when young talents fail to succeed...

[david in sweden]

We enjoy looking back at successful youngsters coming through (whatever past youth systems there were years ago) and the last 3 (Walcott, Bale and Alex OC) are prime examples of superior talents at a very young age. Now we look forward to seeing names like; Shaw, Stephens, Ward-Prowse, Sinclair and Moore appearing on future team sheets, but how successful can they be?.

As a 50 year fan, my memory goes back to several generations of observing the progress of newcomers.

 

Mick Channon (eventually) came into the picture after the departure of Martin Chivers to Spurs (1968) and found it easy to score goals playing alongside the rampant goal machine that was ...Ron Davies. Dennis Hollywood succeeded Tommy Traynor and settled in alongside old heads like Joe Kirkup, John McGrath, and Jimmy Gabriel in the same period.

 

But it was no so easy for schoolboy full back stars Bob Mc Carthy and Roger Fry who found the step up much harder in a struggling side.

 

(the late) LB Steve Mills, looked a class above everyone else in a struggling side, and his loss was never successfully replaced.

 

Nick Holmes (then 21) was fortunate to come into an FA Cup winning team alongside the experienced Rodrigues, Osgood, Steele and Blyth, and grew in confidence thereafter, as did Colin Waldron alongside the excellent Chris Nicholl (whose reputation was tainted by his later managerial failure).

 

Steve Williams was outstanding - even at 17 - playing alongside his hero World Cup Alan Ball and the superlative Ivan Golac in a side where Mick Channon was still scoring goals. Steve Baker was in the side at same time as Kevin Keegan,and David Armstrong as was Steve Moran.

In the late 1980's. We saw a quartet from the best youth side SFC ever - under Dave Merrington - MLT, Shearer, Danny and Rod Wallace.

 

Full backs - Dodd, Kenna and Benali gradually played themselves into the side thanks to the support of Ruddock and Osman around them, and (the later) England keeper Tim Flowers in goal.

 

Wayne Bridge emerged to become a regular with great support from the great centre back pairs; Monkou and Lundekvam later Dean Richards and Michael Svensson. Whereas Crainie and Mills struggled to impress in a gradually-worsening squad, and never made it with Saints.

 

The success of our new Academy stars may not depend on how good they are, but how they are " mentored " into the side, and those players alongside them.

Edited 7 May, 2012 by david in sweden

[Badger]

Interesting summary, and agree with your conclusion; how much easier it is to settle in a side brimmimg with confidence and the right type of senior player to nurture the new talent.

 

Think I'd divide it into three categories, making the breakthrough, making the grade (at what level is debatable), and fulfilling potential.

[Pedro]

Was it Malcolm Waldron?

[Turkish]

So what you are saying in a round about way is that some of our academy players will make it and some won't, yes?

[Colinjb]

Good points made. It's been said before but you have to wonder how badly some of our youngsters suffered by being thrown into the deep end in Rupert Lowe's final throw of the dice. Oliver Lancashire, Lloyd James, McGoldrick, Jake Thompson, Matt Paterson et all. Of course not all would have made it, but if managed better they would have surely been better.

[Give it to Ron]

Just a small correction...it was Graham Baker not Steve he was an abysmal full back - I used to have driving lessons same time as him and picked him up several times during the lesson.

Graham Baker went to Merry Oak and was light years above lads of the same age I played against.

[The Kraken]

So what you are saying in a round about way is that some of our academy players will make it and some won't, yes?

 

I think that's the gist of it, yes.

[david in sweden]

Was it Malcolm Waldron?

 

yes of course..memory slip on my part. THX

[david in sweden]

Just a small correction...it was Graham Baker not Steve he was an abysmal full back - I used to have driving lessons same time as him and picked him up several times during the lesson. Graham Baker went to Merry Oak and was light years above lads of the same age I played against.

 

 

that's correct too,

I had two other Steve's in the same sentence. oops!

 

I shouldn't have forgotten him.

Scored 40 seconds into his debut game at The Dell ..and on TV too!

[eelpie]

There is no time limit on succeeding.

 

Otherwise Rickie would have been judged a failure in his early career by many on here.

 

As we should all know by now, players do not all develop to a timetable. Many of the best have taken a few years to show their true promise. A young Kevin Phillips was released by us to a non league club, but went on to become a Premiership leading scorer, to name just one player whose early talent was not recognised by us.

