Here's a stat for you.....

[spudski]

.... research showed that 83% of players in the quarter-finals of the Champions League over the previous 10 years had played first-team football from the age of 17.

That is quite a stat...and one Man City had noted.

It's also noted that Academy players in this country are getting less first team starts...however abroad it's different.

I think we are hoping to buck a trend here.

[Midlands Robin]

I've long held the belief that if you're good enough you are ready. It's been posted in other threads along similar lines but if you look at national teams such as Germany and Spain, their youth squads pretty much translate into their national sides over a period of time. You look at the England national youth teams right up to under 21 level and look how many of those go on to break into the senior squad.

I do think it is starting to change. The big problem is clubs (Chelsea being a classic example) hording youth players. There should be some sort of 'use them or lose them' arrangement on youth contracts so that opportunities are less restricted. 

Another big problem is the demand for instant success where as young players need time to develop.

[spudski]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

I've long held the belief that if you're good enough you are ready. It's been posted in other threads along similar lines but if you look at national teams such as Germany and Spain, their youth squads pretty much translate into their national sides over a period of time. You look at the England national youth teams right up to under 21 level and look how many of those go on to break into the senior squad.

I do think it is starting to change. The big problem is clubs (Chelsea being a classic example) hording youth players. There should be some sort of 'use them or lose them' arrangement on youth contracts so that opportunities are less restricted. 

Another big problem is the demand for instant success where as young players need time to develop.

A lot of the bigger English Clubs are loaning kids out abroad to get first team experience. They don't want to risk it here. Too much pressure and too much to lose it seems.

[Midlands Robin]

 

Just now, spudski said:

A lot of the bigger English Clubs are loaning kids out abroad to get first team experience. They don't want to risk it here. Too much pressure and too much to lose it seems.

I've just looked at how many players Chelsea have on loan and how many they have in their under 23 and youth squad. What shocked me most wasn't the number of players but the amount of English players. When you compare those numbers to how many are in their actual first team squad the difference is huge. You have to wonder where all those English players go or why they can't push on. 

[Abraham Romanovich]

Or altenatively as Mike Basset would say  if you are old enough you're good enough .

[downendcity]

7 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

I've long held the belief that if you're good enough you are ready. It's been posted in other threads along similar lines but if you look at national teams such as Germany and Spain, their youth squads pretty much translate into their national sides over a period of time. You look at the England national youth teams right up to under 21 level and look how many of those go on to break into the senior squad.

I do think it is starting to change. The big problem is clubs (Chelsea being a classic example) hording youth players. There should be some sort of 'use them or lose them' arrangement on youth contracts so that opportunities are less restricted. 

Another big problem is the demand for instant success where as young players need time to develop.

Completely agree MR.

I think one of the problems in this country is that managers in the premier league operate under the fear of failure and when push comes to shove, they will prefer to bring in and play  an experienced player from abroad rather than one of their own young academy players.

Of course this creates a catch 22 issue, in that the only reason the foreign import is experienced and "capable" is because he was getting first team experience at 18/19 at the club where he developed, but our own young players are then deprived of the same opportunity because their manager doesn't trust them and the foreign import blocks their progress.

You only have to look at comments on here during the transfer window, when many posters advocated that we need players with "proven championship experience" if we are going to compete at this level, and that it is no good bring in players " for the future".  

 

 

[1960maaan]

The Prem is completely money focused and nothing else , nope , not even trophy's. If winning were the be all and end all you wouldn't get weak teams playing in the cups. The total focus is top 4 and Champ League riches , Arsenal prime example , qualify top 4 and give up after group stages. This short sightedness also means success now or go, managers and players, so there isn't the time or inclination to give a promising youngster time to gel in a team. Far easier to let foreign teams take the risk and let him earn his spurs abroad and if he cuts it then bring him back.

I caught the end of a report (so didn't catch the team or players name) a young lad is playing in Germany and picking up awards yet not deemed good enough here. Just read that back and it's a shit anecdote with no names , but point being , lad playing regularly in the German top flight and winning awards can't get near his own teams starting line up. 
There's also the Chelsea 20 year old who Tweeted about getting nothing back for hard work (now deleted) , he's on loan and (Real Betis maybe) clearly becoming disillusioned . I hope this is the beginning , where young talent joins a team they will actually get games. Then , when they prove themselves big clubs buy them and use them. This would also go back to the old system where transfer cash filters down, just like it should do.
I have my doubt though, at 14,15,16 , if Chelsea or City (not the real one the northern one) come calling offering £15k a week who would turn in down? 

