[Archived] Academy?

[bluebruce]

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.

Well it's impossible to find any evidence for that whether it's the case or not. Nobody has a clue whether a player would have been worse if he wasn't raised through the system. Personally though I feel pretty certain that yes, an extra 7 years of football training WILL make them better players. I can't see any evidence it doesn't . But I have a strong personal conviction that training more makes you a better player. If it didn't we wouldn't bother training- it isn't just for fitness, it's for refining your skill. I've certainly found training made me a better player.

[gazsimm]

I know the Neville brothers and Scholes were on United books when they were 15

[den]

Well it's impossible to find any evidence for that whether it's the case or not. Nobody has a clue whether a player would have been worse if he wasn't raised through the system. Personally though I feel pretty certain that yes, an extra 7 years of football training WILL make them better players. I can't see any evidence it doesn't . But I have a strong personal conviction that training more makes you a better player. If it didn't we wouldn't bother training- it isn't just for fitness, it's for refining your skill. I've certainly found training made me a better player.

Yes training and coaching improves a player. Training and coaching was still given under the old youth system.

[speeeeeeedie]

Cheers Den, I could go on about this for weeks.

BB there is now evidence out there that players who "graduate" from academies (ie. get pro terms) played more unsupervised football (see playing in the park with your mates) in their formative years. This playing without restrictions backed up with professional instruction is now believed to be the best method for churning out Wayne Rooney's by the boatload. Training only makes you better if you are being taught the right stuff.

Gaz, Scholes and the Neville brothers would have been on associate schoolboy forms as it was illegal to offer other terms until they left school.

[bluebruce]

Yes training and coaching improves a player. Training and coaching was still given under the old youth system.

Yes, but you were saying that the old youth system picked players up later. I'm quite sure that extra years of that training and coaching makes a player better. I certainly wish I'd gotten into football a good few years earlier, think I might have been able to make it at a lowish level, or at least had a better pop.

Cheers Den, I could go on about this for weeks.

BB there is now evidence out there that players who "graduate" from academies (ie. get pro terms) played more unsupervised football (see playing in the park with your mates) in their formative years. This playing without restrictions backed up with professional instruction is now believed to be the best method for churning out Wayne Rooney's by the boatload. Training only makes you better if you are being taught the right stuff.

Gaz, Scholes and the Neville brothers would have been on associate schoolboy forms as it was illegal to offer other terms until they left school.

I think players who played more unsupervised football when they were young are inevitably the ones most likely to get scouted, because they look good at an early age. I would agree with the viewpoint that the lack of restrictions helps though. You can get ticked off for the fancy malarchy when you're under a training regime. I would expect that the majority of the point in creating the Academies was to provide the right kind of training. But any kind of training (except for woefully misguiding or demoralising training) ought to improve a player anyway. Practise makes perfect- the more times you kick a ball the better you get at it.

[92er]

If the club were getting the right quality of player but not developing them then presumably they would surface at other, lower clubs and later "rise to the top". This is not happening-the nearest is Danns, who we signed when Liverpool decided not to offer him terms after he had been to Lilleshall.

I haven't seen a youth team play since we beat Coventry a year or two ago and despite winning, we weren't that good.

My questions would be:

are we signing lads who have ability, rather than size, on their side?

is the coaching at the Academy good enough?

why has Mr Downes been able to keep his job despite presiding over such a barren run?

I seem to remember that Ferguson made wholesale changes in their system a couple of years ago as they were not producing enough quality-I don't know if they have subsequently improved.

I want the Academy to be successful but I am a bit sceptical. A supporter who sits behind me and goes to all the Rovers' matches says there is no quality coming through. I also know one lad who we were surprised was ever taken on, is now in his 4th year-and must therefore have been given an extra contract. If he is to have a future as a footballer, it won't be at Premiership level.

[den]

Yes, but you were saying that the old youth system picked players up later. I'm quite sure that extra years of that training and coaching makes a player better. I certainly wish I'd gotten into football a good few years earlier, think I might have been able to make it at a lowish level, or at least had a better pop.

