Remember When Some Wanted to Scrap the Academy?

[Rudolf Hucker]

19 minutes ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Mate, you definition is so narrow and twisted you will never be happy, neither for the players who come through get an education, football or otherwise (this leads to more people wanting to come to the a academy). 

There's very little to 'improve +' if our academy is providing players at multiple levels across the world. 

Some will never be sated unless it reaches 'their version of perfect' 

Bitter Red. 

[ExiledAjax]

40 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Dylan Kadji first step into making a breakthrough tonight. 

I presume he's now a "success".

[Better Red]

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Mate, you definition is so narrow and twisted you will never be happy, neither for the players who come through get an education, football or otherwise (this leads to more people wanting to come to the a academy). 

There's very little to 'improve +' if our academy is providing players at multiple levels across the world. 

Some will never be sated unless it reaches 'their version of perfect' 

What’s narrow about it?

Looks spot on to me. 

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I presume he's now a "success".

Not yet see criteria above.

[Better Red]

2 hours ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Bitter Red. 

Child

[Sheltons Army]

8 minutes ago, Better Red said:

What’s narrow about it?

Looks spot on to me. 

Not yet see criteria above.

You do realise that less than %1 of Academy players make it at pro level - do you ?

obviously not

Your criteria

Suggest you do your homework before you continue to spout the absolute drivel you do 

Whats funnier is your arrogance that comes with it

[Rudolf Hucker]

8 minutes ago, Better Red said:

Child

Biter Red

[RedHienz]

1 hour ago, Better Red said:

Child

Says the guy who said AS would never score/be a striker 

Academy is a successfully arm of the club, without it we would be in the mire - fact.

[bcfc01]

On 22/08/2022 at 17:45, TBW said:

Lots of players came from other clubs first. Doesn't mean they can't then be attributed to the academy at all.

Alex Scott, Ben Acey, Tommy Backwell for instance - all were at Southampton academy before joining us.

[Ron W]

On 22/08/2022 at 14:55, Better Red said:

Joe & Bobby are almost 30’s thats not really related to the current crop.

Alex Scott  and Antoine S- Not really our Academy product as both nearly 18 when joined academy

Kelly - Yes and big yes for the academy.

O’Leary - not really good enough not sure he is a yes 

Pring - Joined us at 16 so maybe could include him just. Yes success for me like him.

Conway - Yes again for me

Benerous - Not sure at this stage

Vyner - Is a yes what ever you think of him he is playing  regularly at this level.

so really last 5 years - you would say Kelly Conway and maybe just on age Vyner and maybe Pring.

So maybe if you are critical you would say the success recently players who has been a success as Our Academy - 3 or 4 Kelly, Conway, Vyner and maybe Pring 

It’s not bad and certainly helped with Tommy making his break through but it’s not as good as some may think when talking about ‘Our’ true academy players.

But it does feel like we are getting better at developing younger players even if not true academy productS

This feels like it’s taking quite a negative view over everything which is open for debate. Semenyo joined from SGS because of their partnership with the club - would we have had that same structure without our academy?

Likewise Scott. Would SL’s close links with Guernsey have brought him in at his age if we had a B Team and nothing else? Maybe, but maybe not. Having a well-respected academy certainly didn’t hurt either signing.

Regardless, the facts are that we’ve made >£30m on academy products in the last few years and have enough around the first-team squad/on loan at National League or higher to suggest it’s been doing a very good job for a little while imo.

[Ian M]

4 hours ago, Better Red said:

Our bar is to low if that’s what you are calling success.

Lets focus not on the volume of lower league players it’s produced to a degree all academy’s will do that.

This is success about Bristol City and the benefit the players we are producing for our benefit

Success is a player that has -

1. Has come via the academy and joined before 16.

2. Playing at Championship level or higher.

Thats it - it’s pretty simple.

We are Championship club so producing L2 players is ‘Not Success’ anymore

So with that criteria (which I can only see is fair) we have produced in recent times via the our academy - 

Kelly, Vyner, Pring and Conway.

The rest are to be proven.