 

[Major Isewater]

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Completely agree MR.

I think one of the problems in this country is that managers in the premier league operate under the fear of failure and when push comes to shove, they will prefer to bring in and play  an experienced player from abroad rather than one of their own young academy players.

Of course this creates a catch 22 issue, in that the only reason the foreign import is experienced and "capable" is because he was getting first team experience at 18/19 at the club where he developed, but our own young players are then deprived of the same opportunity because their manager doesn't trust them and the foreign import blocks their progress.

You only have to look at comments on here during the transfer window, when many posters advocated that we need players with "proven championship experience" if we are going to compete at this level, and that it is no good bring in players " for the future".  

 

 

It's the balance that is all important.

A team full of inexperienced kids is  not going to survive in this League neither is a team of old pros . 

Mix them up and the energy and nous should be there.

[spudski]

Another problem we've had in this country, is Academy Coach's have been doing the same as the first team managers.

Instead of developing the players, they have set up to win academy games instead. To save their jobs....which is madness.

I've often read on here that 'winning at academy level is all important, to give that winning mentality'....it really doesn't work like that. Winning at all costs, whilst ignoring challenging and developing a player is wrong and not beneficial to the club or player long term.

Get it right and the results will come....but it's not the main aim in development football.

[Midlands Robin]

7 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

if Chelsea or City (not the real one the northern one) come calling offering £15k a week who would turn in down? 

Maybe that's a solution. A wage cap on players under 23. It would be an incentive for the player to push on as they want to get the big bucks as much as anyone else. They would be cheaper on all clubs to sign and use in the first team over some overpriced Johnny Foreigner and it reduces the pressure / distraction that young players face when handed huge amounts of money and all the trappings / hangers on that brings with it. 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Maybe that's a solution. A wage cap on players under 23. It would be an incentive for the player to push on as they want to get the big bucks as much as anyone else. They would be cheaper on all clubs to sign and use in the first team over some overpriced Johnny Foreigner and it reduces the pressure / distraction that young players face when handed huge amounts of money and all the trappings / hangers on that brings with it. 

There's probably some law that says you can't put a wage cap, only a minimum.

[Ian M]

26 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Maybe that's a solution. A wage cap on players under 23. It would be an incentive for the player to push on as they want to get the big bucks as much as anyone else. They would be cheaper on all clubs to sign and use in the first team over some overpriced Johnny Foreigner and it reduces the pressure / distraction that young players face when handed huge amounts of money and all the trappings / hangers on that brings with it. 

Introduce levels based on League appearances for the first team so you can give a higher wage to under 23s if they are regularly playing first team Football. For example, Rashford should be able to paid more playing in United's first team than Solanke was going out on loan to Arnhem etc.

[One Team In Keynsham]

27 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

It's the balance that is all important.

A team full of inexperienced kids is  not going to survive in this League neither is a team of old pros . 

Mix them up and the energy and nous should be there.

It's true: it has been proved even in the top flight that you can't win anything with kids.

[Midlands Robin]

 

2 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Introduce levels based on League appearances for the first team so you can give a higher wage to under 23s if they are regularly playing first team Football. For example, Rashford should be able to paid more playing in United's first team than Solanke was going out on loan to Arnhem etc.

I thought about that as idea but then I thought clubs may use it as an excuse not to play players because it would cost them more if they'd made so many appearances. Obviously that wouldn't be so much of an issue in the Prem but at lower levels it could start to become a problem. I think we've all read about players on a transfer deal of cash plus fee on appearances who have subsequently not been started so they don't trigger that clause.

[1960maaan]

27 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

Maybe that's a solution. A wage cap on players under 23. It would be an incentive for the player to push on as they want to get the big bucks as much as anyone else. They would be cheaper on all clubs to sign and use in the first team over some overpriced Johnny Foreigner and it reduces the pressure / distraction that young players face when handed huge amounts of money and all the trappings / hangers on that brings with it. 

 

24 minutes ago, spudski said:

There's probably some law that says you can't put a wage cap, only a minimum.

I've thought for some time , you can't cap wages that's what Jimmy Hill fought against, maybe have a system where anyone under the age of say 18 has a large % of his wages put in a trust. Obviously this would have to be earnings over , say , £3k a week. A massive sum for real people but a regular thing in football these days. Still may not change things too much , but with the immediacy of all things football , if the wages here and now were the same the player may choose a Championship side offering game and he'd get the same wage now.

