Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: richardhubbard on December 31, 2013, 05:01:38 PM
-
I had great hopes of over 5-10 years of our youth policy but not many really have stood out after length of time.
Looking back
Ridgewell done ok with his career
Davis same for him
Whittingham is a good championship player
Moore brothers disappeared
Myhill done ok as a keeper
Baker looks average
Bannan has slipped away
Albrighton and Gardner never shown full promise
Hogg knocking around in the championship
Only 3 that made a real impression is Cahill and we know what happened there, Gabby how could have done more and Clark who appears to have kicked on this season.
-
I wonder how many other clubs have more products of their academy playing in the top two divisions than we do?
-
Southampton are probably the best for producing a very good standard of quality youth players.
-
We've currently got Clark, Baker, Gabby and Weimann holding down a place in a premier league side. Are there many other premiership teams with four (5 if you include Herd) in their match day 17?
-
I meant high quality players Clampy. Agree we have volume but high quality.
Gabby and Clark I agree
Baker and Weinmann looks like championship players this season
-
I put it on here before but, when we played at Chelsea in the Youth Cup Final, there was an article in the Telegraph saying that this was the biggest game that most of that Chelsea team would ever play in. There was very little chance that many of them would ever get to play for the first team. A new one of ours may get a chance soon. Have to wait and see.
-
It's not producing players that's the problem, it's recognising which of them is worth the hype.
-
Ah ha, the hardy old perennial comes out for the new year! It's probably a huge generalisation, but I've always thought we've produced a lot of decent youth players who've gone on to be of a reasonable standard with a number of different clubs, including of course ourselves, but all too rarely have we produced the real gem who goes on to be a top player.it does seem, though perhaps it's only perception, that teams like West Ham and Southampton do the latter much more successfully than we do?
-
We've currently got Clark, Baker, Gabby and Weimann holding down a place in a premier league side. Are there many other premiership teams with four (5 if you include Herd) in their match day 17?
6 if you include Albrighton.
-
I meant high quality players Clampy. Agree we have volume but high quality.
Gabby and Clark I agree
Baker and Weinmann looks like championship players this season
Yes but they still came through our youth set up and that's something to be positive about. Let's not knock something this club is very good at for the sake of it.
-
I meant high quality players Clampy. Agree we have volume but high quality.
Gabby and Clark I agree
Baker and Weinmann looks like championship players this season
Yes but they still came through our youth set up and that's something to be positive about. Let's not knock something this club is very good at for the sake of it.
Well said. With the central defence so weak, we may have to tap our resources tomorrow.
-
I think its something to be proud of. To produce the four or five who are in our team, plus Cahill,Ridgewell,Davis who are all well established Premier League players is something that not many teams an boast.
-
I'll still contend that our kids get brought through too quickly. When you have a solid first team squad then breaking into that echelon should be reserved for the best of the reserves or academy. Too often our kids come through, shine briefly before fading all too quickly. We have had far too much success at youth and reserve level not to have created some really too star players and with the exception of a select few we haven't. Not to say it hasn't been a success as many players have gone on to have good careers, but we haven't created that real gem that everyone wants.
-
We've currently got Clark, Baker, Gabby and Weimann holding down a place in a premier league side. Are there many other premiership teams with four (5 if you include Herd) in their match day 17?
6 if you include Albrighton.
FFS what football are you watching.....Gabby is about the only one who would get a look in at other EPL clubs. The rest are pile of championship players at best. When we had a few decent looking prospects a few years ago i.e. Ridgewell, Davis, Cahill Villa couldn't wait to sell them. How long does it take to make this current lot.." footballers"...i'm looking at them for the last 3 years and the future ain't Too Bright.
-
You're right TV, the cut backs of the past few seasons has meant too many have played when out of form or fatigued, the turn of the year last season was an example of that. And lacking quality experienced players, like Petrov has harmed some of them.
-
and our youth team produced DJ Campbell who despite current allegations( yet to be proved )has had a good career in the top two flights in recent years.
-
Don't forget if there is promising young kid were offer a chance to make it a professional, they would more likely to choose Aston Villa than the like of Chelsea.
-
I think there has been a shift under Lambert to get the young lads out on loan to experience proper football rather than keeping them at the club to win the reserve league...good plan if you ask me!
There, seems months since gave Lambert credit for owt
-
I think we are all desperate for us to produce a worldy from the youths but as Everton found out with Rooney & will soon with Barkley if he continues they are prised away before you get to see them achieve anything
-
I don't think we did quite enough for them while O Neill was here. There were times when Fonzy was really looking like something special. He needed more game time in the top flight under O Neill. We wasted a lot of playing time on Harewood and Heskey in all honesty, that might have been better given to Fonzy perhaps. I also think between the tail end of O Neill and the beginning of Houllier we didn't really do some of our players any favours by giving them too much too soon.
Certainly in Bannan and Fonzies case, we gave them a ridiculous amount of money before they'd come close to establishing themselves properly, and I think in both cases the application dropped a little.
Now our squad is younger and players are getting chances at this level. It's all a little too much in one go, but slightly disappointingly, is that we could be starting to bring in some of the talent like Johnson, Robinson, Grealish etc into the first team at the moment. If they're good enough, they're old enough. We're producing some technically talented footballers, but we're giving game time to some players we've signed, who aren't technically very good.
But given the quality of our squad now, and comparing to the quality of some of our youth products at pastures new, there's a case to say that a lot of them could easily make our current 18. I'm thinking Myhill (over Steer), Cahill (obviously), Ridgewell, Davis, Gardner, Whittingham and god forbid, even Bannan is missed as an option with a bit of quality in midfield.
It's all well and good giving players from L1-2 a shot at the big time (as long as we have more established quality alongside) but we should really be bringing through more of our 18-22 year olds right now. We've seen enough of the likes of Herd, Baker, Clark, Alby etc to know which are good enough long term and which aren't (Baker, Herd). It's time to start working the next generation of our production line into the first team squad better.
Bowery and Tonevs places should be given to any two of Johnson, Robinson, Burke, Grealish etc. They can't do any worse.
-
Would you include Gareth Barry in that list?
-
I don't class Barry as a product of our youth system as we poached him when he was 17. He was in the first team within a year.
-
We've been very good at producing winning Youth sides.
But the focus should really be on finding (and then bringing out the best) of a very special player at that level, regardless of overall league placings and cup success. Rather thane decent, functional players.
The amount of players that have come through our academy and are now playing in the top two divisions is impressive.
But we're not on a par with the West Ham set up who provided the backbone of the England side for the best part of a decade. Nor Everton, who didn't produce a huge number of homegrown stars, but those that they did bring through (Rooney, Rodwell and now Barkley) have provided (or in the case of Barkley could provide) the funding to remain in the top 6.
Southampton's praise isn't unmerited either: Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain and now Lallana and Shaw. Even moneybags Citeh have produced Shaun Wright Phillips (sold for £30+ million) Hart, Richards, Sturridge and, er Ireland (who is a shitbag, but a shitbag who moved in a deal worth £8 million to them).
Going back a bit further, the Leeds set-up produced Robinson, Woodgate, Harte, Kelly, Smith and Lennon -players who either had long careers with them or who provided vital revenue with big transfer fees.
It should always be about quality, rather than quantity.
-
Barry 15 years ago , I not knocking anyone , quantity great but quality fell short.
Cahill and Barry were high quality , and probably gabby .
Everton that time produced a Barkley and Rooney , sadly Gardner now behind bowrey!
We produce decent level like bannan, Davis and Craig c
Gardner.
Just not what call top 8 players who change games
-
Joe Hart was about 19 when he joined City and had already played 50+ league games. We are really stretching it if that qualifies as their youth system. SWP joined them when he was 17. Obviously the coaching at City helped them, but youth system products?
-
Chelsea and the likes can pay as much as they want for whoever they want at any age.
-
I don't class Barry as a product of our youth system as we poached him when he was 17. He was in the first team within a year.
I think he signed for Villa on his 16th birthday. We didn't need to poach him as he had never signed a professional contract in his life before joining Villa.