 

Perhaps a companion thread might be 'When Saints young talents found success elsewhere'

[ottery st mary]

Kevin Phillips was a Right Back who had a leg injury...too lightweight and had Jason Dodd and Jeff Kenna in the same sort of age bracket and was released...

 

Whilst playing for Baldock Town? Right Back had to stand in as an emergency Striker and blossomed and went on to play for Watford etc...

[Frank's cousin]

Well Newcastle released Shearer... trouble is clubs cannot afford to offer long term contracts to players who at 18-20 dont seem to look like making it - and alot will depend on the manager at the time and their attitude to bringing in youngsters - not just the cream, but giving the top 5 or 6 the odd bench and sub-appearance... difficult as there is so much pressure these days... all depends on the coaching as well. Rickie is a great example, but even he has admitted that when he was younger, he was not the ideal professional... so again the way the players are taught about the broader aspects of life, not just football, but how to conduct themselves and what commitment is required toi make in professional sport. I think players who make it when older, such as Lambert suggests that teh gap between those that make it and thos ethat dont is often less about talent, and more about attitude and graft - and the willingness to learn... same could be said about all walks of life though.

[Saint Mikey]

...alongside the excellent Chris Nicholl (whose reputation was tainted by his later managerial failure).

 

Was his reputation really tainted by his managerial spell? He had big shoes to fill, but did well considering the lack of investment in the team (compared to McMenemy) and having to sell his best players. No manager has achieved a higher finish since 89/90 - 7th.

[david in sweden]

Well Newcastle released Shearer... trouble is clubs cannot afford to offer long term contracts to players who at 18-20 dont seem to look like making it - and alot will depend on the manager at the time and their attitude to bringing in youngsters

 

Exactly the point I've made on many previous occasions. But in this day and age..how can you hang on to a young player..whoo hasn't even made a proper debut, and has passed 20-21 ? Twenty years ago, few players got a debut BEFORE they were 21, nowadays it's the age when you have to choose.

 

We let Andy Townsend go ..because he took too long to recover from a leg break, but he went on to success at Norwich and Chelsea and several dozen Irish caps. Chris Baird came as a 16 year old, eventually played in the Cup Final..and waited another 2 years to get a chance to play - and then only because of an injury crisis amongst defenders. £3 million pounds later, he became a regular at Fulham and even went on th captain the N.I. side.

It's a lottery when you have to choose. Thank goodness we had the patience to keep Adam Lallana!

[david in sweden]

Was his reputation really tainted by his managerial spell? He had big shoes to fill, but did well considering the lack of investment in the team (compared to McMenemy) and having to sell his best players. No manager has achieved a higher finish since 89/90 - 7th.

 

 

I agree with you . ..but he has few admirers on this site (as memory serves).

I really liked him as a player, and as you say, as manager in 89/90 we finished 7th that season - his reward from the Board was a sacking for poor performance - and then they sold Rod Wallace to Leeds the following day for £1 million.

[Dalek2003]

Chris Nicholl was not a failure as a manager IMO.

[Window Cleaner]

I don't think many realise just how good you have to be to become an even moderately successful footballer nowadays.I'd wager that many of the "stars" of the past wouldn't even get a game in League 2 nowadays.

[VectisSaint]

few players got a debut BEFORE they were 21, nowadays it's the age when you have to choose.

David, not really sure this statement is true. OK, bit more than 20 years ago, but here's a few that made their debuts long before they were 21, Mick Channon, 17, Glen Hoddle, 17, Trevor Francis 16, George Best 17, Matt Le Tissier 18 (?), Peter Shilton 16, I'm sure I could pluck many more out of the ether. The top players have nearly always come to the fore in their teens, Walcott and Oxo are not that much of a phenomenon in that respect.

 

One thing that does make a difference in many cases though is the position that a young player starts off at. It is in my opinion much harder for a centre back, or even centre forward to break though at a very young age, because of the need for more of a physical presence. True also of goalkeepers (although Shilts would suggest otherwise, he was truly exceptional). It is much easier for a winger, or these days a full back to break through earlier. It is very difficult to hold on to young centra defenders, take Mike Williamson for instance, didn't look out of place against Man City on Sunday but released by us, same with Monk at Swansea. Cranie didn't look too bad the other day against us for Coventry.

[VectisSaint]

Chris Nicholl was not a failure as a manager IMO.