[Ian M]

1 minute ago, Midlands Robin said:

 

I thought about that as idea but then I thought clubs may use it as an excuse not to play players because it would cost them more if they'd made so many appearances. Obviously that wouldn't be so much of an issue in the Prem but at lower levels it could start to become a problem. I think we've all read about players on a transfer deal of cash plus fee on appearances who have subsequently not been started so they don't trigger that clause.

The converse is that players might stay at a smaller club that was allowed to pay them more because they can give them first team wages, a way of negating the big clubs' spending power. Of course this is a pointless debate because there's no way they'd vote it in 

[Midlands Robin]

Just now, Ian M said:

Of course this is a pointless debate because there's no way they'd vote it in 

Yeah, they should put us in charge 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

 

I've thought for some time , you can't cap wages that's what Jimmy Hill fought against, maybe have a system where anyone under the age of say 18 has a large % of his wages put in a trust. Obviously this would have to be earnings over , say , £3k a week. A massive sum for real people but a regular thing in football these days. Still may not change things too much , but with the immediacy of all things football , if the wages here and now were the same the player may choose a Championship side offering game and he'd get the same wage now.

I think it definitely needs to be addressed.

Wages for some Academy players are ridiculous, and imo, stunts their drive. If you are earning 20k at somewhere like Man Utd as an Academy player, it's going to mentally alter your desire.

For me....all Academy players are like an 'apprentice'. They should be on 'apprentice ' type wages. Or none....you don't get paid to go to University. Being in an Academy is like being at University. Costs should be covered etc.

A 'Professional' contract shouldn't be signed until you've at least made the first team squad imo.

The money saved in wages by Clubs, could be put in a fund, for all those players that don't make it. It could be used in helping them find alternate careers either in football or elsewhere, so they aren't just binned into the outside world.

This way players would have the drive to make it...plus a safety net if they don't.

[1960maaan]

Again, @spudski , it's all money.
Big Club 'A'. see's a player with potential , offers large wages and signs. Now in the olden days it would mean because he's in their plans for the future. These days it means they know if they keep him there for a few years probably 1 of 4 things will happen.

1) He turns out to be a world beater and he plays for them. 100-1 shot
2) He turns out to be very good and they sell him on for a large fee and move to the next target.
3) He turns out ok , moves to a lower club for a good fee and they move to the next target.
4) He crashes and burns doesn't make any real progress  , they ditch him write off the wages spent and move on to the next target.

Never does the players well being (beyond League rules) come into it , it's all potential selling fee in their eyes and I can see little changing that. 
Even the League aids into that allowing Cat 1 academies to buy players from lower cat's academies for a pittance. 
 

[cider-manc]

19 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

It's true: it has been proved even in the top flight that you can't win anything with kids.

I know you are making a joke but I always feel a bit sorry for Hansen with that quote. He was commenting on the loss of one game in which Manchester United played a particularly young, inexperienced team.

7 of the players who made the most appearances for United that year were Schmeichel, Bruce, Irwin, Cole, Giggs, Keane and Cantona. all of whom were established first team players. The team that lost at Villa on the opening day only had Schmeichel, Irwin and Keane from that lot in it. 

 Gary Neville, Nicky Butt and Ryan Giggs (who as mentioned was already established in the first team) were the only players from the class of 92 that actually played week in week out for that team. The rest did play but were generally used as substitutes or for squad rotation... alongside other spring chickens such as Gary Pallister and Brian McClair!

Anyways... my point being that SAF didn't just send out a team of kids every week. He blended young talented but inexperienced players with established players. Much like what is being discussed in the rest of the thread.

 

[One BCFC]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

Another problem we've had in this country, is Academy Coach's have been doing the same as the first team managers.

Instead of developing the players, they have set up to win academy games instead. To save their jobs....which is madness.

I've often read on here that 'winning at academy level is all important, to give that winning mentality'....it really doesn't work like that. Winning at all costs, whilst ignoring challenging and developing a player is wrong and not beneficial to the club or player long term.

Get it right and the results will come....but it's not the main aim in development football.

I am definitely of the view that these youth and academy games are purely experimental friendlies and shouldnt be seen as a mark against anyone if someone loses a match. These youth players need to be experimented in every single position on the pitch for at least 10 games each so it makes them a more complete player. 

