[Archived] Academy?

[FourLaneBlue]

So how do you explain when Matty went one on one with the whole goal to aim for against Nancy, Darbyshire put the ball into the keepers hand - a very poor finisher in my opinion and definitely never ever premier league material. That was Matty's moment of glory and he failed to sieze the opportunity.

Strikers miss chances. All of them. Missing one chance does not mean he isn't good enough. Matty might not be good enough but it will take more than just one chance to determine that.

Other than that I agree. The output from the Academy isn't good enough but who is doing something about it? Surely if it keeps failing to produce then a shake-up of personnel is called for. What new ideas are being brought in? New scouts? Or are Rovers just an easy option?

It's a concern that there have been so many people disgruntled with what they see as favouritism and favouring those with strength rather than skill. Some might be explained by those wanting their kid to succeed but the volume indicates a concern.

[rover_groo]

So how do you explain when Matty went one on one with the whole goal to aim for against Nancy, Darbyshire put the ball into the keepers hand - a very poor finisher in my opinion and definitely never ever premier league material. That was Matty's moment of glory and he failed to sieze the opportunity.

The rest of the young lads who played against Nancy with the exception of Nolan who probably made more mistakes than the rest, to me have no future at Blackburn unless that is we play Division one football or the old third division standard because thats the level they are at.

The people running the academy have to be questioned from the scouts to the coaches because the kids simply arent good enough at this moment in time and for two million pounds per year invetsment - what a waste.

Biggest pile of w@nk I've ever read mate.

What you watch one game and then judge Matt? I'm sure if you were present at any youth games or seen what he could do at Wrexham. In fairness I was disappointed that he didn't finish that chance and it was a bitter blow to the lad. It was his full debut but he worked his socks off and if he was playing with a big target man up front I think you would get a good return from Matt.

As for the rest of the young lads. Eddie Nolan gave a composed performance. It took him a while to settle in after a few mistakes, but he came to light in 2nd half. Was turned the once but his link-up play down the right was very strong with some neat touches and passing.

Who else do you want to criticise? Yourself perhaps!!!

How about Jay. I thought he was very resolute in defence and had one great block in 1st half. In fairness Bentley wasn't too hot and hasn't preformed over the past few months.

[den]

I reckon it's flawed idea.

Yes - you can improve kids by taking them as youngsters and giving them expert coaching.

However, I don't believe that you can identify the youngster that is going to make the grade, until they reach the age of 16/17 at the earliest. There is far too much that can go wrong with a kid before that age. We've seen that time and time again. You can take the best youngsters from the area and give them the best coaching possible, but the vast majority fall by the wayside.

So, for me, the whole concept of an academy is basically flawed. Kids need to develop of their own accord until the talent can really be seen, - then the coaches should move in to get the best out of those that have a real chance.

[jim mk2]

So, for me, the whole concept of an academy is basically flawed. Kids need to develop of their own accord until the talent can really be seen, - then the coaches should move in to get the best out of those that have a real chance.

All right when kids learnt their skills in the back streets free of cars but the culture of playing in the street doesn't exist anymore.

As Hughes said this week, the problem is standards are very high and clubs can pick up players cheaply from around the world. Last weekend they were only 100 England-qualified players starting Premiership matches and that figure will decline further over the next few years.

[FourLaneBlue]

So, for me, the whole concept of an academy is basically flawed. Kids need to develop of their own accord until the talent can really be seen, - then the coaches should move in to get the best out of those that have a real chance.

The country has moved on from the days when kids practiced on the streets and spent hours knocking a ball against a wall.

Other sports like tennis and athletics groom their athletes for years before they get anywhere. Football is now moved into the same sphere. Bringing up Ronnie Clayton or Bryan Douglas doesn't work. The landscape is different. Of course it would be better to not spend the money on the Academy and still get players but seeing as they will all already be at other clubs that seems like a particularly self-defeating approach. The foundations are in place for future stars to be brought through.

