[Archived] Academy?

[LDRover]

Happened to notice that our much vaunted youth set up sent their latest batch of 'potential superstars' to a 5-1 defeat in the FA youth cup at Reading last night.

So for all the years that we've been told it's one of the top facilities in Europe we're still to see any real talent emerge and go on to make the grade.

The question now is should we continue to throw so many million quid a year into something that adds no value to the football club or use the cash somewhere where it'll effect results on the pitch? ie- add it to the annual transfer budget.

It's all well and good having lovely state of the art facilities on the outskirts of the ribble valley but the success of it is judged on the players that ultimately make the breakthrough either to sell on for big money or to play in the first team for a sustained period. It's not happening and doesn't look like changing with the present crop of youngsters.

Cue rover6...

[Cocker]

Well didnt - Duff, Beattie and Dunn come from the youth set up?

I think all three have made a name for them selves (que the Dunn making a name for himself in pies jokes)

Aside from us, Everton look to have some good youth players

[LDRover]

Agreed Cocker, but that was quite some time ago now.

[bubblerrovers]

Is there any point to the accadamy when any real talent will just be snapped up by chelski or united??? In most cases by the age of 16 teams have idea if a player has real star quality then Frank Arnesen is informed and chelsea snap the player up on the cheap as under 17.We've produced nothing of any note for ages, noone to command a first team place anyway.

[Billy Castell]

Find Africans and put tghem in Cercle Brugge until the work permit is sorted. And dump the youth team coach for Simon Clifford.

[den]

Duff didn't come through the academy, he was brought over from Ireland by KD, around the age of 15.

I have yet to see any proof that the academy system works at any club. youngsters don't make prem players unless they have natural talent in the first place. Would Duggie, Clayton, England, Newton have been better players under an academy? - NO.

We're also back at the stage where all the top clubs have all the top youngsters, so what's the point in rovers having an academy? We are simply paying for their footballing education, then giving them to Nationwide clubs.

[gazsimm]

wish we had some of the players the United academy have produce

Becks, Neville brothers, Scholes to name a few

[joey_big_nose]

Academy products:

Gallagher, Peter, Tiny Taylor, Douglas, Danns, Dunn, Beattie, Duff (sort of), Damien Johnson (sort of).

I think there are a couple more I may have missed playing in the top two leagues.

[rover6]

Man U's academy has famously been relatively barren for a while - which is why Ferguson regularly moans about that rule we have in England restricting footy clubs from far-flung parts of the country from up-rooting a boy from his family.

The academy system will only work as a conveyor belt for talent IF that belt is connected to the first team.

It's the age-old question. Will the cream rise to the top? Or does it need assistance?

I believe in the latter. It's been said in other threads but it's no surprise that clubs like Leeds (Lennon, Carson, Walton, Kilgallon, Milner, Robinson, McPhail) Derby (Giles Barnes, Huddlestone, Holmes, Riggot, Christie), Wimbledon (Nigel Reo-Coker, Jobi McAnuff, Leigertwood, Martin, Damien Francis) that have been forced to field youngsters by dint of financial trouble, have produced the most youngsters. (And think about it, Wimbledon being in London have a lot of competition, so to produce those players is an achievement).

Playing first team football is part of the development of youngsters. An exceptional few - the Rooneys etc - will be at home in the premiership before they make their debut. That's down to their exceptional talent and self-belief.

However, the majority aren't and will only maximise their potential by playing games with the first team. However, it is the custom for clubs with money not to freely give youngsters first team action - instead caution induces the manager to send them on loan, leave them in the reserves - until finally the spark fades and the hope of the player ever making it are extinguished. Some bounce back - others don't.

The lack of decent English goalies is not, imo, down to a great shortage of talent. It is because clubs like Rovers would rather have Peter Enckelman as third choice keeper, Chelsea would rather have Magnus Hedman as fourth choice than risk a youngster.

Academies aren't the problem. It's the firmly fixed mentality that is.

Edited December 7, 2006 by rover6

[den]

wish we had some of the players the United academy have produce

Becks, Neville brothers, Scholes to name a few

They were the products of the youth team, not the academy. Sort of proves my point.

Rover6, you are talking about youngsters in general. The question is about academies.

[rover6]

Cue rover6...

I was so eager to respond that I didn't even notice that.

Den, my point is, the academies can only do so much. After that it's up to the club manager to give the best players real opportunities to take their development to the next level. If the academy graduates don't get that, they won't ever make it.

As to whether the academies are an improvement - they've been successful in France, which is why England is belatedly following suit. In the end - i kind of agree with you.

It's all very well pumping in money to the grass-roots but without the two most important factors - good coaching and desire to succeed in the players, not even the most luxurious academy will get anywhere.

Edited December 7, 2006 by rover6

[gazsimm]

Here is list of academy players united have produce

some of the players joined them when they in only 11 years old

Arthur Albiston

John Aston

David Beckham

George Best

Jackie Blanchflower

Shay Brennan

Wes Brown

Roger Byrne

Nicky Butt

Johnny Carey

Bobby Charlton

Duncan Edwards

Darren Fletcher

Bill Foulkes

Ryan Giggs

Johnny Giles

Keith Gillespie

Brian Greenhoff

David Healy

Mark Hughes

Brian Kidd

Jovan Kirovski

Lee A. Martin

Sammy McIlroy

Paul McShane

Gary Neville

Philip Neville

Jimmy Nicholl

John O'Shea

David Pegg

David Platt

Mark Robins

Robbie Savage

Paul Scholes

Jonathan Spector

Nobby Stiles

Dennis Viollet

Norman Whiteside

They were the products of the youth team, not the academy. Sort of proves my point.