The other issue I have is that coaches are no longer letting these kids have freedom on the pitch to express themselves, why not try and take a player on, surely that should be rewarded for their courage to create a goal. If they get tackled then that is ok as they will learn from what went wrong.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, BA14 RED said:

I am definitely of the view that these youth and academy games are purely experimental friendlies and shouldnt be seen as a mark against anyone if someone loses a match. These youth players need to be experimented in every single position on the pitch for at least 10 games each so it makes them a more complete player. 

The other issue I have is that coaches are no longer letting these kids have freedom on the pitch to express themselves, why not try and take a player on, surely that should be rewarded for their courage to create a goal. If they get tackled then that is ok as they will learn from what went wrong.

I don't think that's the case with every coach these days mate...it used to be, but they are getting players to challenge themselves, express themselves and learn from their mistakes.

[simon uk]

Also re hansen and the don’t win with kids quote. They happened to develop a once in a generation group of talent, who were good enough to be brought in, which made him look wrong. In most normal cases he would be right.

[Fiale]

 

4 hours ago, spudski said:

There's probably some law that says you can't put a wage cap, only a minimum.

 

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

 

I've thought for some time , you can't cap wages that's what Jimmy Hill fought against, maybe have a system where anyone under the age of say 18 has a large % of his wages put in a trust. Obviously this would have to be earnings over , say , £3k a week. A massive sum for real people but a regular thing in football these days. Still may not change things too much , but with the immediacy of all things football , if the wages here and now were the same the player may choose a Championship side offering game and he'd get the same wage now.

 

There is still wage banding in many jobs. NHS for example, so there is a way to do it that's legal.

[ExiledAjax]

45 minutes ago, Fiale said:

 

 

 

There is still wage banding in many jobs. NHS for example, so there is a way to do it that's legal.

I believe it's ok so long as it is linked to experience rather than age.  Obviously in effect that generally does the same job...but the devil is in the detail.

[City Ben]

2 hours ago, Fiale said:

 

 

 

There is still wage banding in many jobs. NHS for example, so there is a way to do it that's legal.

I imagine The difference would be that banding is just an employer deciding what to pay its staff, not a legally imposed cap on wages. For example, a nurse might have the opportunity to move to a private clinic and earn more. If the other employer can pay more they are able to. So I think it’s a different concept. 

[One Team In Keynsham]

4 hours ago, cider-manc said:

I know you are making a joke but I always feel a bit sorry for Hansen with that quote. He was commenting on the loss of one game in which Manchester United played a particularly young, inexperienced team.

7 of the players who made the most appearances for United that year were Schmeichel, Bruce, Irwin, Cole, Giggs, Keane and Cantona. all of whom were established first team players. The team that lost at Villa on the opening day only had Schmeichel, Irwin and Keane from that lot in it. 

 Gary Neville, Nicky Butt and Ryan Giggs (who as mentioned was already established in the first team) were the only players from the class of 92 that actually played week in week out for that team. The rest did play but were generally used as substitutes or for squad rotation... alongside other spring chickens such as Gary Pallister and Brian McClair!

Anyways... my point being that SAF didn't just send out a team of kids every week. He blended young talented but inexperienced players with established players. Much like what is being discussed in the rest of the thread.

 

 

2 hours ago, simon uk said:

Also re hansen and the don’t win with kids quote. They happened to develop a once in a generation group of talent, who were good enough to be brought in, which made him look wrong. In most normal cases he would be right.

My comment was very much in jest.

This was the actual team put out:

Of the starting XI, Schmeichel, Parker, Irwin, Pallister, Sharpe, Keane, and McClair were all experienced players, even if Sharpe was possibly on the down slope of his career at that point.

And I agree with @simon uk, that crop of youth players was a once-in-a-generation affair.

I was watching Gary Neville's Soccerbox the other night, and John Barnes was on, and they were talking about the 3-3 draw at Anfield in 1994 (Barnes was playing and Neville was in the away end), a few weeks before we played them: Barnes commented that he didn't think there was much between the youth crop at United and at Liverpool in that era in terms of ability, but the coaching and mentoring was vastly different and, in his view, explains the success the class of 92 had and the lack enjoyed by Liverpool.

[22A]

Another stat mentioned on Sky last night.

This time last year Cardiff, Shrewsbury & Exeter were all 23rd in their respective Divisions. Currently all three are top of their Divisions.