3 New Academy Coaches...

[cdbearsfan]

Our 12 year olds should be good enough to comfortably finish ahead of Small Heath's under 18s. Scratch that, their first team.

[LeonW]

Isn't part of the 'issue' with our youth set up that we are pushing players to play at a higher age. So our U23s is filled with 17/18 year olds, our U18s with 16/17 year olds.

I think that is a great policy for developing our players, but surely we have to accept that we will probably struggle to win a lot of matches as a result.

If young players are playing against older age categories, that is a good thing. That young player will learn way more doing so and develop new traits then playing in their own age group and wining all the time. Ajax use to do that in the 80’s and 90’s with their kids and worked out pretty well.

[Legion]

Well all the academy teams have been rubbish this year.

It's about players coming through, not results.

Correct.

[boozey182]

Isn't part of the 'issue' with our youth set up that we are pushing players to play at a higher age. So our U23s is filled with 17/18 year olds, our U18s with 16/17 year olds.

I think that is a great policy for developing our players, but surely we have to accept that we will probably struggle to win a lot of matches as a result.

If young players are playing against older age categories, that is a good thing. That young player will learn way more doing so and develop new traits then playing in their own age group and wining all the time. Ajax use to do that in the 80’s and 90’s with their kids and worked out pretty well.

Oh absolutely. I'm all for it as a strategy It was more to suggest that it isn't just about results at that level, as others have said. We're building up players to be ready for the first team, and the amount that we've got coming through suggests that this has been working.

[LeonW]

Isn't part of the 'issue' with our youth set up that we are pushing players to play at a higher age. So our U23s is filled with 17/18 year olds, our U18s with 16/17 year olds.

I think that is a great policy for developing our players, but surely we have to accept that we will probably struggle to win a lot of matches as a result.

If young players are playing against older age categories, that is a good thing. That young player will learn way more doing so and develop new traits then playing in their own age group and wining all the time. Ajax use to do that in the 80’s and 90’s with their kids and worked out pretty well.

Oh absolutely. I'm all for it as a strategy It was more to suggest that it isn't just about results at that level, as others have said. We're building up players to be ready for the first team, and the amount that we've got coming through suggests that this has been working.

In total agreement with you. Young players have to be allowed to make mistakes. It’s far better to do that in a safe environment and where they learn from it. Hopefully Ramsey is just the start, we’ll see.

[Lastfootstamper]

If you've got to 22 and not had a sniff of first team action, you ain't gunna.

[paul_e]

3 appointments and a bit of a shuffling of the deck suggests, to me, that the idea that Gerrard was behind Delaney leaving was wide of the mark. This looks like something they've been building towards for a while.

[Matt C]

Given the amount of money we’ve invested in amassing youth talent I guess it’s no surprise the next thing under review is pathway to the first team.

[algy]

3 appointments and a bit of a shuffling of the deck suggests, to me, that the idea that Gerrard was behind Delaney leaving was wide of the mark. This looks like something they've been building towards for a while.

I agree.

Something I noticed last season was comments made by Cheltenham's manager that Aaron Ramsey was a bit off first teen football when he joined them. Louie Barry also struggled a bit for game time at Ipswich. The latter is either a bad error of judgement on who to loan him to (too much competition for his position) or that he wasn't as far along as Ipswich thought when they loaned him.

All I can think is that perhaps we've not had quite the right focus on developing players at Bodymoor Heath & might be placing more emphasis on having players who are prepared for first team football, so there's less of a 'getting up to speed' element to their loans.

[eamonn]

Isn't it Jedinak's job to source the optimum loan move for players?

[Smithy]

Isn't part of the 'issue' with our youth set up that we are pushing players to play at a higher age. So our U23s is filled with 17/18 year olds, our U18s with 16/17 year olds.

I think that is a great policy for developing our players, but surely we have to accept that we will probably struggle to win a lot of matches as a result.

If young players are playing against older age categories, that is a good thing. That young player will learn way more doing so and develop new traits then playing in their own age group and wining all the time. Ajax use to do that in the 80’s and 90’s with their kids and worked out pretty well.

Oh absolutely. I'm all for it as a strategy It was more to suggest that it isn't just about results at that level, as others have said. We're building up players to be ready for the first team, and the amount that we've got coming through suggests that this has been working.