Yes we are developing players Scott, Massengo, Antoine but they joined very late in the day of there ‘Academy development’  

In fact if you look at the list above we would be better off just bringing players aged 16 - 18 and you could bring Pring into the  above 3.

Only Kelly and Vyner is a true success of the academy and hopefully Pring &Conway will follow as well - I do like both of them.

All I am doing is giving you the facts.

Sure it does not fit with the academy is brilliant view.

But again if the question is are the kids doing well - massive yes

If it’s the academy - It’s ok but that is massively impacted because of Kelly.

Will it improve in future - hopefully yes then it can change how we answer the question.

 

 

 

Sorry, where the hell does this line of having to be under 16 when they join matter?

The Academy scouted and signed Scott & Semenyo.

The Academy then continued their football education until such point they were ready to train with the first team.

If we hadn't had an Academy, they likely wouldn't be with us.

They are 100% successes of the Academy.

[martnewts]

5 hours ago, Better Red said:

Our bar is to low if that’s what you are calling success.

Lets focus not on the volume of lower league players it’s produced to a degree all academy’s will do that.

This is success about Bristol City and the benefit the players we are producing for our benefit

Success is a player that has -

1. Has come via the academy and joined before 16.

2. Playing at Championship level or higher.

Thats it - it’s pretty simple.

We are Championship club so producing L2 players is ‘Not Success’ anymore

So with that criteria (which I can only see is fair) we have produced in recent times via the our academy - 

Kelly, Vyner, Pring and Conway.

The rest are to be proven.

Yes we are developing players Scott, Massengo, Antoine but they joined very late in the day of there ‘Academy development’  

In fact if you look at the list above we would be better off just bringing players aged 16 - 18 and you could bring Pring into the  above 3.

Only Kelly and Vyner is a true success of the academy and hopefully Pring &Conway will follow as well - I do like both of them.

All I am doing is giving you the facts.

Sure it does not fit with the academy is brilliant view.

But again if the question is are the kids doing well - massive yes

If it’s the academy - It’s ok but that is massively impacted because of Kelly.

Will it improve in future - hopefully yes then it can change how we answer the question.

 

 

 

Can you explain why you omit Bryan and Reid from your detailed assessment?

[ExiledAjax]

12 hours ago, Better Red said:

This is success about Bristol City and the benefit the players we are producing for our benefit

Success is a player that has -

1. Has come via the academy and joined before 16.

2. Playing at Championship level or higher.

Thats it - it’s pretty simple.

We are Championship club so producing L2 players is ‘Not Success’ anymore

So with that criteria (which I can only see is fair) we have produced in recent times via the our academy - 

Kelly, Vyner, Pring and Conway.

This is your criteria. No one else's. I disagree with it. However, let's for a moment say that these criteria are fair. 

By your own criteria O'Leary is missing from your list. So that's five players in what is it? A five year period? So one player each year on average.

How many players do you require the academy to produce in order to be successful? One a year? Two? Maybe three?

Secondly, how do our competitors measure up by your criteria? Are Preston pumping out 3 new starlets every season? Is the Premier League littered with QPR alumni? Surely the level of success is also measured through comparison to our peers?

PS. Morrell has previously played at Championship level, plus has 27 senior international caps.

[Hup]

Assuming ‘success’ is playing first team football… If a player is recruited by the academy whether that be at 7 or 17 it’s down to the academy. Obviously the younger you recruit the longer you have to develop a player, but that can’t be held against the academy. If they recruit a player at an older age and fast track them because they’re ready, so be it. Academy football is about recruitment, coaching and developing (on and off the pitch). It’s doesn’t have to be all three. Ideally you’d recruit all your players at 7 who live in Bristol and are City through and through - from memory though… football has never worked like that and never will. Credit where credit is due. The academy is doing an incredible job in all three departments. 

[Ron W]

7 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Secondly, how do our competitors measure up by your criteria? Are Preston pumping out 3 new starlets every season? Is the Premier League littered with QPR alumni? Surely the level of success is also measured through comparison to our peers?

This was an interesting question and reminded me about the Training Ground Guru Academy Productivity Rankings. For the latest round of rankings, we're 32nd out of the 92 EFL/PL clubs, so bang in mid-table for the Championship, and rank eighth out of 19 Category 2 academies.