Our Academy is showing signs of producing squad players. The likes of Peter and Derbyshire can only get better and it bemuses me to see people on here taking so much relish in seeing them fail and being able to write them off. Why can we give players bought by the club chance after chance after chance yet "supporters" will write off a 19-year old like Nolan on the strength of a debut lasting little more than an hour against one of France's top teams (OK, maybe not that good). Bringing a kid through takes patience and time but if we only get one local lad into the squad every few years then it is still worth it.

What do people want instead of an Academy? If you want to save the full shebang then that means no youth team at all. Otherwise we may be talking about relatively little in terms of economy.

I'm yet to be convinced that Academies don't work as such...just that Rovers aren't doing it well. Yet failure seems to be being rewarded by secure jobs despite continuing underachievement.

Edited December 15, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[joey_big_nose]

However, I don't believe that you can identify the youngster that is going to make the grade, until they reach the age of 16/17 at the earliest. There is far too much that can go wrong with a kid before that age. We've seen that time and time again. You can take the best youngsters from the area and give them the best coaching possible, but the vast majority fall by the wayside.

I'm not sure that's true because France, for example, have an excellent coaching setup for the last 20 years and consistently produce a higher average standard of player than we do. It does have an influence.

What I would say is a massive issue is that the physical demands of the premeirship, much much larger than continental football, make it hard for young players to be allowed to develop in the way they are over the channel. Pl;ayers like Peter, Gallagher, Pedersen, Derbyshire would all be afforded a little more room and subjected to less bullying than they get on these shores.

[den]

The country has moved on from the days when kids practiced on the streets and spent hours knocking a ball against a wall.

Of course it has. That isn't to say kids don't play football though. There are more football pitches across the country and more youngsters playing organised football, than ever before.

Bringing up Ronnie Clayton or Bryan Douglas doesn't work.

Don't know what you mean there.

The likes of Peter and Derbyshire can only get better and it bemuses me to see people on here taking so much relish in seeing them fail and being able to write them off.

Hope you don't include me in that FLB. They DO have a hell of a long way to go though, to become Prem standard. Maybe that's part of the problem. If we were a first div. club, the academy would be working well for us.

I'm yet to be convinced that Academies don't work as such

What evidence is there, that they do work?

[Lathund]

I believe both these two last posts (EDIT: The two before Den's, although there's nothing wrong with his post, it just wasn't there when I typed this ) brought up valid points; In other sports, more geared towards pure athleticism than any kind of techincal skills (Cycling and athletics for example), athletes aren't considered to be "fully developed" until later than for example footballers. In cycling, the "young riders" competition in a stage race is usually for U25s, and very very few of the top cyclists are below that age. Whereas in football someone who isn't pushing for a first team place at 19 or 20 is regarded as not good enough and shipped to a lower level. Now in many cases that decision is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if several of those might have turned out to be a lot better than anyone thought if they were given more time.

Most men aren't even fully grown and developed physically (Or mentally for that matter, that comes at 26 or so. Emotionally you never finish developing) by 19-20. Most of it is there, true, but there's still room for improvement in many. And then you'd still see physical development due to training even after the person in question is fully grown. Again, look at athletics or cycling where they keep improving year after year. And as joey brought up, the premiership is more physical than many other leagues, meaning that perhaps a larger quantity of young players don't make it because they can't handle the physical side of the game. Now of course some of them might never be able to no matter how much extra time they're given, but I do believe some of them would.

Sometimes players also seem to be discarded automatically because of their age ("If he hasn't had proper coaching by now it won't help if he gets it"), and I believe there are more Kevin Phillips' out there (And no, I don't mean others with that name, I'm quite sure there's lots of them). Another one like him is Mikael Nilsson; Played in the Swedish 5th tier aged 22 having never even been considered for any youth national teams, and then just a couple of years later is scoring goals against a full strength Czech national team.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Lathund

[FourLaneBlue]

What evidence is there, that they do work?