In total agreement with you. Young players have to be allowed to make mistakes. It’s far better to do that in a safe environment and where they learn from it. Hopefully Ramsey is just the start, we’ll see.

This was precisely the point made by Purslow last year, I'm paraphrasing, but from memory he said something like "If your U23 side is full of 21 and 22-year-old's, then you've failed.  You need that team packed with the best 16/17/18 year olds.  If they're 22, they should be in the first team squad, or moved on, not playing U23 football for Aston Villa."

I guess that means we are never going to have a "dominant" U23 set-up, or necessarily the best youth teams.  And I'm OK with that. I suspect we'll give the FA Youth Cup a really good go every year, but the youth leagues feel much less important to the club, with younger players regularly missing games at their own age level to play an age level (or two) up.

As others have said, the real barometer for a youth system is players in the first team, and players sold on at enough of a profit to improve the first team.  I think right now we're doing more than OK in the first category, and if you include Jack, we've done pretty well in the second, too.

One youth player joining the first-team squad every year would be incredible (and pretty much unprecedented at Premier League level), with two or three others leaving each year for decent fees and generating a few million to pay for the academy and to top up the transfer coffers.

We have so many promising youth products right now that there is NO way they're all going to be first-team regulars, so they'll likely leave at some point, either by our choice, or theirs (see Chuck Jnr).

[Smithy]

3 appointments and a bit of a shuffling of the deck suggests, to me, that the idea that Gerrard was behind Delaney leaving was wide of the mark. This looks like something they've been building towards for a while.

I agree.

Something I noticed last season was comments made by Cheltenham's manager that Aaron Ramsey was a bit off first teen football when he joined them. Louie Barry also struggled a bit for game time at Ipswich. The latter is either a bad error of judgement on who to loan him to (too much competition for his position) or that he wasn't as far along as Ipswich thought when they loaned him.

All I can think is that perhaps we've not had quite the right focus on developing players at Bodymoor Heath & might be placing more emphasis on having players who are prepared for first team football, so there's less of a 'getting up to speed' element to their loans.

It might be that, it might also be that some players simply take to men's first-team football much more quickly than others.  I imagine Kesler-Hayden was prepared for his loans at Bodymoor in much the same way as Barry and Ramsey Jnr, but he thrived at both Swindon and MK Dons.  There comes a point where the players have to stand up and take responsibility themselves, if they are good enough. 

Maybe KKH is more mentally prepared for it?  But Barry, for example, was far better in the second half of the season than the first, and very popular with Swindon fans in the end, so maybe it just took KKH a couple of weeks to get comfortable with first-team games, but it took Barry a few months to do the same.

[Broadlee]

It was so simple in the early days.
After the first team you had the reserves. The point being that each of those players would be expected to step up into the first team if called on and press the first teamers to the point of stepping in permanently. Your in - so perform or loose the shirt to someone who can. Reserves or transfer in etc.
The youth were by definition the youth set up and if they couldn't cut it when stepping into the reserves they were moved on. Generally finding them playing in a lower league etc.

I get the programme of structured youth but in the old day lower league sides were a source for and relied on youth moulded into players to be sold to higher teams. This set up we have now is similar but cutting out the old routes, non league, 3rd 2nd Div player supply chains, just lending them back which has no real long term value to the club. But also its the Academy intent to raise the standard of footballers - does it work, is it better - possibly.
The down side, sad thing I have witnessed is that its like having a trawler out in the Sunday league kids league netting swathes of promising kids and the County FA and Premier league academy assessors try desperately to ensure, without success, that very very young players have to understand that they are not really Aston Villa or any professional club Players as such. Theirs is a long path to walk, so when they are told by the club coach they are not good enough, its extremely devastating and sometimes quite damaging when they are let go particularly when badly handle.  The demand for quality and higher abilities dictates this routine as the player progresses each year until they are then taken on as a professional contracted player.

As i said it was much simpler in the early days and easier to understand. I have been apart of youth teams that played against the reserves and first teamers :-) nothing like getting a kicking at 16 from a 33year old Geoff Vowden just because you went past him-- ouch

[eamonn]

Harder for a young striker to make his mark with cloggers 5-15 years older than him, than a defender.

[Dazvillain]

As we've said before, the best ones are on loan and in any case, looking at what we've got it's a bit knee-jerk to decide the entire policy isn't good enough.

Have we still got Jedinak in charge of loans players ?