weren't world beaters but they did a job for us, Nani more than did a job tbf
It goes further than that in terms of fatuous nonsense. There have been just as many (arguably) high cost 'finished article' players that have failed in the same time period so, ultimately, the argument is just reducible down to 'don't spend too much on any player'... which is just economics
Based on what?
How many teenagers have been top players for us? Rooney, Ronaldo and it was Ronaldo, big luck, not some ordinary person. Any one else?
Anyone in the past decade? I'll give you DDG although he was 20 that was still young and a risk.
The decade previous? Ronaldo and Rooney.
In the meantime we've bought Carrick, Evra, Rio, Vidic, Valencia, Evra, RVP, RVN, Van Der Sar, Ibra etc. I've only listed players most fans would agree that have been good to great signings.
Number of suggested teenagers ranters here want us to buy? Zero.
dozer, you've revised your argument. I'm pretty sure that Laz and I picked up on this, specifically:
dozer wrote:United should never buy very young players, it's usually a liability. The club's going to splurge on players; why not do it on established stars?
so, now you've gone around the houses to literally agree that, over the last twenty years or so, United have "splurged" - relatively speaking - on two teenagers (Rooney and Ronaldo). Both went on to have pretty stellar careers. You've gracefully - having re-qualified your argument to "teenagers" from "very young" - allowed de Gea into consideration: Very expensive for a non-established goalkeeper at the time and another success story.
The key word - and you highlighted it yourself - is
it's where your argument falls completely flat for me. the implication is that United are regularly "splurging" unwarranted cash on teenagers/very young players and usually
it goes wrong. However, the simple fact of the matter is they haven't been doing so and, over a twenty year period, they've got it right three times.
Yes, there's a fourth player - the subject of this thread - who cost a lot of money and hasn't necessarily justified that so far
. Personally, I think he should still be given time. Ronaldo was more show pony than effective for an initial period but he had both the desire and, crucially, the coaching that helped him become the superstar he was and still is.
Even if Martial is ultimately a failure, a 25% failure rate for "splurge" purchases of young players isn't outrageous. I'd say it was roughly equal to the failure rate for established players we've bought over the same period.