Rover6, you are talking about youngsters in general. The question is about academies.

they joined their academy den

Edited December 7, 2006 by gazsimm

[Billy Castell]

The Academy system was not around when Beckham and co. were playing. It was some other system.

[gazsimm]

United on their own website said they were part of their academy though

United on their own website said they were part of their academy though, anyway it's the same thing

[cn174]

And of this list:

Wes Brown

Darren Fletcher

David Healy (possibly)

John O'Shea

Jonathan Spector

Came through their Academy

The rest come through before academies were introduced.

Edited December 7, 2006 by cn174

[den]

It's all very well pumping in money to the grass-roots but without the two most important factors - good coaching and desire to succeed in the players, not even the most luxurious academy will get anywhere.

Nope disagree, the single most important factor is talent. It's all down to the scouts. Academy or no academy, without the talent there is no end product.

[bazza]

Surely David Platt started his career at Crewe Alexandra.

[FourLaneBlue]

They were the products of the youth team, not the academy. Sort of proves my point.

Not really...what's the difference? Isn't an academy just a souped-up youth team?

[gazsimm]

youth team and the academy are the same thing

[den]

Den, my point is, the academies can only do so much. After that it's up to the club manager to give the best players real opportunities to take their development to the next level. If the academy graduates don't get that, they won't ever make it.

Well, you can't expect the manager to play youngsters that aren't talented enough to play prem football. [mind you, it seems you do]

The question [to avoid going off topic] is whether the academy system works better than the old youth team set up?

Evidence anybody?

[gazsimm]

Surely David Platt started his career at Crewe Alexandra.

no he was picked up by Man U

[den]

Not really...what's the difference? Isn't an academy just a souped-up youth team?

No, it's nothing like.

The old system was simply to ask 15/16 year olds down for a trial with the "B team". If they showed promise, they would be asked back again. The coaching at that stage was very limited.

With the academy system, they are picked up as young as 8 yrs old [might be slightly out there, I'm sure Lee might be able to clear that one up], and are then coached full time. A lot of money is spent on their upbringing.

The basic idea is that the training and coaching of these youngsters over a number of years will improve them, beyond what they would otherwise would have done. I ask again, the best youth team I remember was that of the likes of Pickering, Newton, England. Add onto that Douglas and Clayton, - would they have been better players if they had been through an academy system?

Most definately not. They had the talent. At 8yrs old, who can tell if they will be good enough? I aint seen anything to suggest that academies make youngsters into better players than they would have been otherwise.

I'd love to think that rovers academy is going to produce more superstars, but where is the evidence that it will?

[speeeeeeedie]

The FA Academy system was started around 1998 (FA Academy rules) and was designed to incorporate the complete youth set up of a club by allowing them to sign up kids from u-9 upward. When if first began full time players were offered 3 year scholarships once they left school and the club fielded 2 teams: u1-7 and u-19. This season it reverted to a u-18 only youth team. Teams have to apply and pass certain criteria to host an academy and there are currently 4 leagues geographically split between the South, Midlands, North West, and North East. Before the inception of academies clubs had Centre of Excellences and the government sponsored YTS scheme. Before that was a basic apprenticeship that old timers harp on about.

The YTS scheme was set up in the early 1980's as a by product of Thatcher's unemployment cutting/hiding policies and trainees were given 2 year YTS terms from 16-18. At the end of their 2 year stint they were either offered pro terms or shown the door. Centres of Excellence governed u-12 and up and had very restrictive rules about contact with young players or how long they could train with the club coaches.

Damien Duff came through the aforementioned YTS scheme; so strictly speaking he was not an academy product as the was already a professional when it kicked in.

Academies wanted to address the rounded education of footballers by teaching them the way of the club from an early age and offering improved scholastic options. The YTS system only really got hold of kids once they had them full time, they had no extended contact with the club prior to that.

Both systems have +'s and -'s but if the player is good enough they will make it in either system.

[bluebruce]

Well, you can't expect the manager to play youngsters that aren't talented enough to play prem football. [mind you, it seems you do]

The question [to avoid going off topic] is whether the academy system works better than the old youth team set up?

Evidence anybody?

The manager fails to play youngsters that are talented enough. That's the real problem.

But Den, I don't think that is actually what LDrover is getting at, no. He didn't say anything about the old youth set up. I think his point is (and by think I mean, this is what he said), we spend millions a year on bringing players through the youth system, and over the last few years have seen very little reward for it.

I personally feel the main reason is managerial unwillingness to risk a youth player. I remember Duff's first game and wondering why the hell we hadn't played him before. And I remember plenty of Peter games which make me astonished he isn't getting the nod before the severely underperforming and supposedly 'injured' Pedersen.

[den]

Both systems have +'s and -'s but if the player is good enough they will make it in either system.

Great post Speeedie. That explains it far better than I did.

That last sentence says it all to me.