Picking them up at 9yrs of age and training them well, will undoubtedly improve them. Can it improve them enough if the talent isn't there? Can the players likely to make it, be picked up so young? I doubt it. It's obviously much easier to judge whether a player is going to make the grade, the older he is.

If they can be identified so young, where are they at Ewood?

[Sparky Marky]

Its very simple...My son started to attend Bolton's Academy after spending the last season at Manchester United. In speaking to people it seems that Blackburn go for size and strength before skill and balance.

Manchester United is a lot different. The emphasis is solely on skill, tricks, dummies a la Ronaldo...Each kid is encouraged to dribble and there are some right greedy little blighters....This is the theme until they get to teenage years, then they are taught how to play in a game....

You only have to look at the results for the Academy kids and Blackburn win a lot...because they have the bigger kids. Uniteds younger kids suffer in games and generally lose.....You watch what happens as the players develop around 14/15.....it changes round completely....

This is a long term problem at Rovers which needs looking at.....Skilfull kids are either not going there or are getting kicked all over and moving to another club.

It needs to be recognised and put right.

[gazsimm]

Its very simple...My son started to attend Bolton's Academy after spending the last season at Manchester United. In speaking to people it seems that Blackburn go for size and strength before skill and balance.

Manchester United is a lot different. The emphasis is solely on skill, tricks, dummies a la Ronaldo...Each kid is encouraged to dribble and there are some right greedy little blighters....This is the theme until they get to teenage years, then they are taught how to play in a game....

You only have to look at the results for the Academy kids and Blackburn win a lot...because they have the bigger kids. Uniteds younger kids suffer in games and generally lose.....You watch what happens as the players develop around 14/15.....it changes round completely....

This is a long term problem at Rovers which needs looking at.....Skilfull kids are either not going there or are getting kicked all over and moving to another club.

It needs to be recognised and put right.

Thats what Andy Todd is doing now, he's the new academy manager

[Sparky Marky]

[FourLaneBlue]

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

By looking at other academies I suggest. Middlesbrough is seeing a load of players coming through and they are being given time on the pitch. Newcastle have young players in their side. As do Man City, Everton, West Ham, Leeds. As for Man U, well they have had so many good players coming through that they would not be as successful as they are without them...players like Giggs, Scholes and the Nevilles have been integral to their success. Even teams notorious for buying in players such as Chelsea and Arsenal have brought quite a few through albeit most of Arsenal's are getting sold off - whether it be Ashley Cole, Jermaine Pennant or David Bentley but that just seems to be the English players. Ipswich have had quite a few in recent years.

It seems that other academies are producing youngsters so the question seems to be that it is not necessarily academies per se that are the problem but just the Rovers Academy.

Is there really enough money put into it? Is it underfunded in comparison to others meaning the club misses out on the best prospects? Or is the funding not the problem but how it is spent? Are the staff up to it or do they keep changing staff?

Anyone know much about the Academy other than second-hand rumours? I think rover_groo seems to know quite a bit about the youth setup...any feedback from him?

Edited December 7, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[speeeeeeedie]

In speaking to people it seems that Blackburn go for size and strength before skill and balance.

This is the system that has ruled English youth football for decades. This is the reason why England are woeful during major championships. Sparky, if you are correct United are doing it the right way. It is much easier to teach a kid to kick, turn, dribble and shoot at a young age than when he's a malcoordinated adolescent.

Rovers don't get the cream of the youngsters in Britain. The local population isn't big enough to find stars and we don't have a real history of producing youth players, so we are having to go elsewhere to get "quality". It looks like we are scouring Europe for players now and that has the same risks as the 1st team does. When I was young if a Crewe scout spoke to you it was like Man U were asking as their reputation was top notch. Rovers? It didn't have quite the same ring.

We do have first rate facilities but it seems like we are getting second rate players.

FLB: funding wise, I've no idea but paying for all those players and facilities costs a bundle and would compare to most other clubs. Staff wise they seem pretty consistent. Bobby Downes has been there for years, Martin Glover the head development officer recently left after being there for nearly 10 years. Rob Kelly was there for a while until he went to Leicester to manage them. The staff have been pretty stable especially since above them has changed much more in the time period it's been running. Bring through youth players takes lots of luck and patience, I think it is still profitable thansk to Damien Duff and will be for a while.

