Forget the fuss of giving young player awards to Man City’s ’golden oldies’ ...the youth is out there
WHENEVER we enter awards season I’m reminded of a response from that great actor Richard Harris after he was asked to present an Oscar.
“Why would I? It takes 14 hours to get there, followed by 10 hours talking to a***holes. I’d rather spend that time in the pub talking to my mates.”
Which is a healthy attitude to take to these over-hyped, politically-dubious, black tie affairs. But I do enjoy the backlash that shortlists throw up, especially in football.
Take the PFA Young Player of the Year award and the gobsmacked response by some to Raheem Sterling and team-mate Bernardo Silva being contenders, despite both turning 25 this year, costing Manchester City £44million each and having almost 600 appearances and 85 full caps between them.
As social media wags noted, putting those two up for Premier League’s finest young player award is the equivalent of Sting and Jarvis Cocker being nominated for best newcomer at The Brits.
Age-wise the City pair look as out of place as John Travolta and Olivia NewtonJohn did at Rydell High, but it’s not their fault.
They are deservedly on the shortlist for the PFA’s Player of the Year Award, and legitimately qualified for the young player gong because they hadn’t turned 24 when the season kicked off – Silva making it by a single day.
Yet their standing in the game is so much higher than their rivals for the junior award – Trent AlexanderArnold, Declan Rice, Marcus Rashford and David Brooks
– that their involvement just seems weird.
As Tony Cascarino wrote after slamming the nominations: “It’s about time the PFA changed the criteria. It should be an award for an emerging talent, someone who is having their breakout season or is very early on in their career.”
Maybe when the PFA gets round to handing a gold watch to its 74-year-old CEO his successor might address the age balance in favour of the young.
But in the meantime this row over Sterling’s and Silva’s inclusion at the expense of others throws up positives for
British football. Because 24-year-olds like Eden Hazard and Daniel Sturridge have been nominated for this award in recent years with little fuss. Mainly because they weren’t perceived to be taking the place of so many deserving younger candidates.
Look at the other talents who merited a place on this year’s list alongside Brooks, Alexander-Arnold, Rashford and Rice. To exclude James Maddison is harsh. To exclude Aaron WanBissaka, who many would pick in their Premier League team of the season, is just plain wrong. But in any other year the likes of Ben Chilwell, Harvey Barnes and Dominic Calvert-Lewin would have been in with a shout. Throw in Phil Foden, Callum Hudson-Odoi and Joe Gomez, who may also have figured had they had more game-time, and you realise just how much genuine British, especially English, quality is coming through. Which says more about the brightness of the national side’s future than the medals won in recent years by the under-age groups, because those players are excelling in the toughest league in the world.
And if you still can’t see the progress let me remind you of the PFA’s Young Player of The Year shortlist from 10 years ago: Gabriel Agbonlahor, Jonny Evans, Stephen Ireland, Aaron Lennon, Rafael da Silva and Ashley Young. Had Sterling or Silva gatecrashed that party I doubt there would have been too many complaints.