-
Barry 15 years ago , I not knocking anyone , quantity great but quality fell short.
Cahill and Barry were high quality , and probably gabby .
Everton that time produced a Barkley and Rooney , sadly Gardner now behind bowrey!
We produce decent level like bannan, Davis and Craig c
Gardner.
Just not what call top 8 players who change games
Rodwell too, who raked in a tidy sum .
-
We've been very good at producing winning Youth sides.
But the focus should really be on finding (and then bringing out the best) of a very special player at that level, regardless of overall league placings and cup success. Rather thane decent, functional players.
The amount of players that have come through our academy and are now playing in the top two divisions is impressive.
But we're not on a par with the West Ham set up who provided the backbone of the England side for the best part of a decade. Nor Everton, who didn't produce a huge number of homegrown stars, but those that they did bring through (Rooney, Rodwell and now Barkley) have provided (or in the case of Barkley could provide) the funding to remain in the top 6.
Southampton's praise isn't unmerited either: Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain and now Lallana and Shaw. Even moneybags Citeh have produced Shaun Wright Phillips (sold for £30+ million) Hart, Richards, Sturridge and, er Ireland (who is a shitbag, but a shitbag who moved in a deal worth £8 million to them).
Going back a bit further, the Leeds set-up produced Robinson, Woodgate, Harte, Kelly, Smith and Lennon -players who either had long careers with them or who provided vital revenue with big transfer fees.
It should always be about quality, rather than quantity.
Didn't Sturridge start his career at villa?
-
Barry 15 years ago , I not knocking anyone , quantity great but quality fell short.
Cahill and Barry were high quality , and probably gabby .
Everton that time produced a Barkley and Rooney , sadly Gardner now behind bowrey!
Rooney left Everton years ago. Not too sure why you've mentioned Bowery being behind Gardner when they play in different positions.
-
I don't class Barry as a product of our youth system as we poached him when he was 17. He was in the first team within a year.
I think he signed for Villa on his 16th birthday. We didn't need to poach him as he had never signed a professional contract in his life before joining Villa.
You could be right about the age. We pretty much poached him, not that i'm complaining about that, but all his formative training was with Brighton who developed him into a player we wanted.
-
We've been very good at producing winning Youth sides.
But the focus should really be on finding (and then bringing out the best) of a very special player at that level, regardless of overall league placings and cup success. Rather thane decent, functional players.
The amount of players that have come through our academy and are now playing in the top two divisions is impressive.
But we're not on a par with the West Ham set up who provided the backbone of the England side for the best part of a decade. Nor Everton, who didn't produce a huge number of homegrown stars, but those that they did bring through (Rooney, Rodwell and now Barkley) have provided (or in the case of Barkley could provide) the funding to remain in the top 6.
Southampton's praise isn't unmerited either: Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain and now Lallana and Shaw. Even moneybags Citeh have produced Shaun Wright Phillips (sold for £30+ million) Hart, Richards, Sturridge and, er Ireland (who is a shitbag, but a shitbag who moved in a deal worth £8 million to them).
Going back a bit further, the Leeds set-up produced Robinson, Woodgate, Harte, Kelly, Smith and Lennon -players who either had long careers with them or who provided vital revenue with big transfer fees.
It should always be about quality, rather than quantity.
Didn't Sturridge start his career at villa?
Yes he did. He moved because his family wanted more than what was offered by the club to keep him on.
-
Ive always felt that our lot, particularly in recent years have the 'Billy Big Bollocks' about them where they play a couple of games for the first team and think they've made it. The Moore brothers, Bannan, Davis (who i thought was really good but looks a right arrogant twat these days at Southampton), Lichaj and eventually Vassell went that way also. Ridgewell, Gardner were not good enough at the time, in fact Ridgewell was pretty dire imo. Baker, Clark, Albrighton and Delfoenso all look like they'll fizzle out to me for one reason or another. Gabby has done well to be honest, a proper success story and so has Cahill, which suprised me a bit seeing him play for Chelsea and England. Thought he was a bit over rated and still do to lesser extent. Wish we still had him though of course.
-
Sturridge went to coaching sessions operated by the club when he was about 10. We might have wanted him, but he was never on the books.
-
According to Wiki (yes I know) Sturridge was with us for 4 years, Cov 3 and then moved to City.
Youth career
Born in Birmingham,[1] Sturridge began his playing career at the age of 6 at local club Cadbury Athletic, before being spotted at the age of seven by the youth academy of Aston Villa.[3] He left Villa four years later to move to Coventry City, from where he joined Manchester City's Academy in 2003, aged 13.[3][4] A Football League committee later ordered Manchester City to pay Coventry £30,000 compensation, with further payments up to a maximum of £200,000 based upon appearances and international honours.[5] The following year, he was the leading scorer and voted player of the season (the only other person to achieve this was Argentine footballer Carlos Tévez) as City won the Nike Cup, the world's largest under-15 tournament.[6] At 16, he played for Manchester City Youth during their 2006 FA Youth Cup run. The youngest player in the side, he scored four goals en route to the final,[7] and another two in the final, though they were insufficient to prevent a 3–2 aggregate defeat to Liverpool.[8] That summer, he signed his first professional contract, which came into effect when he turned 17
-
Keep an eye out for a 12 year old lad coming through named Cameron Archer, I may not be a qualified scout but this lad is amazing. Also hoping we take on Angel jnr seen his clips and he's something special.
-
Sturridge went to coaching sessions operated by the club when he was about 10. We might have wanted him, but he was never on the books.
I am pretty sure that a 'contract' can only be signed when the player reaches the age of 10. His family made excessive demands which resulted in him going elsewhere. I'll ask Cam's Dad how it worked for his son.
-
The issue is not that our youth policy is a myth; it is that we have unable to integrate players properly into the first team environment.
In some cases, it has been because of managers like MON who have wantonly offloaded players - Cahill, Gardner, Ridgewell and Davis are all holding down P'ship positions (as is Whittingham, who, I think, left just before MON).
In other cases, the squad has been too threadbare to give the youngsters any protection and structure.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
-
I don't class Barry as a product of our youth system as we poached him when he was 17. He was in the first team within a year.
I think he signed for Villa on his 16th birthday. We didn't need to poach him as he had never signed a professional contract in his life before joining Villa.
You could be right about the age. We pretty much poached him, not that i'm complaining about that, but all his formative training was with Brighton who developed him into a player we wanted.
I'd definitely claim him as one of our own. He was still a kid when he joined.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
The bastard.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
No it was O'Leary. I was surprised at the time as he was playing quite well for us.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
No it was O'Leary. I was surprised at the time as he was playing quite well for us.
The utter pig-nosed numpty bastard.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
No it was O'Leary. I was surprised at the time as he was playing quite well for us.
It was MON. He was sold in Jan 2007.
-
I'm pretty sure MON sold Whittingham.
No it was O'Leary. I was surprised at the time as he was playing quite well for us.
It was MON. He was sold in Jan 2007.
I genuinely thought it was O'Leary. Perhaps he sent him out on loan or something.
-
Sorry, I don't see how a player can start a 'career' at seven years of age. Or ten, for that matter. Unless we're talking about that weird Solskjaer lookalike who appeared on Wogan years ago, claiming to be an antique dealer.
They might show promise, or be under the radar, but so much can change between then and the age of 15/16.
So much can happen even between the age of 16/20, that's when players get their first real taste of professional coaching. If it's sub standard, a player with promise can soon hit a plateau and never progress.
For that reason, I'd say Barry was a product of our youth system and Hart was a product of Citeh's. Even if other clubs (Brighton and Shrewsbury respectively) played a key part in their development too.
-
He made the bench above him this weekend
-
He made the bench above him this weekend
So did Albrighton.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but it's coming across as a bit of a pointless one so i'll leave it at that.
-
That not appearing good enough to make our bench!
-
That not appearing good enough to make our bench!
He's been out injured for months and months and is being eased back into the first team picture.
