Academy Issues

[Shtanley]

12 minutes ago, phantom said:

Confused by what you have said there. It reads as if GJ didn't use academy players as he wanted his brother to be head of the youth academy ?

How does not using players get his brother into that position? Surely as manager he had the final say anyway?

 

One thing I have found interesting this season is how on a number of occasions we have had a subs bench not full, in the past we've heard that a youth player was taken as part of the matchday squad to gain experience of it - are we to assume that Cotts therefore has no interest in bringing anything from the academy through?

Yes, that's what was happening. Ridiculous. He didn't want the Scottish guy who's name I've forgotten to be head of youth he instead wanted his brother. So when the guy refused to quit he basically said he'd never use any of his academy players. I didn't believe it at first because it sounded preposterous but it's true. 

 

RE Cotts not using the bench, it's simply him trying to force the boards hand into spending more money, he hopes the fans see the lack of another sub and side with Cotts that clearly we don't have the strength of squad. Which is pretty stupid I'd much rather he put anyone on there regardless if they're an academy player. We've got a few good youth players who'll start featuring in some capacity either near the back end of this season or the start of the next one either here or on loan. 

[Ashton98]

another reason i believe we lose a lot of games is because they play the same formation as the first team. which in my opinion is stupid as the time these young players come through it will be likely that Cotterill wont be in charge . i believe we should play whatever formation that the coaches of these teams thinks best suites the players 

[Numero Uno]

You would like to think that good young players have a "winning mentality" regardless of how the results actually go. In the younger age groups it is about teaching them to play, allowing them to express themselves and developing. That doesn't stop as you go up the age groups but gradually the boys are being taught the tactical side of the game, how to "see a game out" etc. If the boys are not "winners" they shouldn't be there full stop.

In my experience of BCFC Academy and the one over the bridge who just smashed us 4-0 I would say it is the quality of the Academy itself in terms of coaches, scouting and the way they develop players is where the problem might lie, nothing to do with a losing mentality. My son has experienced both to varying degrees and I know which Academy I think is better.

[SuperRed]

Herbie Kane - Liverpool

Jacob Maddox - Chelsea

Aaron Davies - Fulham

Put those three back into last nights team and we might have one 4-0 and everybody would be saying how great the academy is. Unfortunately the sytem is what it is.

[The Bard]

20 minutes ago, Moor2Sea said:

I'm old school, never bought into this leftie 'winning doesn't matter' nonsense.

The Academy has had decades of this philosophy and it has served only to strengthen my belief that those in the AshtonYate (RIP) camp are correct. On virtually any measure the Academy has been a disaster. We would have been far better investing the millions in a decent scouting system that would have delivered far more first team talent.

I'd always put my money on a team of winners and fighters who have a dose of natural talent and athleticism playing a load of pampered show ponies who play tippy-tappy possession football. 

Cotterill's post Sheffield Utd defeat 'I'm a winner' statement was music to my ears. 

Sorry, but the mentality you refer to is not, and never has been 'leftie' or left wing.  It's a typical tactic of right wing media and politicians to label anything they don't like as being Socialist or left wing and is complete bollox.  The non-competitive thing in schools is an idea of the comfortable, liberal, middle class. I had the same thing at my son's Primary school.  They picked an 'inclusive' football team and got hammered as a result.  However, when it came to picking who would play the lead roles in school plays etc, the more talented performers were chosen - a contradiction that the head didn't see until it was pointed out to her.

 

In my experience children are unbelievably competitive.  The competition thing is not about the kids' development but more about their parents living out their lost dreams through their kids and (I think significantly) the prestige of the clubs they play for.  Kids play to win and good football coaches work not just on the players technically but also on having the right mentality, learning to be part of a team etc.  Non competitive before senior school age is correct, after that kids need to be playing competitions.