Well...first I didn't mean anybody in particular but instead all those saying these players will never be good enough. To those people...they're kids so give them a chance (Matty, Nolan and Peter at least) and stop boring everyone by trying to be 'right' first.

Last season Boro played a match with almost all the first team composed of academy players. West Ham's has produced a string of players. Their academies are producing. Do you think they would have all come through regardless? Well...we won't know for certain but without an academy I'd expect few if any would have come through at West Ham.

Whether that means an Academy is essential I don't know but I don't think we should take a gamble of getting rid of the whole thing just to save a million or so a year which can be wasted on huge wages for the likes of Matteo, Amoruso or whoever.

Even a player on supposedly low wages such as Mokoena will I'd wager be paid more weekly than all five of the youngsters on show on Wednesday. Yet Mokoena isn't Premiership standard either. At least the youngsters have another five years to develop.

Now I don't like to call for anybody to lose their job but if a department in any well-run business does not perform consistently then changes will be made. If this continues...will Rovers make changes? Is the Academy well run? I'd like to hear from anyone who does know more about it as I've no idea if it is all just down to luck or something more fundamental. Or are Rovers as enthusiastic about it as they were with another (apparent) loss-maker in the club shop which they were happy to be off their hands?

With all these takeovers meaning some of our rivals are getting richer and richer...we may have to rely on the Academy soon.

Questions...who wants the Academy scrapped? Why? What would replace it? What do you think the repercussions would be?

[den]

I'm not calling for the academy to be scrapped, far from it.

The question is though - would the money be better spent directly on the "proven player"?

As far as I can see, the answer over the past eight years would have been "yes". Simple maths 8x£2.5m = £20m extra spent on players, over and above what has already been spent. Not that things are so black and white as that, I know.

You mention west ham bringing academy players through and ask would they still have come through without an academy? Well who knows, but west ham always did bring through great young players. So is it the academy responsible, or is it the scouting system, or something else responsible for that?

[FourLaneBlue]

As far as I can see, the answer over the past eight years would have been "yes". Simple maths 8x£2.5m = £20m extra spent on players, over and above what has already been spent. Not that things are so black and white as that, I know.

OK well we wouldn't have spent that much on the Academy alone as that is assuming we made no money from sales of young players from there and also presuming that we would have spent no money on youth development whatsoever. Anyway...let's take £20 million as a ball-park figure...

We probably spent about £20million all told on Andy Cole. We discovered by the end that he had been on £60,000 a week. Add that to the huge fee and what would have been a colossal signing-on fee for the then England international starter playing for the reigning champions. We were also desperate...

So the choice would be - was the performance of Andy Cole during his career at Ewood worth sacrificing eight years of youth development?

Even as a big Andy Cole fan the answer to that has to be NO.

Actually I was tempted to use Kevin Davies or Corrado Grabbi as my example but that would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

You mention west ham bringing academy players through and ask would they still have come through without an academy? Well who knows, but west ham always did bring through great young players. So is it the academy responsible, or is it the scouting system, or something else responsible for that?

Really my point was more that all of those excellent young players would most likely have been snapped up by the other clubs with the better set-up and academy rather than they would have come through or not without an Academy. That is a question we really don't know enough to be able to try to answer. It remains a 'What If?'.

Edited December 15, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[LeChuck]

I've always believed that the initial scouting of players is by far the most important aspect of youth teams.

We can have as many expensive facilities and top coaches as we want, but if the kids aren't good enough to start with then it's pointless. This unfortunately seems to be the case with ourselves in the last eight years or so, we just aren't spotting talent early enough.

Hopefully Eddie Niedzwiecki picked up something from Wenger in his time at Arsenal, their record of spotting talent earlier than the competition (at least domestically) is excellent.

[den]

I've always believed that the initial scouting of players is by far the most important aspect of youth teams.