-
One of the best we've produced could end up well being Jamie Ward who is currently ripping it up for Derby in the championship and I think even if they don't get promoted will be in the premier league next year.
I was talking to a friend about him the other day as his dad coached him for a youth team in the hodge hill area when he was about 12-13.
Pretty sure when he was with us we played him midfield or even left back?
-
I often make this point but I don't think it gets picked up
I feel that one of our disadvantages is that the local area has tended to punch under its weight in terms of developing players. London, Liverpool, greater Manchester and Newcastle all produce lots of players and some outstanding ones. Birmingham doesn't seem to as much. Just think about players with scouse accents over the last decade or more: Gerrard Rooney Owen Barkley baines carragher fowler mcmanaman
-
On Gardner, I've never really seen that he's got what it takes
But you'd think the examples of Delph and Ramsay would be enough to convince people that they need to give the guy a really good chance of making it. I think a year or so of fitness, starting from now. I'd give him a year contract extension to do it in
-
What's really helped Rooney and now Barkley for example was the fact they were thrown in very young and had the talent to make it. There comes a point where early promise can start stagnating if players get a taste and then suddenly find themselves not given the time to develop quickly. I think Fonzy should have been handled far better by O Neill because that boy had talent to burn. But the O Neill way is to not really use substitutions unless he has to. Even at times when the Fonz notched an appearence in the Prem, it would be 5 minutes.
Even in games we'd have comfortably won, ideal opportunity to give the lad 20 minutes, and it wouldn't happen. The rest of the time he wasn't even on the bench. No space among all the overpaid mediocrity. Had O Neill gone about things the right way he'd have had 2-3 youngens on his bench most games, to allow the opportunity to bed them in and develop for the future. Bannan had way more natural ability than dross like Sidwell for example.
We're now seeing the likes of Johnson, Robinson and Grealish etc all edging in and around that 20 mark. When they're not having the odd month or two on loan they need to be in and around the first team. In terms of technique, we've got a number of very gifted players coming through. But we need to look at the examples of Bannan and Fonzie. They had talent but I don't think they were handled quite right. Getting a sniff in the Europa and pre-season tournaments gave them a taste but they needed better bedding in. They also didn't need to get paid so handsomely, so soon. Its strange to me though because O Neill really rate Fonzie but he barely played him in the Premiership. Ditto Bannan. Very well thought of at the club 4=5 years ago. We were all impressed with Alby after the peace cup and expected him to be broken in the following season. It didn't really happen. 6 appearances in all.
Get the lads in and get them playing. We need a bit more ability and if our youth team isn't producing players with more ability than KEA, Sylla, Tonev, Bowery etc, it really does have problems. I don't buy into this too soon thing. If they're good enough, they'll shine, even in a faltering side. Davis was really good for us under O Leary, despite the side being poor. His career went downward when O Neill took over and Davis could only ever get a game playing wide. Bed them in and in conjunction with that, give them the odd month or two out on loan alongside that. But there's no good waiting 2-3 years to get Grealish in the side for example. Get him in now, see how he handles it. In 2-3 years his development might have been stilted, or someone else younger might steal his thunder a little, and his chance.
-
I actually disagree with that. Barkley and Janusaj are making an impact because they're prodigious talents. I don't see that tells us we should be playing grealish
My view is almost the opposite: if you look at Cahill, Whittingham, Davis, ridgewell, clark, these are all guys who haven't looked at home in the premier league until they're at least 23. So I don't buy the argument that if you've not made it by 21 it's game over.
-
I actually disagree with that. Barkley and Janusaj are making an impact because they're prodigious talents. I don't see that tells us we should be playing grealish
My view is almost the opposite: if you look at Cahill, Whittingham, Davis, ridgewell, clark, these are all guys who haven't looked at home in the premier league until they're at least 23. So I don't buy the argument that if you've not made it by 21 it's game over.
It helps if you've been kept in and around first team football. In one regard Lambert is going about it right, giving Grealish time out on loan at his age.
Whilst we're such a young side we can probably afford to player 2-3 more of our own young lads. I think Cahills development was helped greatly by playing at 20 in the first team. He didn't always have the best of times granted, but he's better for it I think. Particularly getting thrown in somewhat during a very tough period under DOL.
Johnson for example is passed that age. If he's not playing now he probably needs to be. It isn't game over at 21 no, but every passing year just makes it more unlikely that he'll make the grade.
I think in part at the moment it's also for want of quality in our midfield and attacking areas. We're really lacking in guile and we appear to be raising a youth side that has a good amount of that quality. I'd get 2-3 of them more directly involved, to help their development but also because some of the players in the matchday squad are way off being good enough. Again it boils down to would I rather have Robinson/Johnson/Grealish on the bench, or Jordan Bowery? It's an easy answer for me.
I also think Roon was helped greatly breaking into the Prem at a time he still had so much raw enthusiasm and ability, that may have been tempered by sitting in the ressies/youth side for another 3-4 years until he was in his early 20's. He may not have been the player he is now without that early development. We can only dream of producing a talent like that granted, but if we're producing potentially premier league players then why not play them? Johnson is 21 now. Robbo is 19 soon.
I'll always wonder how much better Delfouneso and Bannan might be right now had they been handled better 5 years ago when they were becoming part of O Neills plans. He gave players a little sniff, they generally quite impressed but then he took them out again. Then bizarrely we gave them enough money to suggest they were the finished article. Sadly they didn't work hard enough at that point. Bannan is a better footballer than anyone we currently have in midfield. Who knows how good he'd be now with more time under is belt in O Neills side and being kept more grounded. It's down to his own (questionnable) attitude too of course, but he should have been handled better.
-
I know it's early days, but Pulis seems to be getting the best from him.
-
I know it's early days, but Pulis seems to be getting the best from him.
And I think it was the move that probably caused him to get his head sorted out; he'd been around VP almost too long (familiarity bred contempt, in a way) and none of our revolving-door managers had got hold of him and get him grounded, focussed and effective ... or so it seems.
-
I know it's early days, but Pulis seems to be getting the best from him.
And I think it was the move that probably caused him to get his head sorted out; he'd been around VP almost too long (familiarity bred contempt, in a way) and none of our revolving-door managers had got hold of him and get him grounded, focussed and effective ... or so it seems.
I'd guess possibly that he might have taken a pay cut to join Palace too. Indeed, Pulis is a good motivator and he'll get Bannan to work hard. We shall see though. Still early days, he can't rest on his laurels again.
-
I really liked Bannan. I'd have persevered with him for another season but that said, the move away will probably be good for him in the long run.
-
I actually disagree with that. Barkley and Janusaj are making an impact because they're prodigious talents. I don't see that tells us we should be playing grealish
Our youngsters would make more of an impact if they had a better team around them. Putting them in a failing team/system will only negatively impact on the young players.
-
I actually disagree with that. Barkley and Janusaj are making an impact because they're prodigious talents. I don't see that tells us we should be playing grealish
Our youngsters would make more of an impact if they had a better team around them. Putting them in a failing team/system will only negatively impact on the young players.
Ridgewell, Cahill, Gardner and Whitts were all introduced into a relegation threatened side. We might debate how good they are at the moment (bar Cahill who's a top 4 player now) but I don't think it negatively effected them too badly. I think it helped strengthen their resolve early on. Granted they had a lot of quality seniors with them which helps, and is something we need to address currently.
We're negatively impacting on Lamberts young, questionnable signings as it is. We may as well give our own products a go too. If they don't have the natural strength to handle it at the moment, it's very hard to get that with the benefit of a couple more years of maturity. You have that strength when you 18-19 or you don't. You can develop it, but it's hard if it hasn't come naturally. It's like for example a player like Vassell. A hell of a lot of talent but the boy never quite pushed himself hard enough and didn't have enough belief in himself. He could have been a fantastic player. Then you have a very self confident, somewhat arrogant player like Savage who was incredibly limited but had a hell of a career given his actual ability.