 

Academies tend to pick the precocious types who shine at a younger age.  What they should be doing more of is picking the intelligent ones with good learning skills.  This should allow the coaches to get the most improvement.  The Germans concentrate their recruitment at 11 years old and the key characteristic they look for is movement off the ball - the surest sign of a good football brain.  If they have a weak left foot, the solution is simple - coach them to improve their technique.  

You rightly talk about the players being pampered, but, they are pampered due to the obscene amounts of money around them.    This is not a left wing thing.  Modern football is a manifestation of the free market, a right wing wet dream. 

Our academy is not 'leftie'.  It's simply not very good.  It has a poor reputation amongst parents meaning that players in demand tend to chose other academies because both the players and their parents can see that it's the better option.  It has produced some players but a small amount in terms of what you would expect from the area.  Basically players have come through the ranks in spite of the Academy not because of it.  Southampton have things right at the 16 to 20 age group because they are looking to produce first team players. They push their players as opposed to distrusting them.  They're bold and have got their reward for it.

 

When we put someone on the board with experience, skills and power akin to Les Reed at Southampton we will start to see improvements.  Concentrating on scouting kids is pointless without the infrastructure behind it.  Improve what you offer talented young players in terms of their development (not cash incentives) and they will want to sign for us.  At the moment, not enough do.

[RedRock]

So sorry, but a quick check of Internet reveals ..... election in 2010 saw a change in education policy and re-emergence of competitive sport...reversing the decline in competitive sport brought about by left-wing Councils that scorned it as elitist and insisted on PC activities with no winners or losers. 

No axe to grind politically, think they are all as bad as eachother and would love it if we could send all political and religious people up to the space station and let the rest of us get on with life based on logic and commonsense. 

 

[cider city red 81]

13 hours ago, The Bard said:

Sorry, but the mentality you refer to is not, and never has been 'leftie' or left wing.  It's a typical tactic of right wing media and politicians to label anything they don't like as being Socialist or left wing and is complete bollox.  The non-competitive thing in schools is an idea of the comfortable, liberal, middle class. I had the same thing at my son's Primary school.  They picked an 'inclusive' football team and got hammered as a result.  However, when it came to picking who would play the lead roles in school plays etc, the more talented performers were chosen - a contradiction that the head didn't see until it was pointed out to her.

 

In my experience children are unbelievably competitive.  The competition thing is not about the kids' development but more about their parents living out their lost dreams through their kids and (I think significantly) the prestige of the clubs they play for.  Kids play to win and good football coaches work not just on the players technically but also on having the right mentality, learning to be part of a team etc.  Non competitive before senior school age is correct, after that kids need to be playing competitions.

 

Academies tend to pick the precocious types who shine at a younger age.  What they should be doing more of is picking the intelligent ones with good learning skills.  This should allow the coaches to get the most improvement.  The Germans concentrate their recruitment at 11 years old and the key characteristic they look for is movement off the ball - the surest sign of a good football brain.  If they have a weak left foot, the solution is simple - coach them to improve their technique.  

You rightly talk about the players being pampered, but, they are pampered due to the obscene amounts of money around them.    This is not a left wing thing.  Modern football is a manifestation of the free market, a right wing wet dream. 

Our academy is not 'leftie'.  It's simply not very good.  It has a poor reputation amongst parents meaning that players in demand tend to chose other academies because both the players and their parents can see that it's the better option.  It has produced some players but a small amount in terms of what you would expect from the area.  Basically players have come through the ranks in spite of the Academy not because of it.  Southampton have things right at the 16 to 20 age group because they are looking to produce first team players. They push their players as opposed to distrusting them.  They're bold and have got their reward for it.

 

When we put someone on the board with experience, skills and power akin to Les Reed at Southampton we will start to see improvements.  Concentrating on scouting kids is pointless without the infrastructure behind it.  Improve what you offer talented young players in terms of their development (not cash incentives) and they will want to sign for us.  At the moment, not enough do.

Does it matter "left wing"; "right wing"?

If they gonna be pro they should learn all positions