England u17 world cup winners

[Robin1988]

19 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Its debatable if Chelsea are the best academy in England. A difficulty is that at 17 there are clubs capping first year pro salaries at £40000 a year - Liverpool, Southampton and Spur do this. Chelsea do not. Teenage first year pros in the Premier league can earn hundreds of thousands a year.

Debatable but they'd certainly have a case, think they won the FA Youth Cup four times in a row?

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Robin1988 said:

Debatable but they'd certainly have a case, think they won the FA Youth Cup four times in a row?

And it depends on your evaluation. According to EUFA they are not the best academy in England in their rankings. If you view an academies worth on how many players it provides for its XI on a regular basis now and historically again it is not Chelsea. 

 

[EnderMB]

On 19/01/2019 at 19:20, Robin1988 said:

Have to disagree here. They might not have the best record of promoting youth but if Chelsea come up to you and say "Does your son fancy playing for the best academy in England?" it's not a bad shout to say yes. For Man City, look at Ben Mee and Kieran Trippier. Both came through the academy, dropped down but are now back in the Prem playing at a very good standard. Sturridge too, injuries aside. Probably a few more I can't remember.

From a competitive standpoint, it's the best thing for a kid to do. They'll be playing with the best youngsters in England, and if they work their way to the top of the pile they'll be valued by someone, even if it's not the club they have a contact with.

With that being said, it's also a safety net. Becoming a professional footballer is really hard, and you make a lot of sacrifices to do it, from school to relationships. Getting £10k a week to play a game you love for two years nets you a cool £1m in your bank account, alongside all the free shit you could ever want as a young athlete. With that money, you can buy your parents a new house, buy yourself a fantastic apartment in the centre, clear all the debts your immediate family holds, and set yourself up for a fantastic future if this football thing doesn't pan out.

The safety net comes at a cost, in that you're not playing competitive football, and when you look at numerous successful national systems (Germany, Spain, Brazil) the key factor every single time was ensuring that talented youngsters are playing first-team, competitive football as much as possible during their formative years. Hell, it's why Sir Alex Ferguson used to ensure his squad had a certain number of academy players, alongside three other age groups.

I don't blame players for picking that safety net, and I don't blame Premier League teams for doing this. The amount of money in football is now so great that teams can stockpile all the talent they want, and youngsters would be foolish to not want a slice of that pie. They should also accept the truths, though, and realise that even a successful player might have limited their potential.

[Robin1988]

5 hours ago, EnderMB said:

From a competitive standpoint, it's the best thing for a kid to do. They'll be playing with the best youngsters in England, and if they work their way to the top of the pile they'll be valued by someone, even if it's not the club they have a contact with.

With that being said, it's also a safety net. Becoming a professional footballer is really hard, and you make a lot of sacrifices to do it, from school to relationships. Getting £10k a week to play a game you love for two years nets you a cool £1m in your bank account, alongside all the free shit you could ever want as a young athlete. With that money, you can buy your parents a new house, buy yourself a fantastic apartment in the centre, clear all the debts your immediate family holds, and set yourself up for a fantastic future if this football thing doesn't pan out.

The safety net comes at a cost, in that you're not playing competitive football, and when you look at numerous successful national systems (Germany, Spain, Brazil) the key factor every single time was ensuring that talented youngsters are playing first-team, competitive football as much as possible during their formative years. Hell, it's why Sir Alex Ferguson used to ensure his squad had a certain number of academy players, alongside three other age groups.

I don't blame players for picking that safety net, and I don't blame Premier League teams for doing this. The amount of money in football is now so great that teams can stockpile all the talent they want, and youngsters would be foolish to not want a slice of that pie. They should also accept the truths, though, and realise that even a successful player might have limited their potential.

Yeah completely agree with most of this - but look back three years. Of the team that started the first leg of the FA Youth Cup final

Baxter - doing well on loan at Yeovil

Tomori - In his second Championship loan spell at Derby

Clarke-Salter - On loan at Vitesse and getting a decent amount of game time

Trevoh Chalobah - Getting games on loan at Ipswich

Dasilva - Well you can work that one out yourself

Sammut - On loan at Falkirk in the Scottish Championship

Sterlng - Started slowly on loan at Coventry but doing well now in League 1

Ali - Joined Vitesse permanently in the summer but yet to have a start.

Ugbo - On loan at MK Dons. Goalscoring record not the best.

Mount - Absolute baller.

Not a bad record really - that'd be enough to convince me if it were my kid!

[poland_exile]

On 18/01/2019 at 11:00, EnderMB said:

To be frank, I blame the kids.

They are the ones that signed contracts with the likes of Man City and Chelsea, despite their abysmal record of promoting youth. You only need to look at Sancho and Hudson-Odoi to see that even international-level players can barely get opportunities at their clubs.

The facts are all there, and have been there for years. Chelsea have the best academy in England, yet they haven't produced a home-grown player for their own team since John Terry. Man City have Foden, but have blown hundreds of millions on their own academy and have little to show for it.

Instead of blaming the clubs, the players should be blamed for taking the short-term option. I have no doubt that they are getting paid brilliantly to be in a top-tier academy, probably more than they would get from us, but they are wasting their formative years playing non-competitive football. To make things even worse, the likes of Guardiola blame our league system, and has called repeatedly for B Teams to be added to the Football League.

Though well-argued points, I couldn't disagree more.

Football's a short career and littered with players that showed promised then never delivered - the lesson from that: earn as much as you can, when you can. In Tammy's case, someone raises Chelsea were paying him 25 grand a week (!!!). Blimey, do you take that or do you go to a tinpot underachieving club and earn 700 quid receiving sub-par coaching while training on the local park? 

Further, you're an injury away from having your career go up in smoke. Again, earn what you can, when you can because the next casualty that cops a career-ending injury might well be you. 

Then, let's have no doubt, a lot of these kids aren't making their own decisions. They're being strong-armed by parents, or even already by agents. At such a young age, it must be incredibly hard to rise above them and make your own decisions. On top of that, I'm sure managers and coaches are also pulling out the right language and getting these kids to stay - imagine, Guardiola telling you you've got great promise and how he sees a bright future for you, or Graham Coughlan offering you a good run in the first team - sorry, I'm listening to Pep!

It's a romantic and noble notion to expect kids to be cutting out their paths in the lower leagues, playing for their local clubs and pursuing their dreams in the mould of Roy of the Rovers, but football (unfortunately) has changed. Can't blame them one bit. 

 

[Ian M]

10 hours ago, EnderMB said:

With that being said, it's also a safety net. Becoming a professional footballer is really hard, and you make a lot of sacrifices to do it, from school to relationships. Getting £10k a week to play a game you love for two years nets you a cool £1m in your bank account, alongside all the free shit you could ever want as a young athlete. 

Just a small point but footballers still have to pay tax so the number in your example's bank account would be closer to £500k rather than a million. Still a not inconsiderate amount mind!

[EnderMB]

16 hours ago, Ian M said:

Just a small point but footballers still have to pay tax so the number in your example's bank account would be closer to £500k rather than a million. Still a not inconsiderate amount mind!

Typically, when a footballer is reported to be paid £10k a week, they are actually being paid £20k+ a week. £10k is what they take home.

For a source on that, look at the numerous salary leaks for players like Tevez and Suarez (when he was at Liverpool), as well as The Secret Footballer's book.