For an area of the country without a great history of bringing through too much top-class talent and without the prestige of some of the clubs ahead of us, that's perfectly fine going.

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, Hup said:

Assuming ‘success’ is playing first team football… If a player is recruited by the academy whether that be at 7 or 17 it’s down to the academy. Obviously the younger you recruit the longer you have to develop a player, but that can’t be held against the academy. If they recruit a player at an older age and fast track them because they’re ready, so be it. Academy football is about recruitment, coaching and developing (on and off the pitch). It’s doesn’t have to be all three. Ideally you’d recruit all your players at 7 who live in Bristol and are City through and through - from memory though… football has never worked like that and never will. Credit where credit is due. The academy is doing an incredible job in all three departments. 

When the a academy first started its stated aim was to create professional footballers, if those players played and were successful for us that was a bonus.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, RonWalker said:

This was an interesting question and reminded me about the Training Ground Guru Academy Productivity Rankings. For the latest round of rankings, we're 32nd out of the 92 EFL/PL clubs, so bang in mid-table for the Championship, and rank eighth out of 19 Category 2 academies.

For an area of the country without a great history of bringing through too much top-class talent and without the prestige of some of the clubs ahead of us, that's perfectly fine going.

So what you're saying...is that our academy is perhaps just about as successful as it should be? Huge if true.

Thanks for that by the way. Some of the methodology for measuring successful productivity may be of interest to @Better Red. For example:

"An Academy, Centre of Excellence, or other club training structure was counted as having contributed to a player’s development if he was in attendance there at any point up to the age of 18."

Shocking to think they have included players who joined an academy at age 16.

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, Hup said:

Assuming ‘success’ is playing first team football… If a player is recruited by the academy whether that be at 7 or 17 it’s down to the academy. Obviously the younger you recruit the longer you have to develop a player, but that can’t be held against the academy. If they recruit a player at an older age and fast track them because they’re ready, so be it. Academy football is about recruitment, coaching and developing (on and off the pitch). It’s doesn’t have to be all three. Ideally you’d recruit all your players at 7 who live in Bristol and are City through and through - from memory though… football has never worked like that and never will. Credit where credit is due. The academy is doing an incredible job in all three departments. 

Its a small thing but kids cant sign for academies till nine.

 

58 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

So what you're saying...is that our academy is perhaps just about as successful as it should be? Huge if true.

Thanks for that by the way. Some of the methodology for measuring successful productivity may be of interest to @Better Red. For example:

"An Academy, Centre of Excellence, or other club training structure was counted as having contributed to a player’s development if he was in attendance there at any point up to the age of 18."

Shocking to think they have included players who joined an academy at age 16.

Bristol Citys academy is performing reasonably well. If we do a cost based analysis another West Country academy is doing better - Exeter. 

Including players 16+ in a academy performance review skews the figures. Clubs post 16 are signing players in what is the pro development stage. The % of players in the pro development stage is massively increased by its nature, the players are not one age, their U17 - U23 (now U21) and signed to varying forms of pro contracts.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Cowshed

[Lrrr]

On 22/08/2022 at 14:55, Better Red said:

Joe & Bobby are almost 30’s thats not really related to the current crop.

Alex Scott  and Antoine S- Not really our Academy product as both nearly 18 when joined academy

Kelly - Yes and big yes for the academy.

O’Leary - not really good enough not sure he is a yes 

Pring - Joined us at 16 so maybe could include him just. Yes success for me like him.

Conway - Yes again for me

Benerous - Not sure at this stage

Vyner - Is a yes what ever you think of him he is playing  regularly at this level.

so really last 5 years - you would say Kelly Conway and maybe just on age Vyner and maybe Pring.

So maybe if you are critical you would say the success recently players who has been a success as Our Academy - 3 or 4 Kelly, Conway, Vyner and maybe Pring 

It’s not bad and certainly helped with Tommy making his break through but it’s not as good as some may think when talking about ‘Our’ true academy players.

But it does feel like we are getting better at developing younger players even if not true academy products

 

 

 

Scott was 16 when he joined us, if Pring counts then surely Scott does?