Give em a taste and keep feeding them drips here and there see what they've got. If we've got a good track record of producing players who play in the top two divisions, then our youngsters should be good enough to get in our current squad. Most of our squad is Champ-Lower Prem quality. We've produced a large amount of players of that standard ourselves over the last decade whether they've stayed or moved on.
If we're not producing a Rooney, so be it. But we're hardly blessed with a squad of Youngs, Barry's, Petrovs, Milners, Laursens, Mellbergs at the moment. If anything, with the team as it is, it gives our youngens more chance of standing out. And because they're our own they'll get a little more leighway from the fans than someone like Bowery for example.
-
There is enough going on to be unhappy about about supporting Villa at the moment, we're in a rebuilding situation which has taken a setback on the way. Hopefully this will improve this year. To have a dig at a youth policy/academy which has thrived over the years and has been very successful is just trying to find a negative which just isn't there. Credit where credits due in our academy I would say and I for one am proud of out setup and products which have come from it.
-
There is enough going on to be unhappy about about supporting Villa at the moment, we're in a rebuilding situation which has taken a setback on the way. Hopefully this will improve this year. To have a dig at a youth policy/academy which has thrived over the years and has been very successful is just trying to find a negative which just isn't there. Credit where credits due in our academy I would say and I for one am proud of out setup and products which have come from it.
In total agreement. Picking out two examples from Everton is all well and good, but we've got a lot of players who've either been nurtured in our academy since childhood, or from being plucked in their mid-teens, who now play in the Prem. And there's a few still playing in the Champ too. We've got an impressive track record. But for O Neill selling a few a tad too quickly perhaps (to be replaced with overpaid, average players already established in cases) we might have kept a few more for longer. Certainly the Cahill debate always pops up often on here. He'd actually done reasonably well for O Neill before we cashed in and then bought Knight and Davies for big money.
If a big chunk of our squad aren't yet Prem quality, as seems to be the case, then why not play some more of our own academy players, who've proved over the years to be capable in the top flight, either here or pastures new. Why is it Lambert has reverted back to a player like Albrighton who seemed like he was destined to fade away? He's not brilliant, but Lambert bought in a few players who can play Albrightons sort of position, who seem a long way off. Tonev, Bacuna and Bowery have all played wide for us. That we've reverted back to a tried and test academy graduate who seemed out of favour with Lambert initially (even when he happened to be fit) says something I think.
We're buying a lot of players valued around the 1 mill mark. It seems a waste when our academy at the very least would appear to be producing similar, if not better quality.
-
Maybe Lambert has made a clanger on some of his signings and has found that some are not quite ready yet, or good enough which I think is too early to say yet. Marc has that bit more experience than his signings too. To be fair he never bombed him out like some of the others (Ireland, Warnock an Hutton), Marc has struggled with injuries for a while now. Lambert probably had a idea of a way he wanted us to play and these players in his mind, might have fitted that better. With one thing or another we have a few dinks in the progress to say the least.
But going back to the original opening post we have done very well over the years and I agree we might not have found a major star (yet) but not many clubs do that very often.
-
A lot is being made of Barkley right now but it's very early days. If he was 22-23 and breaking in now would his performances be worthy of so much praise, or stand out as much? I'm not sure. That he broke in at 18 I think people judge more purely on raw ability, which he has plenty of. I think there's a bit more pressure on a younger player to perform week in, week out once they start getting passed that 22-3 mark. At 18-19 you can come in express yourself. If it's a bit much or the consistency drops they can be eased off on, but you can put the lack of consistency and errors down to age. You have a good grace period of 4-5 years. If you break through at 22-3, then you've got a year or 2. Once you hit 25 you're expected to have consistency down. You can't keep making errors and you have to look the part at this level. There's less of a grace period, and more of a pressure to hit the ground running. The younger a player, the more forgiving I think fans are too. I mean we overlooked a lot of errors in Gareth Barry from often overplaying at the back, because he looked such a good player. That he was only 17 breaking through was part of that. Had he been 22, I think we'd have been less forgiving.
Who's not to say we don't have a player or two at the moment who might look as promising if we put them in the side? Robinson impresses me a lot, as does Grealish. Johnson looks very able in midfield too, and his time needs to come soon. We don't want to put too many in one go, but 2-3 of our boys breaking into the side right now would be good and I'd wager might add a little positivity and good will among the fans. For me it certainly would. I'd rather see our home grown players rather than a lot of these cheap punts from lower leagues and abroad.
-
I know it's early days, but Pulis seems to be getting the best from him.
maybe Bannan never thought he'd get bombed out of Villa Park is now eating some humble pie. He had a lot of talent and if his head was on straight I wish he'd have stayed with us because he is precisely the type of players that we could do with. Thing is the game cannot wait for you and I just think he's looked at this as a new opportunity. Good for him if is turning it around.
-
A lot is being made of Barkley right now but it's very early days. If he was 22-23 and breaking in now would his performances be worthy of so much praise, or stand out as much? I'm not sure. That he broke in at 18 I think people judge more purely on raw ability, which he has plenty of. I think there's a bit more pressure on a younger player to perform week in, week out once they start getting passed that 22-3 mark. At 18-19 you can come in express yourself. If it's a bit much or the consistency drops they can be eased off on, but you can put the lack of consistency and errors down to age. You have a good grace period of 4-5 years. If you break through at 22-3, then you've got a year or 2. Once you hit 25 you're expected to have consistency down. You can't keep making errors and you have to look the part at this level. There's less of a grace period, and more of a pressure to hit the ground running. The younger a player, the more forgiving I think fans are too. I mean we overlooked a lot of errors in Gareth Barry from often overplaying at the back, because he looked such a good player. That he was only 17 breaking through was part of that. Had he been 22, I think we'd have been less forgiving.
Who's not to say we don't have a player or two at the moment who might look as promising if we put them in the side? Robinson impresses me a lot, as does Grealish. Johnson looks very able in midfield too, and his time needs to come soon. We don't want to put too many in one go, but 2-3 of our boys breaking into the side right now would be good and I'd wager might add a little positivity and good will among the fans. For me it certainly would. I'd rather see our home grown players rather than a lot of these cheap punts from lower leagues and abroad.
For me, you can just tell. Like you could with Rooney, Ferdinand, Owen and Gerrard
The guy's absolutely class. Too much ability not to make it unless he has an injury or does a Michael Johnson
-
The answer to the question depends on your definition of success. Yes, we haven't produced a supremely talented player like a Wayne Rooney, a Michael Owen or a Gareth Bale but the fact is that Craig Gardner, Liam Ridgewell, Steve Davis, Peter Whittingham, Boaz Myhill, Nathan Baker, Ciaran Clark, Gabby Agbolahor, Barry Bannan, Marc Albrighton and Gary Cahill are all enjoying lucrative Premier League careers. Until recently you could also have added Luke Moore to this list. Ask these players the same question. I personally don't think there's any doubt we have an outstanding Academy.
-
I think the stable set up we have at youth level helps us enormously in bringing through the young players. Then, when they start knocking on the door of the first team we lose them somewhat. A succession of managers and coaches fail to continue their development to the level we require to move the club forwards. Yes, the likes of Bannan, Hogg, Myhill, Ridge well etc will go on and form themselves good careers in the game, but only Cahill has gone on (and Steven Davis) to become established Internationals. Fundamentally, a succession of managers have failed to develop these promising young players to their potential level.
-
What's really helped Rooney and now Barkley for example was the fact they were thrown in very young and had the talent to make it. There comes a point where early promise can start stagnating if players get a taste and then suddenly find themselves not given the time to develop quickly. I think Fonzy should have been handled far better by O Neill because that boy had talent to burn. But the O Neill way is to not really use substitutions unless he has to. Even at times when the Fonz notched an appearence in the Prem, it would be 5 minutes.
Even in games we'd have comfortably won, ideal opportunity to give the lad 20 minutes, and it wouldn't happen. The rest of the time he wasn't even on the bench. No space among all the overpaid mediocrity. Had O Neill gone about things the right way he'd have had 2-3 youngens on his bench most games, to allow the opportunity to bed them in and develop for the future. Bannan had way more natural ability than dross like Sidwell for example.