I agree with Dalek. Do people seriously look back on Chris Nicholl as a failure as a manager? I certainly don't. Always had a hard act to follow but did it very well initially. Lasted a lot longer than most and even that many think was good (e.g. Hoddle & Strachan). I would put Chris Nicholl as 3rd or 4th in our all time list of managers (behind Lawrie & Ted), although NA will probably prove to be better once he gets his crack in the PL.

[stev2001]

I don't think many realise just how good you have to be to become an even moderately successful footballer nowadays.I'd wager that many of the "stars" of the past wouldn't even get a game in League 2 nowadays.

 

Not sure I agree. If they stayed on the diet, fitness training and coaching of their time then maybe but if they played today then they would step up with everyone else.

[captain sensible]

It's a good thread! Saying all that has been said, look at Lambert! Knocking on 30, banging them in like there's no tomorrow, after spending an eternity in the lower leagues.

 

Not many make the first team out of the Academy. Most of them drop straight into the lower leagues, non-league, and out of football altogether. I think that if thet can't make an impact by the time they are 18, apart from being released anyway, the future looks grim.

Again though, I'd hate to be an Academy CF playing for Man U trying to unseat Rooney! Mission Impossible!

[david in sweden]

David, not really sure this statement is true.

OK, bit more than 20 years ago, but here's a few that made their debuts long before they were 21, Mick Channon, 17, Glen Hoddle, 17, Trevor Francis 16, George Best 17, Matt Le Tissier 18 (?), Peter Shilton 16, I'm sure I could pluck many more out of the ether.

The top players have nearly always come to the fore in their teens, Walcott and Oxo are not that much of a phenomenon in that respect. QUOTE]

 

 

Hey Vectis, you've picked some of the biggest names in the game and most of them were unique to their generation, and they still exist today, but.... Shilton was so good that he replaced Gordon Banks just two years after the World Cup 66, and both continued to play regularly in the top league.

Best and Francis were the Walcott and Alex's of their day, and were regulars within a season of debuting, although Hoddle took a little longer to settle. As did Wayne Rooney (who you might have mentioned, too) btw...

 

Although Channon and MLT both debuted around 17, it took a couple of seasons for either of them to become regulars on the team sheet, and despite his explosive debut hat-trick v. Arsenal at The Dell ..Alan Shearer did almost nothing of note.. until the last12 months before he transferred to Blackburn...(then almost 22)

I once met Terry Spinner, one of the greatest Schoolboy centre forward in English history. Scored 50-odd goals for our Reserve side before he was 16, but he was understudy to ....Ron Davies. Tough life. By the age of 18, he was gone ..and (sadly) forgotten.

 

For the regular run-of-the-mill Academy stars who shine so brightly at 17, their eventual destination is most likely L1/L2 --ask Ollie Lancashire and Jack Saville. You mentioned Mike Williamsson (who like Matt Mills) signed at 16, but he was loaned out several times and had no chance of breaking into a back line that was either Monkou and /or Richards, or Lundekvam and Svensson - by which time at 21/22 he was never going to get a look-in.

 

I'm pleased for their sakes that they made some sort of career, but how long should we have kept them?. I just hope we don't ditch Aaron Martin who really impresses me, despite such few apps. Twenty years ago, we could afford to keep a talented reserve, who could often come in and DAJFU - when required....Tony Byrne was such a player in the late 60-early 1970's...as was David Puckett, Mark Whitlock and Tommy Widdrington ten years later --but they were never going to become regulars.

 

Nowadays, it's tougher at 20. Many have been raving about Ward-Prowse, Shaw, Stephens, Moore and Sinclair. Where (I wonder) will they be in 2015?

Edited 8 May, 2012 by david in sweden

[VectisSaint]

Although Channon and MLT both debuted around 17, it took a couple of seasons for either of them to become regulars on the team sheet

Channon debuted in Apr 66, made 2 appearances in 66-67 but was then a regular in 67-68; 27 appearances, made simpler by the departure of Chivers. So he was a regular by the age of 19. The point was he was in the squad at 17 and making occassional appearances, and don't forget in those days there were only 12 players available on match days (and the sub could only be used for injury replacement), no place on a subs bench to blood a youngster for 15 minutes at the end of an already won game. In some ways you could argue that its actually easier to get a kid into the first team than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

 

I know I picked on some top players as examples, but my point was it was not hard to find a lot of players very easily who broke into the 1st team in their teens. I don't think it would be difficult to find a lot more to be honest.

