The Myth of our youth policy

[paul_e]

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.

[ktvillan]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Dante Lavelli]

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

[paul_e]

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).

[oldhill_avfc]

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.

[ktvillan]

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.

[onje_villa]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

[dcdavecollett]

I think Dribbler's post sums up our problems perfectly.

[peter w]

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.

[old man villa fan]

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.