We're now seeing the likes of Johnson, Robinson and Grealish etc all edging in and around that 20 mark. When they're not having the odd month or two on loan they need to be in and around the first team. In terms of technique, we've got a number of very gifted players coming through. But we need to look at the examples of Bannan and Fonzie. They had talent but I don't think they were handled quite right. Getting a sniff in the Europa and pre-season tournaments gave them a taste but they needed better bedding in. They also didn't need to get paid so handsomely, so soon. Its strange to me though because O Neill really rate Fonzie but he barely played him in the Premiership. Ditto Bannan. Very well thought of at the club 4=5 years ago. We were all impressed with Alby after the peace cup and expected him to be broken in the following season. It didn't really happen. 6 appearances in all.
Get the lads in and get them playing. We need a bit more ability and if our youth team isn't producing players with more ability than KEA, Sylla, Tonev, Bowery etc, it really does have problems. I don't buy into this too soon thing. If they're good enough, they'll shine, even in a faltering side. Davis was really good for us under O Leary, despite the side being poor. His career went downward when O Neill took over and Davis could only ever get a game playing wide. Bed them in and in conjunction with that, give them the odd month or two out on loan alongside that. But there's no good waiting 2-3 years to get Grealish in the side for example. Get him in now, see how he handles it. In 2-3 years his development might have been stilted, or someone else younger might steal his thunder a little, and his chance.
A big problem we've had was we don't use the loan system well enough with our young players. 09/10 is a good example of this. How many times was the Fonz and unused sub in the prem, I would guess at 20 matches. Would've done the world of good for him, Clark and Albrighton to all go out on loan that season or at least for half of it particularly after we lost to Vienna in Europe. That way when they were all suddenly being asked to play week in week out in the prem the next season that would've helped them.
At least Lambert seems to get this so rather than just keep Grealish and Samir Carruthers on the fringes here and winning every week in the reserves, he's sent both out on loan which I believe will give both a better chance of making it here as both seem to be doing really well in league 1.
-
I saw Whittingham play on-loan for Derby at Hillsborough in the winter of 2005. Gabby was playing on-loan for Wednesday in the same match.
-
I think the stable set up we have at youth level helps us enormously in bringing through the young players. Then, when they start knocking on the door of the first team we lose them somewhat. A succession of managers and coaches fail to continue their development to the level we require to move the club forwards. Yes, the likes of Bannan, Hogg, Myhill, Ridge well etc will go on and form themselves good careers in the game, but only Cahill has gone on (and Steven Davis) to become established Internationals. Fundamentally, a succession of managers have failed to develop these promising young players to their potential level.
I think you can safely count Clark and Weimann as established internationals now - both have played for their country more often than not for the last 18months (when fit) and Bannan and Myhill have enough caps to be considered as well. That's a good return in anyone's book, add in the likes of Gabby, Ridgewell, Gardner and Whittingham who're all established players at their clubs and it's hard to argue that our academy isn't one of the best in the league. I agree that we haven't really had anyone top drawer (Cahill and Gabby aren't far off that though) but, like above I think where we're letting the kids down is in the 17-20 transition. We have the opportunity with Grealish, Robinson, Johnson, etc to try again as they all seem to have the technical aspects needed, it's just about getting this next bit right.
I hope a couple of those guys get a chance at the weekend. I'm not advocating a reserve team in the fa cup but I do think it can and should be a chance to play with a bit less pressure and have some of the kids around the squad and given cameos.
-
I think the stable set up we have at youth level helps us enormously in bringing through the young players. Then, when they start knocking on the door of the first team we lose them somewhat. A succession of managers and coaches fail to continue their development to the level we require to move the club forwards. Yes, the likes of Bannan, Hogg, Myhill, Ridge well etc will go on and form themselves good careers in the game, but only Cahill has gone on (and Steven Davis) to become established Internationals. Fundamentally, a succession of managers have failed to develop these promising young players to their potential level.
I think that hits the nail on the head re development. I remember when there was talk of Klinsmann becoming manager and reading up on his footballing philosophy and in particular what he'd done with Germany. The one thing he stressed was amazingly important was to have the youth set up playing the same way as the senior side, so that there was a continuous philosophy of football from youth to senior level and so a natural progression of players through the ranks, who when they got to the senior level had less trouble stepping up as the football was familiar to them and they naturally understood the system they were playing in.
I think as a club we have been particularly poor at defining a club philosophy of how we want to play football. Our youth products actually seem to be taught a very good brand of pass and move football, and a few times in the last few seasons when we had a lot of our homegrown talent playing, we seemed to have played some of our best football. Fast, flowing, technically astute pass and move football. The Man Utd home game a couple of seasons ago springs to mind.
The problem is, on the pitch our first team managers have played a far from consistent brand of football, and Randy's lurching of appointments from MoN to Houllier, to McLeish to Lambert shows that he's not really had a clear vision of the kind of football we should be playing, and that's hindered us massively over the last few years.
Houllier i think would have been able to develop the youth well and promote a more consistent football philosophy through the club which would have helped their development. I think his vision of football is more like how our youth reams are taught to play. MoN and McLeish however, stifled their development because either they wouldn't use the youth, or the way they did use them was alien to the football they had developed with. I'm not quite sure about Lambert yet.
I think then if our youth had the opportunity to develop and work into a first team playing good football, they would have done better. Or at least better for us. It also helps if they have good senior players to train and play with and so learn from. Would you want up and coming defenders playing and learning from the likes of Dunne and Collins, or the likes of Laursen and McGrath? Our youth development then has also been hindered by the fact that we've often had to throw far too many of them in at the deep end at once, and that they've not had the most stable and skillful of teams to develop and blend into.
Maybe players have to leave the club they develop at to find a team that plays the right kind of football for them, or a manager that will play them in the right kind of role and utilize their skills. It does seem that we've let an awful lot of players go in the last few years that have gone on to have fairly solid, though not necessarily spectacular, premiership careers.
-
It's a bit of a bit of this and a bit of that really. I think our squad what with the recurring injuries and managerial merry go round don't help. One managers vision of how he wants the team to play may not conform to what's being taught at academy level, The fact that last season 3 or 4 kids were just bundled into the team through necessity rather than merit, in an ideal world you'd pick your best 11 for the big matches and maybe when you're playing a bottom 6 side put one of the kids in to the established team. Then you actually have the first 11 themselves, not all world class. If I were someone like Baker, I would imagine that being next to someone like Vlaar I wouldn't learn half as much as being next to someone like God.
Then there's the hype machine. A few posters will talk about seeing the one kid who dominates the game, has a good pass and an eye for goal and then we all expect too much too soon. The one most people rave about is normally the one who doesn't quite make it.
-
Not going to quote it but what Dribbler has put above is the crux of our failure to convert youth team success into first team competence. I've said a number of times that we need to develop a club style to make the most of our very well run academy. When MON left my choice for manager was Klinsmann (I have no idea how feasible it would have been but that was my ideal appointment) because he understands that need for a consistent approach. Some people will think that playing the same formation is enough but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The whole setup should be that the same demands for skill, application and attitude are put on everyone from the academy up (below that is all about learning technique and developing the basic skills to allow players to move into the structured demands of the academy). If you want a team that defend as a pack by waiting for a poor touch and then closing the player and blocking out his options (i.e. Barcelona) then you train your academy players to do exactly that.
The stadium, crowd and level of opposition are all 'new' to a youth player coming into the first team, the best way of helping them adapt to those new situations is to give them as many familiar things as possible mixed in with it.
Even loans should be targeting clubs with similar ideals who want similar qualities so that the player will be asked to do what he knows rather than adapt to something unfamiliar.