Edited December 7, 2006 by speeeeeeedie

[den]

By looking at other academies I suggest. Middlesbrough is seeing a load of players coming through and they are being given time on the pitch. Newcastle have young players in their side. As do Man City, Everton, West Ham, Leeds. As for Man U, well they have had so many good players coming through that they would not be as successful as they are without them...players like Giggs, Scholes and the Nevilles have been integral to their success.

The clubs above are big clubs with a tradition of bringing through youth players, even before the academies were set up. Being big clubs gives them an advantage in picking up the best talent.

What we are trying to judge is whether these players would have come through without the academy system being introduced. I think they would.

As for the Man Utd link you give, Giggs, Scholes and the Nevilles weren't part of the academy. They didn't need an academy did they, they were talented enough. That's the key word for me - TALENT. Not academy.

[FourLaneBlue]

Some may be "big clubs" but they are also our rivals and I'd also suggest that Middlesbrough and West Ham are not that much bigger than us.

As for whether players would have come through without an Academy...well, yes, of course. The cream will always rise to the top. If that suggests that Academies are not needed at all however we don't know. It's a non sequitur.

However I do think we are arguing between apples and oranges here. Would Rovers get any promising youngsters at all without an Academy? Surely all the others would snap them up? Mentioning Ronnie Clayton isn't that relevant simply because there weren't academies in those days. It was a different playing field, to use a rubbishy football cliche.

[den]

Some may be "big clubs" but they are also our rivals and I'd also suggest that Middlesbrough and West Ham are not that much bigger than us.

As for whether players would have come through without an Academy...well, yes, of course. The cream will always rise to the top. If that suggests that Academies are not needed at all however we don't know. It's a non sequitur.

However I do think we are arguing between apples and oranges here. Would Rovers get any promising youngsters at all without an Academy? Surely all the others would snap them up? Mentioning Ronnie Clayton isn't that relevant simply because there weren't academies in those days. It was a different playing field, to use a rubbishy football cliche.

West Ham have an excellent record over the years of bringing in young quality players. Also FLB, ignoring your rubbishy football cliche , using Ronnie Clayton as an example is valid IMO, - he was as good as he was, even though, or in spite of being brought up on "little wembley". For anyone that doesn't know, little wembley was a cinder training ground, behind the BBE. Worse facilities you couldn't imagine.

[Sparky Marky]

There wasn't an "Academy" as such, but when these lads turned 14 they will have trained with United twice a week and generally done everything that Academy 14 year olds do now.

The only difference now is that clubs can sign a kid at under 9's now as opposed to 14 in the Giggs era. They stop with the club and are nurtured. This has been going on in France for years and they have produced World Cup winning players.....In fact the FA were going to model the new English Academy on the one in France...Is it called Bloem fontaine or something like that.

With the Academy system like it is, there is less chance of a club missing talent than ever before.

So, I think Academy's are a very important aspect of any club that wants to be successful long term.

[speeeeeeedie]

Middlesbrough are an advert of what to do with an Academy (McClaren gets some kudos here). West Ham have years of tradition and a massive catchment area. Club size is irrelevant.

The academy system is the better option; nice pitches, gym, food, kit, opposition, location. But if we don't have local players able to fill it we will have to eo elsewhere and gamble.

[92er]

I think local now means within an hour or an hour and a half's driving time. Or the kids can be moved as MU etc have done.

[unleaded]

The Rovers Academy seem to target the Irish market alot these days and have alot of players at the moment from there.The likes of Keith Treacy,Conor Kavanagh,Alan Judge,Darragh Tuffy,Gavin Gunning,and Aaron Doran are just a few of the intakes for this past couple of years.Not to menton the liks of Kane and Nolan and that Fitzgerald bloke.The Staff at the academy have high hopes for Treacy and Judge but who can tell.

IMHO it is time for Downes to look at this approach of "Loving all things Irish"and think what has he acheived by going down this particular road.I think they are all looking for the next Duff.It is obvious the management have a few "Favourites" at the club and have double standards which does not help in team bonding.

I feel that Bobby Downes is from the "old school" and his ideas are the same and we do need to look at changing the management and take a different route.

