Fabianski; Coquelin, Silvestre, Campbell, Clichy; Eastmond, Denilson, Wilshere; Walcott, Vela, Rosicky

Subs: Almunia, Gallas, Senderos, Vermaelen, Traoré, Fábregas, Arshavin, Mérida, Eduardo

Tbh, j deserves his little bit of criticsm but its still a good site, the transfer updates are 2nd to none and he always has good information on scouts etc. I always check arsenalyouth and youngguns.

As has been mentioned, Arsenal.com got this result wrong at first, as did Jeorge Bird. Away from this result, the very popular arseblog gets things wrong, as does the oddly popular ANR.

J is a blogger who does this on a completely free basis. He is providing you, and me, with a service. He is in no way compelled to do this. He does it because many, many people appreciate it. I hope people remember that he’s just human, having to make a living outside youngguns and can’t be at every game.

and fools keep asking what about this player and what about that player

when a youth player talks to his national press some fan will tell jay and he won’t link it

I am sorry to question the credibility of this site, but frankly I think it has been exploiting the fact that details of Under 18 games are almost completely unverifiable. It is impossible to prove the veracity of J’s comments, however there always seems to be several hints in the under 18 articles (and I talk exclusively of the under 18 articles) that certain liberties have been taken.

For one, obviously, the fact that yesterday a report appeared on this website detailing a game that does not happen until next week. Pretty transparent really; I am quite certain J perused the Arsenal website and found a link which said similar things (such a link did appear temporarily). This was because of Arsenal.com’s notoriously slow updates, however it seems to have misled J…

There are invariably numerous inconsistencies, too, between youngguns, jeorge bird, and Arsenal.com. In this case the latter is often inexplicably the least reliable. However, the disparities are not just limited to goalscorers. Precise descriptions of the manner in which each goal is scored vary from site to site. It’s utterly bizarre. An anomaly.

And under 18 reports are notably shorter on details than the rest of the site. If J does not attend the game – which I suspect is often the case – and he doesn’t have access to any form of highlights, then reports should be entirely stripped of subjective comments, adjectives etc…

Maybe these 3 paragraph reports come from second-hand accounts, through J’s contacts…who knows? And that’s just it, nobody knows. Can anyone here really dispute whether Deacon’s brace was ‘classy’? Whether the second really was ‘smashed’ and as opposed to ‘bungled’ in to the net? This may seem trivial but I assure you it is not. Information is power. It’s damn important no matter how small. And if this is second-hand reportage, then the information is being reported here as fact, which is heresay and does not constitute journalism…

Again, as I say, I adore this site, but I do have to question this article and articles written in a similar vein. J has given us no reason not to. I implore J to be more accountable. Even if it is should a disclaimer at the bottom stipulating how much of this was seen, or something along the lines of ‘From J. Sanderson @ underhill’ etc…