-
I've been saying for years that our youth set-up seems to be focussed on producing teams to win youth tournaments rather than on producing top class individuals. The latter is of far more use to the first team and the club in the long run. Very few of those we've brought through I would rate as good enough to be regular first choice at lower half PL, let alone top half or CL level. Most who are regulars are playing for strugglers like Sunderland, Palace, Cardiff, Albion and us. The exceptions are Barry and Cahill. We've had loads who've looked like world beaters at youth, England youth, and reserve level who have failed to kick on at first team level. It could be the coaching, it could just be that they have reached their glass ceiling and aren't good enough. Either way I think our youth system is somewhat over-rated by some. I hope some of the latest batch prove me wrong but I've not seen much from Gary Gardner or anyone else at first team level that looks all that promising.
-
Not going to quote it but what Dribbler has put above is the crux of our failure to convert youth team success into first team competence. I've said a number of times that we need to develop a club style to make the most of our very well run academy. When MON left my choice for manager was Klinsmann (I have no idea how feasible it would have been but that was my ideal appointment) because he understands that need for a consistent approach.
Based on what, though?
He has had one year as a club manager? I'm not too sure believing in the importance of consistency when you are atop the German football machine is the same as believing it, and being able to put it into practise, when you're at a football club which does not have endless resources.
Don't get me wrong, i like Kilinsmann, too, I just don't really see how he can be said to understand the need for consistency when his managerial career has been almost entirely about national teams, and in the one year it wasn't, it was at one of the biggest clubs in the world.
Had Klinsmann come here, he'd have been faced with all sorts of problems - especially in the wake of the MON flounce out - that he'd have had zero experience in ever dealing with.
He wouldn't just have been working with moving the youth products to the first team, he'd have been working with running a club at the highest level, in one of the biggest leagues in the world.
It's also worth noting that, when we did replace MON, we did so with Houllier, who played an integral part in the setting up of the Clairefontaine French national academy that eventually produced a World Cup winning generation, and lots of top players since, so it's not as if he didn't have a grounding in youth himself.
-
Even loans should be targeting clubs with similar ideals who want similar qualities so that the player will be asked to do what he knows rather than adapt to something unfamiliar.
I'm not sure how feasible it would be but for this reason I'd like us to form an informal link with say Walsall on the premise that they can have our best young players for free on loan but the club has to adopt a similar tactical philosophy in return. But as you say we need a Klinnsman (or Bielsa?) to establish a villa dna first.
-
Not going to quote it but what Dribbler has put above is the crux of our failure to convert youth team success into first team competence. I've said a number of times that we need to develop a club style to make the most of our very well run academy. When MON left my choice for manager was Klinsmann (I have no idea how feasible it would have been but that was my ideal appointment) because he understands that need for a consistent approach.
Based on what, though?
He has had one year as a club manager? I'm not too sure believing in the importance of consistency when you are atop the German football machine is the same as believing it, and being able to put it into practise, when you're at a football club which does not have endless resources.
Don't get me wrong, i like Kilinsmann, too, I just don't really see how he can be said to understand the need for consistency when his managerial career has been almost entirely about national teams, and in the one year it wasn't, it was at one of the biggest clubs in the world.
Had Klinsmann come here, he'd have been faced with all sorts of problems - especially in the wake of the MON flounce out - that he'd have had zero experience in ever dealing with.
He wouldn't just have been working with moving the youth products to the first team, he'd have been working with running a club at the highest level, in one of the biggest leagues in the world.
It's also worth noting that, when we did replace MON, we did so with Houllier, who played an integral part in the setting up of the Clairefontaine French national academy that eventually produced a World Cup winning generation, and lots of top players since, so it's not as if he didn't have a grounding in youth himself.
I just like the way he talks about the game, he hasn't done enough club management to base an opinion on anything other than that but I think he's got the right ideas on making a club a long-term success and I think, much like Lambert has in truth, he'd be willing to put his reputation on the line with a long term project at the right club. I know I'm basing it on very little evidence but it's just how I see him.
-
When Klinnsman was appointed coach of Germany he (and Loew) went to every club in the bundesliga and discussed what tactic would best suit the German style. He then created a blueprint which was sent to every club club requesting that they play a 4231 formation which most clubs subsequently adopted.
If he can convince individual clubs to do it, then I'd be pretty certain that he'd do it when managing Villa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8789682.stm
-
That's the kind of thing I mean. I actually think he's more of a DoF than a manager because his approach to the long-term is better suited to someone who will be at the club for a long period regardless of the week-to-week results (to an extent).
-
The problem in converting exceptional academy players into premiership players surely reflects the enormous step up in quality required.
To excel at academy and reserve team football you have to compete with players mainly from the UK. To play in the premiership you have to be able to compete with some of the best players in the world.
I'm not surprised by the fact we see a fair number of academy players enjoying lucrative careers amongst the strugglers in the premiership and only Barry and Cahill playing at the top level. It's a numbers game - more have the ability to compete at the lower level, very few at the top.
One area where the academy might improve is to recruit from further afield (I know there are rules on this sort of thing) in the same way that British universities attract students from around the world.
-
I'm not convinced by the "house style" approach in terms of youth development. It would help the club generally in that players at all levels would be aware of the tactical plan, formation etc. and be able to slot in more easily, but you would still need to develop players with the necessary technique, tactical acumen, physical and mental qualities to be able to implement the prevailing system and adapt to other systems. For me the focus should be on developing those individual qualities first and foremost.
-
What's really helped Rooney and now Barkley for example was the fact they were thrown in very young and had the talent to make it. There comes a point where early promise can start stagnating if players get a taste and then suddenly find themselves not given the time to develop quickly. I think Fonzy should have been handled far better by O Neill because that boy had talent to burn. But the O Neill way is to not really use substitutions unless he has to. Even at times when the Fonz notched an appearence in the Prem, it would be 5 minutes.
Even in games we'd have comfortably won, ideal opportunity to give the lad 20 minutes, and it wouldn't happen. The rest of the time he wasn't even on the bench. No space among all the overpaid mediocrity. Had O Neill gone about things the right way he'd have had 2-3 youngens on his bench most games, to allow the opportunity to bed them in and develop for the future. Bannan had way more natural ability than dross like Sidwell for example.
We're now seeing the likes of Johnson, Robinson and Grealish etc all edging in and around that 20 mark. When they're not having the odd month or two on loan they need to be in and around the first team. In terms of technique, we've got a number of very gifted players coming through. But we need to look at the examples of Bannan and Fonzie. They had talent but I don't think they were handled quite right. Getting a sniff in the Europa and pre-season tournaments gave them a taste but they needed better bedding in. They also didn't need to get paid so handsomely, so soon. Its strange to me though because O Neill really rate Fonzie but he barely played him in the Premiership. Ditto Bannan. Very well thought of at the club 4=5 years ago. We were all impressed with Alby after the peace cup and expected him to be broken in the following season. It didn't really happen. 6 appearances in all.
Get the lads in and get them playing. We need a bit more ability and if our youth team isn't producing players with more ability than KEA, Sylla, Tonev, Bowery etc, it really does have problems. I don't buy into this too soon thing. If they're good enough, they'll shine, even in a faltering side. Davis was really good for us under O Leary, despite the side being poor. His career went downward when O Neill took over and Davis could only ever get a game playing wide. Bed them in and in conjunction with that, give them the odd month or two out on loan alongside that. But there's no good waiting 2-3 years to get Grealish in the side for example. Get him in now, see how he handles it. In 2-3 years his development might have been stilted, or someone else younger might steal his thunder a little, and his chance.
Spot on Tom, as ever.
-
I'm not convinced by the "house style" approach in terms of youth development. It would help the club generally in that players at all levels would be aware of the tactical plan, formation etc. and be able to slot in more easily, but you would still need to develop players with the necessary technique, tactical acumen, physical and mental qualities to be able to implement the prevailing system and adapt to other systems. For me the focus should be on developing those individual qualities first and foremost.
I did say below the academy everything should focus on technique and core skills. For me up to 16 is about developing youngsters to be good footballers, after 16 it should be about developing youngsters to be good Aston Villa players. The goal of an academy, as a minimum, should be to provide the reliable squad players that everyone needs. I like the idea of having a core of 10-12 squad members who have been with the club since they were kids, and can 'do a job' when you need them even if they don't start regularly, that should be our aim.
