Why are they nearly always defenders? Tiler, Eaden, Moses, Jones, Morgan (meh), Barker, Kay, Austin, Stones. And now the ones making the step up are Smith, Bree and Holgate. Why is this? **Edit - I'm obviously referring to my time as a supporter.
I think its because up front we would rather just loan in a series of 18 year old strikers from other clubs rather than give our lads a proper chance
I think we've let too many gems escape our academy too early without giving them a good chance. What about Rob Atkinson? He looked the dogs ******** at one point.
I meant decent laikers who held down a regular position, or went on to do well etc. Other than Watto, Lidds and Jacob, the rest on your list hardly made an impact to be fair, did they? Which was my point.
It's also a question of %'s. usually a team/squad will contain more than twice as many defenders as attackers. Also I think an average/mediocre defender can survive in a team whereas a similar attacker can't!
Probably the best explanation. The Blunts have done well with selling youngsters too. Naughton, Jagielka, Walker, Maguire, Lowton. All defenders.
Perhaps Jackson would have. RNL had 11 starts for us. He hardly made his mark, did he? And as much as I like the lad, he can't even get regular games at Rochdale.
He was at Man Utd from 8 until he was 15 or summat. He's a lad we helped develop, but he's not like a Stonesy or Watson, Eaden et al who were here from being small boys.
Despite how Fallon performed for us, he went on to have decent spells at Swindon and Swansea and went into Championship with a £300, 000 price tag, we got £50,000 for him cos he were abart only saleable asset we hed at the time of admin. he also performed haif decent for a NZ int World Cup despite em being no hopers.
Carl Tiler? *edit just seen the above post. 1.5 Million for him makes me shake my head at what we got for Stones.