[FourLaneBlue]

West Ham have an excellent record over the years of bringing in young quality players. Also FLB, ignoring your rubbishy football cliche , using Ronnie Clayton as an example is valid IMO, - he was as good as he was, even though, or in spite of being brought up on "little wembley". For anyone that doesn't know, little wembley was a cinder training ground, behind the BBE. Worse facilities you couldn't imagine.

OK...well we already accept that the very best will usually rise to the top. So you can put Ronnie Clayton down now Den and stop pointing at me with him!

Yes, West Ham do have an excellent record for bringing in players. So why hasn't their Academy hindered them? If anything their most recent products (over the last six years or so) are the best for a long time. In fact I can think of about half a dozen England internationals they have brought through recently. So even accepting they are likely to be better than us because of reputation and location it doesn't explain why we are quite so poor in comparison over the last five years or so.

The question is whether the Academy is useful at a) attracting players and helping to develop them. Kids generally want to go to an Academy and be involved for years and, if not, then why now. I'm not sure the setup is to blame by itself, there must be far more reasons.

Again...why have Middlesbrough been so successful with their Academy output in recent years when we haven't? What can we do to try to emulate their achievements that we aren't doing?

Nothing as complicated as this whole system is ever JUST down to luck.

Also FLB, ignoring your rubbishy football cliche , using Ronnie Clayton as an example is valid IMO, - he was as good as he was, even though, or in spite of being brought up on "little wembley". For anyone that doesn't know, little wembley was a cinder training ground, behind the BBE. Worse facilities you couldn't imagine.

I still don't think it is valid as it isn't like that today. Different times...seems like a different world. Are young kids let out by themselves by parents these days to practice on some scrap of grass? How often do you see football being played on the street compared to even ten years ago? How many local pitches and waste ground have been lost to kids in Blackburn?

Good thread this!

Edited December 7, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[den]

Excellent thread FLB.

IMO it's all about getting the best young lads into the club, academy or not. No doubts that the academy improves players, but what use is that if you are only improving them to Nationwide standard as in the last few years?

The original question was, "would the money required to run the academy [last time I spoke to JW it was around £2.5m/year], be better spent going into proven prem class players?

[FourLaneBlue]

Well...say it is £2.5million. That doesn't mean we would save all that by closing the Academy as the youth setup would presumably still cost quite a bit of money however we do it. Also, I do think just having an Academy gives us a better chance to attract young players to the club. It sells the club to youngsters and parents as well as showing ambition. Plus, the Academy has regularly produced small fees for the club by selling them to the lower leagues so I would expect that overall just the fact we have an Academy doesn't cost that much.

How much would we really save by closing the Academy? Probably not enough to bring anybody decent in and we would likely make it far more difficult to attract the next Duff to Rovers. He'd probably go to Boro or West Ham and their nice academies!

Edited December 7, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[den]

Agreed on all points.

Although it might not sound like it, I'm not anti-academy. I've been down to Brockhall quite a few times and always go to youth cup games, it's thoroughly enjoyable.

It's difficult to deny some of the arguments against the academy system at Ewood though. It's certainly not performing as it was hoped it would. If you were JW and were responsible for funding of all parts of the club, how could you justify to the trustees, the amount of cash being pumped into the academy? It wouldn't be easy.

[philipl]

There seems to be quite a few adverse comments about Downes down the seasons. Its a tricky position as 95% of your output fails absolutely and 4% are successes because they make careers in League football.

I'm no expert in these things but there are also a lot of comments that English training of youngsters is nowhere nearly enough skills based or sufficiently intensive compared with the French for example.

One quibble about the previous posts- it is not just Irish youngsters the Rovers have a track record of signing at the Academy, half the German u-18 squad seems to be there as well. There is a couple of them that the club is very excited about.

[mike at picture]

The Reading result is totally unacceptable and follows on from last seasons Brighton debacle. Is there a correlation between a downturn in results and graduates from the Academy and the departure of Rob Kelly? If so if the worst happens for him at Leicester perhaps the powers that be should consider offering him is old job back. Whatever, the Academy is vital to us and is not producing. This must be addressed.