-
I'm not convinced by the "house style" approach in terms of youth development. It would help the club generally in that players at all levels would be aware of the tactical plan, formation etc. and be able to slot in more easily, but you would still need to develop players with the necessary technique, tactical acumen, physical and mental qualities to be able to implement the prevailing system and adapt to other systems. For me the focus should be on developing those individual qualities first and foremost.
I like the idea of having a core of 10-12 squad members who have been with the club since they were kids, and can 'do a job' when you need them even if they don't start regularly, that should be our aim.
It might be a coincidence rather than strategy, but Southampton appear to have adopted that model. Their first team squad is built up of some expensive players selected largely from abroad supplemented by 5-10 home grown yoofs. The utilisation of the youth players presumably frees up the cash to afford the 'big' signings which would otherwise be beyond their means.
I think the probability that we'll develop a Rooney/Barkley/'Next big thing' is slim and it would be futile to plan for this occurance, whereas we're not far off from consistently developing capable premiership players of the Ridgwell, Clark, Davies, Cahill, Gabby, Weimann standard.
With use of the loan system better, hopefully our young players can develop out of the Villa Park spotlight a bit more so they're not written off as the 'worst player ever' etc and can, over time, become solid squad members. Like with southampton this should allow us to make some £10M+ on a consistent basis.
Easy.
-
I think Dribbler's post sums up our problems perfectly.
-
Any youth set up strive to get at least on e player through to the first team. That we have done it repeatedly is something that we should laud and not quibble over who is/isn't a player from our youth team, or why there aren't world class players coming through. Man U of the early 90s were a one-off but is the standard every other team are judged by a freak of nature standard.
-
Any youth set up strive to get at least on e player through to the first team. That we have done it repeatedly is something that we should laud and not quibble over who is/isn't a player from our youth team, or why there aren't world class players coming through. Man U of the early 90s were a one-off but is the standard every other team are judged by a freak of nature standard.
The result of few teams bringing through few international/world class players is a poor England team. Unless young players are stretched and given time at 1st team level, they will never develop into top players but just hit that ceiling of mediocrity.
-
But that would translate to just about every team ever anywhere.
-
We did produce Dan Crowley, who looks like he's doing well in Arsenal's under 18s now.
This could be the "wonderkid" we've been waiting for our academy to produce:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/daniel-crowley-starred-with-2-goals-4-assists-as-arsenal-u18s-destroyed-peterborough-6-1-in-the-fa-youth-cup/
-
We did produce Dan Crowley, who looks like he's doing well in Arsenal's under 18s now.
This could be the "wonderkid" we've been waiting for our academy to produce:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/daniel-crowley-starred-with-2-goals-4-assists-as-arsenal-u18s-destroyed-peterborough-6-1-in-the-fa-youth-cup/
That's hardly going to make us feel any better considering he's buggered off to another club.
-
We did produce Dan Crowley, who looks like he's doing well in Arsenal's under 18s now.
This could be the "wonderkid" we've been waiting for our academy to produce:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/daniel-crowley-starred-with-2-goals-4-assists-as-arsenal-u18s-destroyed-peterborough-6-1-in-the-fa-youth-cup/
That's hardly going to make us feel any better considering he's buggered off to another club.
Feck me he looks like a potential world beater on the evidence of those highlights!
-
We did produce Dan Crowley, who looks like he's doing well in Arsenal's under 18s now.
This could be the "wonderkid" we've been waiting for our academy to produce:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/daniel-crowley-starred-with-2-goals-4-assists-as-arsenal-u18s-destroyed-peterborough-6-1-in-the-fa-youth-cup/
That's hardly going to make us feel any better considering he's buggered off to another club.
Feck me he looks like a potential world beater on the evidence of those highlights!
He looks mustard. Shame he's gone but credit to any of the coaches which have played a part in his development. Hopefully it will help us attract similar players in the future.
-
Crowley looks to have that silky smooth glide that marks out exceptional players
But an awful long way to go. Would be pretty annoyed if he did turn out to be the next superstar!
-
Reliably heard that Wenger personally 'schmoozed' Crowley and his family.
Although not ethical but we need to do more of the same if we're going to get the best talent into the academy.
Maybe (since Barry?) we're just a bit too fair?
-
Reliably heard that Wenger personally 'schmoozed' Crowley and his family.
Although not ethical but we need to do more of the same if we're going to get the best talent into the academy.
Maybe (since Barry?) we're just a bit too fair?
We've poached more kids than any other Academy. Harry Forrester for example, and before him Jlloyd Samuel and Liam Ridgewell.
-
Didn't Samir Carruthers come from Arsenal? And also Ciaran Clark or was I imgining that? I know we nicked a central defender off them that they rated.
-
Reliably heard that Wenger personally 'schmoozed' Crowley and his family.
Although not ethical but we need to do more of the same if we're going to get the best talent into the academy.
Maybe (since Barry?) we're just a bit too fair?
We've poached more kids than any other Academy. Harry Forrester for example, and before him Jlloyd Samuel and Liam Ridgewell.
Maybe need to get better at identify quality then lol
-
Carruthers came to us from Arsenal.
-
We did produce Dan Crowley, who looks like he's doing well in Arsenal's under 18s now.
This could be the "wonderkid" we've been waiting for our academy to produce:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/daniel-crowley-starred-with-2-goals-4-assists-as-arsenal-u18s-destroyed-peterborough-6-1-in-the-fa-youth-cup/
That's hardly going to make us feel any better considering he's buggered off to another club.
Feck me he looks like a potential world beater on the evidence of those highlights!
He looks mustard. Shame he's gone but credit to any of the coaches which have played a part in his development. Hopefully it will help us attract similar players in the future.
Yep, he looks like he has it all, albeit with a way to go. How annoying though if we've finally produced someone who can pass, shoot, cross, dribble, control , glide away from tackles play killer through ball, and dictate the play and we've lost him to another team.
-
Can`t see us winning the league with them, but at least we have a youth policy, which is commendable in this age.
-
Went to a Q&A with Sid, Tony Morley and Gary Shaw last night - all absolute gents BTW. Sid talked about Grealish, Carruthers and Graham in glowing terms. His opinion was that, of the three, Carruthers was 'ready' and hinted that he'd told Lambert this.
He also said Gardner has been really unlucky with loads of injuries and not just the major ones that we know about. He did say however that if he can get fully fit and get some games under his belt then 'we'll have a real player on our hands'
He rates Donacien as well.
-
Gardner could really do with going on loan to a Championship club and playing regularly for the rest of the season.
-
Yes I agree. He was ripping up that league with Coventry not so long ago let's not forget.
-
Yes I agree. He was ripping up that league with Coventry not so long ago let's not forget.
Are you sure about that?
-
Errr yes he did so well there we recalled him early I remember.
-
Coventry City (loan)[edit]
On 24 November 2011, Gardner joined Coventry City on an initial one-month loan deal.[11] Two days later, he scored just 9 minutes into his début for the club in a 2–1 defeat against Brighton & Hove Albion.[12] After making just four appearances for the Sky Blues in the Championship, Gardner was recalled from his loan spell by his parent club on 21 December.[13]
O.k maybe not! It was probably the scoring early on his debut that lead me to believe it.
-
Coventry City (loan)[edit]
On 24 November 2011, Gardner joined Coventry City on an initial one-month loan deal.[11] Two days later, he scored just 9 minutes into his début for the club in a 2–1 defeat against Brighton & Hove Albion.[12] After making just four appearances for the Sky Blues in the Championship, Gardner was recalled from his loan spell by his parent club on 21 December.[13]
O.k maybe not! It was probably the scoring early on his debut that lead me to believe it.
I have friends who follow Cov, I think his
brief stay was unremarkable.
-
I seem to remember Cov wanting to keep him and being disappointed when we recalled him.
-
They did go down that season so it wasn't like their team was packed with much quality.