[Lanterne Rouge]

20 hours ago, RonWalker said:

 

Likewise Scott. Would SL’s close links with Guernsey have brought him in at his age if we had a B Team and nothing else? Maybe, but maybe not. Having a well-respected academy certainly didn’t hurt either signing.

 

Moving forward, would we have signed Ben Acey and Tim ap Sion if Alex wasn`t already here? If either of those turns out even half as good as him it will be another success for the academy (and SL!)

[Rudolf Hucker]

14 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Moving forward, would we have signed Ben Acey and Tim ap Sion if Alex wasn`t already here? If either of those turns out even half as good as him it will be another success for the academy (and SL!)

… plus the ones who come along after them in the years to come. 

[Bristol Rob]

Does Biff count as an Academy Success?

I'm getting very confused by the arguments for and against.

[walshys shuffle]

As an aside Alex Scott must be on course for the youngest players to reach 50 appearances for City unless han Noah holds the record?

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, walshys shuffle said:

As an aside Alex Scott must be on course for the youngest players to reach 50 appearances for City unless han Noah holds the record?

Are we counting academy appearances, including the under 9s?

[Ian M]

2 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Scott was 16 when he joined us, if Pring counts then surely Scott does?

I think his comment was "nearly 18" and Scott was a lot nearer to 18 than I am 

[Better Red]

13 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is your criteria. No one else's. I disagree with it. However, let's for a moment say that these criteria are fair. 

By your own criteria O'Leary is missing from your list. So that's five players in what is it? A five year period? So one player each year on average.

How many players do you require the academy to produce in order to be successful? One a year? Two? Maybe three?

Secondly, how do our competitors measure up by your criteria? Are Preston pumping out 3 new starlets every season? Is the Premier League littered with QPR alumni? Surely the level of success is also measured through comparison to our peers?

PS. Morrell has previously played at Championship level, plus has 27 senior international caps.

O’ Leary and Morrell I deliberately left out as I don’t count them as success.

O’Leary - Easy one will never play at Championship as a no 1. level  is L1 at best - I think we all know that. Not really sure why we gave him game time as not up to this standard.

Morrell - Again not playing at Championship level he is back at L1 (back to the criteria we have to create players at Championship level)  I get he played for Wales and that makes it more difficult to say a fail but I stick to criteria of being at min of Championship level.

So both are ‘not’ success.

Apart from the argument about age ( I have said 16+ is not our academy success)  I understand some people disagree and that’s ok.

If I had to pay £1m for every player that had gone ‘through’ the academy I would be questioned why I am paying for players who joined after 16 as they are not true academy players and would won’t a very large reduction for those players.

Is Seymenyo aacademy player ?

Joined at us at 18 ? 
 

Some may say yes - I am saying no that is not a academy product.  
 

People will want to yes because it paints a better picture. I say no because I want the true perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I think his comment was "nearly 18" and Scott was a lot nearer to 18 than I am 

Read it again said 16.

[Better Red]

20 hours ago, martnewts said:

Can you explain why you omit Bryan and Reid from your detailed assessment?

We were discussing recent Academy players post Joe & Bobby as they are now well into their mid/late 20’s

But both are ‘ true’ academy players and successful as well. 
 

 

[Lrrr]

23 minutes ago, Better Red said:

O’ Leary and Morrell I deliberately left out as I don’t count them as success.

O’Leary - Easy one will never play at Championship as a no 1. level  is L1 at best - I think we all know that. Not really sure why we gave him game time as not up to this standard.

O'Leary has meant we haven't had to go out and sign another keeper. Also there were periods in previous seasons where O'Leary was the only academy player in the match day squad meaning we didn't have to chuck one in there just to meet the quota

[Ian M]

28 minutes ago, Better Red said:

Read it again said 16.

Sure

[Northern Red]

Don't feed it lads. Has to be on a wind up now.

[Better Red]

20 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

O'Leary has meant we haven't had to go out and sign another keeper. Also there were periods in previous seasons where O'Leary was the only academy player in the match day squad meaning we didn't have to chuck one in there just to meet the quota

Simple question - Do you think he is Championship standard or ever will be Yes/No ?