We can have as many expensive facilities and top coaches as we want, but if the kids aren't good enough to start with then it's pointless. This unfortunately seems to be the case with ourselves in the last eight years or so, we just aren't spotting talent early enough.

Hopefully Eddie Niedzwiecki picked up something from Wenger in his time at Arsenal, their record of spotting talent earlier than the competition (at least domestically) is excellent.

In a nutshell Le Chuck, - in a nutshell.

[dik dastardly]

I've been reading this thread with interest, as my son is at the Acadamy, playing for the youth team. In fact he made his first League start for the reserves against Liverpool last Monday evening. One of the things not mentioned so far is the changes made by Mark Hughes last season, where he decided the first team would take over the Academy facilities, the academy beig moved "downstairs" to what was the first team training ground. Now the facilities are still very good, in comparision to many rival centre of excellences' eg. Preston, Burnley, etc. However, the state of the art Academy facilities that Rovers could boast are now no more. The Academy does not now compare with those at Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, (Everton is dire). these are the clubs that Rovers are competing with for all the young talent inn the North West.

[FourLaneBlue]

The changes have certainly worked wonders for our league form this season!

[den]

I've been reading this thread with interest, as my son is at the Acadamy, playing for the youth team. In fact he made his first League start for the reserves against Liverpool last Monday evening. One of the things not mentioned so far is the changes made by Mark Hughes last season, where he decided the first team would take over the Academy facilities, the academy beig moved "downstairs" to what was the first team training ground. Now the facilities are still very good, in comparision to many rival centre of excellences' eg. Preston, Burnley, etc. However, the state of the art Academy facilities that Rovers could boast are now no more. The Academy does not now compare with those at Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, (Everton is dire). these are the clubs that Rovers are competing with for all the young talent inn the North West.

That is interesting.

I have wondered how the changes would affect the youngsters. It's fair to say that those changes aren't responsible for the present situation though.

You reckon that it's to the detriment of the future of the club as a whole then?

[FourLaneBlue]

If it's the scouting that isn't working does this represent scouts not doing their jobs properly or can we not compete for the better players the scouts find?

If we can't compete...then why not. Jack Walker set up the Academy so we could compete for the best young players. We can't expect to beat Man Utd to the very best youngsters but we should still picking up a few more that can challenge for a first-team place than we seem to have been doing.

[1864roverite]

That is interesting.

I have wondered how the changes would affect the youngsters. It's fair to say that those changes aren't responsible for the present situation though.

You reckon that it's to the detriment of the future of the club as a whole then?

is that not a bit like saying the washing powder is responsible for the lads not playing too well either ?

The players will play football if they have the ability, no matter what facilities or whatever.

BRFC has the unenviable resources of many a team and the academy have a facility that is on a par with manure and liverpool, it sthe people that run it and bring out the skills in individual players.

[den]

is that not a bit like saying the washing powder is responsible for the lads not playing too well either ?

The players will play football if they have the ability, no matter what facilities or whatever.

BRFC has the unenviable resources of many a team and the academy have a facility that is on a par with manure and liverpool, it sthe people that run it and bring out the skills in individual players.

Don't think you've been reading my posts W.

[Exiled in Toronto]

BRFC has the unenviable resources of many a team and the academy have a facility that is on a par with manure and liverpool,

I think the proud dad a few posts up points out that we don't.

Jack was far-sighted in seeing that a productive academy was critical to our long term future, so I think the strategy is correct. What is lacking is the execution. To my mind, there needs to be a whole sequence of things in place of it to work:

Scouting - since Darracott toddled off into what seemed like a not entirely desired retirement, has our scouting improved? Who is chief scout?

Facilities - see above

Coaching - no evidence to my mind that the Downes regime, which has been in place for yonks now, is even average, let alone better. Jim Furnell did a better job in my book with a fraction of the resources.