-
My recollection of that is that there manager at the time (an ex Palarse and Wimbledon player whose name escapes me) wanted to keep him on a permanent deal, but knew this would be unlikely. So he must have made some kind of impression.
He was recalled soon after we got an injury to Jermaine Genius, rather than because he wasn't doing too well at Cov.
-
Obviously, our academy isn't too shit:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeV7CwFCMAAzJyz.jpg)
Average number of Academy players starting this season.
-
The manager in question was Andy Thorn. It is Catch 22 with Gardner. You want him to play regularly to get fit but he is also out of contract in the summer so Lambert might want evidence of what he can do in the first team before deciding on whether to offer new terms.
-
The manager in question was Andy Thorn. It is Catch 22 with Gardner. You want him to play regularly to get fit but he is also out of contract in the summer so Lambert might want evidence of what he can do in the first team before deciding on whether to offer new terms.
Agree, we should be doing either/or, at the moment we appear to be doing nothing. Is he still injured?
-
He was on the bench at the weekend I think.
-
Obviously, our academy isn't too shit:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeV7CwFCMAAzJyz.jpg)
Average number of Academy players starting this season.
Interesting that. Noticable that Barcelona and Bayern Munich both appear high up in their respective countries too.
It'll be where Man City and Chelsea eventually come un-stuck as at some point the owners will get bored.
-
That chart is absolutely key to why Barcelona have the success they do, they have a remarkable academy and having a b team in a competitive league means they don't really have to loan many people out so the vast majority of their squad have played 'the Barcelona way' since they were about 10 and all the kids model themselves on the first team players. It's Cryuff's lasting legacy for the football world and a truly brilliant vision on how to build a club. If we can get close to that not only would we benefit immensely but we'd also provide a fantastic platform for the home nations to become competitive at international level.
This is why I've said repeatedly that all the money from Lerner should have been focused on building exactly that, rather than buying people like Heskey and Dunne to just bleed us dry.
-
The injury right at the start of last season robbed him of any chance of impressing Lambert. He would've certainly play a decent number of games given everyone else in midfield did.
I'd give him a 1 year deal as he's lost 2 years of his career to bad injuries really.
-
The problem with having a youth focused approach at an English club is that English kids are just nowhere near as good as German or spanish. Villa can do something about that but it requires a concerted effort
-
The problem with having a youth focused approach at an English club is that English kids are just nowhere near as good as German or spanish. Villa can do something about that but it requires a concerted effort
That's just not true. Genetics are important but the gene pool isn't anything like 'pure' enough for some countries to have a huge genetic advantage, if you could measure it I'm sure you'd find that the percentage of kids with the aptitude to be professional footballers at the age of 8-9 is pretty standard across europe. There are 2 major problems for the home nations:
1. There are a lot of alternatives to football. I'd bet that a number of people in other sports have everything they need to football players at the highest level but it's not the path they've chosen. This is the same reason why America struggles.
2. Our coaching and scouting are poor. The ratio of scouts and qualified coaches to players in British football is abysmal compared to the top nations in europe, with each coach being responsible for 5 or 6 times as many players as in other countries, just like any form of teaching smaller groups are much more likely to succeed, if the standard of teaching/coaching is suitable.
Sticking with La Masia, they have around 300 players and 24 coaches with every coach fully qualified or working towards that with every age group focused on core requirements to ensure that when they get to Barcelona B and the first team they're ready to be there, look how many of the kids come into their side and look like they belong there, it's because they do, they've trained since they were 8 or 9 years old to play for the Barcelona first team. The vast majority who drop out after 12 go on to be professional footballers because even if they weren't good enough for Barcelona they have the basic technical skills to be picked up by someone else pretty quickly.
-
The problem with having a youth focused approach at an English club is that English kids are just nowhere near as good as German or spanish. Villa can do something about that but it requires a concerted effort
The wisdom at the moment (see the recent Martinez interview) is that we do okay up to the late teens, but fail in the early twenties. Martinez blames the fact that the youngsters do not play enough (need feeder clubs).
-
The problem with having a youth focused approach at an English club is that English kids are just nowhere near as good as German or spanish. Villa can do something about that but it requires a concerted effort
The wisdom at the moment (see the recent Martinez interview) is that we do okay up to the late teens, but fail in the early twenties. Martinez blames the fact that the youngsters do not play enough (need feeder clubs).
I'm not sure about being similar in their late teens but the drop-off is certainly evident. As Paul says, the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid have B teams but I would also imagine that the lack of finance that other Spanish clubs have means they have to bring young players straight through to the first team. The success of the Premier League actually works against us in this regard because it results in bringing over foreign players who are ready to go into the first team.
If we could ever be in a position of having 300+ kids on the books at any one time, the appropriate number of youth coaches, the facilities for these numbers and the right quality of coaching and scouting, it would be fantastic for club.
-
The problem with having a youth focused approach at an English club is that English kids are just nowhere near as good as German or spanish. Villa can do something about that but it requires a concerted effort
That's just not true. Genetics are important but the gene pool isn't anything like 'pure' enough for some countries to have a huge genetic advantage, if you could measure it I'm sure you'd find that the percentage of kids with the aptitude to be professional footballers at the age of 8-9 is pretty standard across europe. There are 2 major problems for the home nations:
1. There are a lot of alternatives to football. I'd bet that a number of people in other sports have everything they need to football players at the highest level but it's not the path they've chosen. This is the same reason why America struggles.
2. Our coaching and scouting are poor. The ratio of scouts and qualified coaches to players in British football is abysmal compared to the top nations in europe, with each coach being responsible for 5 or 6 times as many players as in other countries, just like any form of teaching smaller groups are much more likely to succeed, if the standard of teaching/coaching is suitable.
Sticking with La Masia, they have around 300 players and 24 coaches with every coach fully qualified or working towards that with every age group focused on core requirements to ensure that when they get to Barcelona B and the first team they're ready to be there, look how many of the kids come into their side and look like they belong there, it's because they do, they've trained since they were 8 or 9 years old to play for the Barcelona first team. The vast majority who drop out after 12 go on to be professional footballers because even if they weren't good enough for Barcelona they have the basic technical skills to be picked up by someone else pretty quickly.
Too true. Plus it is still win at all costs in this country at junior level and play the big n because he has the physical strength. Ive seen it with my own kids as their coach says boot it away when they have time to control and pass. Parents dont help either, wanting instant success and little Johnny to do well over the team.
We also play 11 a side on full size pitches way too soon. Should be banned until they are 14
-
Um, I certainly didn't say anything about genes!!
But our kids aren't as good. I've seen them play.
That's why I said it needs a concerted effort as Germany did after euro 2000. I'm not sure we've got the will, patience or structure to mirror that.
-
Um, I certainly didn't say anything about genes!!
But our kids aren't as good. I've seen them play.
That's why I said it needs a concerted effort as Germany did after euro 2000. I'm not sure we've got the will, patience or structure to mirror that.
Our kids aren't as good because no has that style structure in place, us, west ham, southampton and 1 or 2 others have an attempt at this kind of structure but for most of the premier league the 'youth development' side of th eclub involves stealing the best of the 15-16 year olds from as many other clubs as thy can, often abroad where the coaching at earlier ages has been appropriate.
-
I sometimes think that the problem with our youth set up is around winning.
We are great winning at youth level, but is the focus too much on winning rather than the technical aspect of actually playing the game?
-
I sometimes think that the problem with our youth set up is around winning.
We are great winning at youth level, but is the focus too much on winning rather than the technical aspect of actually playing the game?
In the past that was certainly true but there has been a bit of a shift of focus in the past ten years or so. Wenger certain seems to think that there is no difference technically between his British youth players and the rest signed from abroad. These technically adept players are probably only just starting to reach adulthood so possibly too early to say whether the shift has worked.
Martinez uses the fact we win things (13-21yrs) as evidence that our system works up to the early twenties and fails after that. We have reserve and youth football whereas on the continent there are feeder clubs and B teams which are set up to mirror the tactics of the team at the top of the pyramid (Castillo = Madrid, Barca B = Barca etc).