 

My point with Williamson still stands, I don't think it was the fact that he was being kept out of the team, rather that it really is very difficult for a CB to break through, as opposed to a winger because of the physical needs of the position. I think Martin is an exceptional talent, I don't think there is any way Saints would unload him now, he clearly can stand in for Fonte or Hoiveld when needed, and will develop in this position over the coming 2 or 3 seasons. He will be 23 in September, so really not a youngster any more.

[mulletsaint]

Lots of good points on this thread. I think it was a huge mistake by the football league to restrict subs to five last season. If more were allowed I'd hazard a guess that we'd have had a youngster on the bench for most of the season. This would help them get used to the atmosphere etc and who knows, during some of the more comfortable wins one or two may have got a late run out or two.

 

As others have said no two players develop at the same and unfortunately clubs can't necessarily afford to keep slow developers on the books when they are due to turn professional. This is pretty understandable and there will always be players that resurface later in their careers. However I don't think enough is done in this country to allow young kids to develop at different rates within the academy system. There is still an issue with academies going for bigger and stronger kids first.

 

I remember reading that several other top European nations run their academy system with overlapping age groups. This allows for more flexibility in what group kids play in. It also means that kids who develop more slowly don't drop out of the academy completely. Players can move up and down as their bodies and technique develops.

 

I spoke to a Chelsea scout last year who told me that they quite often have players from 8 to 14 only to let them go when someone better comes along. The European system would allow at least some of those players to drop down a group and stay with the club an extra year or so and give them that little bit of extra time to develop.

[david in sweden]

Lots of good points on this thread. I think it was a huge mistake by the football league to restrict subs to five last season. If more were allowed I'd hazard a guess that we'd have had a youngster on the bench for most of the season. This would help them get used to the atmosphere etc and who knows, during some of the more comfortable wins one or two may have got a late run out or two.

 

of course you're totally correct (although Prem.sides still have 7 on the bench) but I think it was a sort of " PR plaster on the economic sore", because quite few clubs in lower leagues didn't have the economy to put 7 fit players on their bench and that is an embarrasment, as well as a psychological issue.

[david in sweden]

Channon debuted in Apr 66, made 2 appearances in 66-67 but was then a regular in 67-68; 27 appearances, made simpler by the departure of Chivers. So he was a regular by the age of 19. The point was he was in the squad at 17 and making occassional appearances, QUOTE]

 

 

I haven't deleted the rest of your excellent post deliberately, but I guess that you also have a copy of " In that Number ".

 

I 've had this discussion before and IMHO Channon wasn't the whizz kid everyone suggested from the start. Although his late equaliser in the Easter game v.Bristol City (April 1966) put him in the headlines, and helped in our promotion push. In the following season he had only ONE game..and wasn't even scoring as many goals as Norman Dean in reserve games.

 

In season 67-68, he didn't get a start until we were 10 games into the season, and then had to be moved around the front line to accomodate Frank Saul after Chivers went to Spurs. I was a great fan of Mick's and met him a couple of times, but he didn't have the whirlwind career start that many suggest, though he did make up for it in later seasons becoming club record scorer.

 

Alan Shearers dream debut was tempered by an even more humble period, almost 2 seasons before he came good, especially when you consider his later achievements with Blackburn/Newcastle and England.

[saintbob40]

Take a look at Jack Cork's progress over the years. The trick is for these young lads to get out on loan and play at the best level they can infront of crowds and against men (rathher than fellow teenagers) where the result matters. Hanging around in the reserves/21s too long isn't going to help their development a great deal .

[ribbo]

Take a look at Jack Cork's progress over the years. The trick is for these young lads to get out on loan and play at the best level they can infront of crowds and against men (rathher than fellow teenagers) where the result matters. Hanging around in the reserves/21s too long isn't going to help their development a great deal .

 

Corks progress is unique to the larger turbelant premiership clubs.

Chelsea flooded they're academy when Roman + Frank Arneson came in and very few if none of them have come through into the first team, Mancienne, Hutchinson, Cork, Bertrand and the rest of that youth squad who are all about 22-24 have failed to make an impact at Chelsea because they will go and procure proven talent instead of blooding they're own, then the manager changes or Arneson leaves and the process starts again.

[captain sensible]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Corky's position at Chelsea was continually clogged up by the one and only Lampard. He was never going to get a look in there.

Cork is my favourite Saints player at the moment, but that was largely based on his performances under Poortvliet, where I thought he was outstanding. He needs to weigh in with a few goals though, like Lampard, and I think he needs to up his game a little bit as well.