Opportunity - Man Yoo, who least need an academy, give good runs in the team to a host of players, not many of whom ultimately stake a first team place. If I was a dad looking to place a talented son, I would be impressed that Man Yoo had Brown, Fletcher, O'Shea featuring. Would Rossi have got more starts at Ewood compared to OT? I doubt it.

Accountability has never seemed to be a big feature at Ewood since Jack, so I am not optimistic that anything will be done to execute properly the only possible strategy that will ensure a prolonged stay in the top flight.

[dik dastardly]

That is interesting.

I have wondered how the changes would affect the youngsters. It's fair to say that those changes aren't responsible for the present situation though.

You reckon that it's to the detriment of the future of the club as a whole then?

I wouldn't like to say, Certainly the facilities now enjoyed by the first teamwere fundemental in attracting some of the young foriegn talent to the club. I would just say, that 3 years ago Blackburn Rovers had an outstanding Academy. Now they have an Acedemy.

There has been changing in the running of the set up as well, 3 coaches have moved on recently and so has the recrutement officer Martin Glover, none of these would have any effect on the Youth team though, who incidentally won 1-0 at Stoke today.

[FourLaneBlue]

Blackburn recall Taylor from loan

[joey_big_nose]

Opportunity - Man Yoo, who least need an academy, give good runs in the team to a host of players, not many of whom ultimately stake a first team place. If I was a dad looking to place a talented son, I would be impressed that Man Yoo had Brown, Fletcher, O'Shea featuring. Would Rossi have got more starts at Ewood compared to OT? I doubt it.

Accountability has never seemed to be a big feature at Ewood since Jack, so I am not optimistic that anything will be done to execute properly the only possible strategy that will ensure a prolonged stay in the top flight.

Man Utd have the virtue of posessing some of the worlds best players so can afford to blood youngsters far more than we can as the quality can cover for mistakes. That is a crucial problem for us.

When we were in the Championship we had a similar advantage with Dunn and Duff tbh. Now it is incredibly hard for us to put someone in as if we go a goal down it is difficult for us to turn the game around, today was the exception rather than the rule.

As someone who really wants the youngsters to succeed it is hard for me to say, but really McEverley, Gallagher and even Peter have had quite a decent amount of time on the pitch now and don't look like they are going to meet the standard of the players we already have. I was suprised Derbyshire didn't make an appearence today, he would of been a better shot than Nonda, but we are kidding ourselves if he would even get a sniff if Jeffers or Roberts were fit.

[FourLaneBlue]

There are signs that, slowly but surely, the Academy is producing. No players that are any great shakes I agree but there are more involved in squads than before. We have some players who deserve looking at which is more than we have had for the last few seasons. I'm not suggesting they are Premiership standard...but one day some might be. That doesn't sound ideal but it is still a big improvement on what we were seeing a few years ago.

Some examples are that these players can be used as cover. Why pay Matteo huge sums (and he will be on a hefty wage as all we did was take over his contract from Leeds) when someone like Andy Taylor can do so? For the saving in wages it should be worth it. Hughes considers them as adequate cover should we so need -

Duo Recalled From Loan Spells

Both Andy Taylor and Tony Kane have been recalled so as to provide cover.

Andy Taylor seems to have impressed at Crewe from the (limited) amount of posts I could find about him from Alex supporters. Comments such as -

"Heard a rumour we have got him for another month - does anyone know this for a fact??

Also seen something on the rivals board...

Great if it's true!"

"This is good news,pity we can't have him for the rest of the season."

"No chance of that, it is reported that Birmingham City are interested in signing him."

OK...it's only League One but "good" and "great" are undoubtedly positive signs.

John Williams has mentioned before that the club only wants to buy players that can go straight into the team whereas the squad players should come from the Academy. It seemed a bit worrying at the time considering our recent output but there are some signs that it may come true eventually. Well...we can but hope, eh?

[pick32]

I no someone who is good friends with all the reserve players and hughes has told tony kane if neil leaves he will get his chance either this season or next season. and apparantly garner is realy mifed of about still being overlooked.