Academy output - what is broken?

[Dusic]

Off the top of my head, these are the main Academy trained players who have been given a debut and then some form of gametime during Ralph's tenure or relatively shortly beforehand.

Sure there are some missing, but it is interesting:

- He has given a chance to lots of players but as yet I wouldn't say a single one has taken it and most have probably regressed, certainly those who were given the most chances have aside from Smallbone.

- None that have left the club have really played consistently or been successful and are being linked with teams at a higher level.

- Many of those now playing at L1 or below we kept until they were at least 20 - perhaps we need to make quicker decisions, how many players who show nothing aged 20 are suddenly PL quality at 21 or 22?

- None have generated any income. Reed, Gallagher and Targett from the previous group have been notable sales but they were from the academy 8 years ago or thereabouts.

- Overall, the output since the Shaw, JWP, Chambers, Reed, Targett group has been woeful.

- Hopefully Matt Crocker will make a difference because, whilst its not possible to develop a constant stream of PL players, something has broken.

Note - having 7 or 8 Academy players on the bench for games when we have literally no other choice should not be heralded at some kind of success.
-----‐---------------

GK:

Lewis - he is awful and will do well to have a long term pro career

DEF:

Ramsay - ironically might start tonight but binned off by Ralph after one appearance

Jones - hyped but let go for virtually nothing after loan spells. Now playing L1

Valery - started well and has clearly tailed off to the stage where Ralph has seen him as unselectable. Now playing Champ.

Vokins - physically looks miles from being a PL defender but clearly has something. Now playing L1

MID:

Slattery - highly rated but bombed out by Ralph after a few sub apps. Now playing L1

Smallbone - the pick of the bunch. Unfortunate injury

Johnson - loaned to US, now playing L1.

Sims - at one stage a squad regular but failed loan spells have seen him drift to L1. Will leave on a free

Tella - hard to really judge and a shame he is currently injured. But with players in his positions now mostly fit he will probably not get much more game time.

Jankowitz - signed for a decent fee aged 16 and recently made an official transfer request as he didnt see a pathway to the first team. Will probably start tonight...hopefully he can build bridges with the club.

Hesketh - at one stage looked a prospect. Now playing L2 and will leave on a free

Watts & Chauke - look promising but not had enough time to really assess

FWD:

Obafemi - given lots of chances, done ok but injuries have held him back. Was about to be loaned to Champ.

N'Lundulu - promising, but hard to really tell if he has what it takes.

Olomola - now playing L2

Barnes - now playing L2

Seager - prolific youth scorer. Now playing National League South

[trousers]

Can this all be traced back to our flirtation with non-existence followed by c.5 years of lower league football?  i.e. the players looking to break into the first team over the last few years would have joined the club as kids during a period where we wouldn't have been able to attract the best 8, 9, 10 year olds into the academy? #thinkingoutloud

[SuperSAINT]

It’s a really interesting topic.

I can’t remember the stat, but what was the percentage chance that kids have of actually making it?  It’s absolutely tiny.

[S-Clarke]

It's an interesting topic, it does feel as if our youth setup has regressed. Even the teams (U23's/U18's) aren't great and certainly aren't amongst the best of the bunch in the age groups anymore. 

Whilst the number of academy graduates who go on to play first team football is very small, as SuperSaint points out, you do expect to see at least 1 or 2 who look suited and ready to make it.

But in times like these, there is often someone who comes from nowhere in a young age group and makes a break through. I'm looking at the likes of Jankewitz and Watts...maybe.

But yeah, it feels a bit bear. I don't think our academy ever benefited from the upgraded facilities of that of the first team, not sure if that's a reason - they're still based out of porter cabins I think. (Although we did alright before from porter cabins!)

[SuperSAINT]

I think we need to be more aggressive in recruiting 15-16 year olds in this country, post-Brexit.  But the problem is everyone is going to do that.

Arsenal & Chelsea seem to have monopolised the hoovering up of local talent.

Edited 2 February, 2021 by SuperSAINT

[Mystic Force]

I think we fooled ourselves in to thinking we had a great system of producing talent when instead is was down to the ability of a few individuals. Once those moved on they were able to live on their reputation not realizing the party was already over.  And while we waited for the next big thing no one went to fix the actual problem, because they had convinced themselves they knew what they were doing was right. Well now its clear that they were not the geniuses they believed and when the problems gets fixed it will be a really long time before any new prospects come through. And if they make the wrong changes it will take a really long time to see that they still have problems.

[Baird of the land]

Think the likes of sims/reed/hesketh were messed about by blocked pathway.

i do feel we should sometimes be using targeted loans earlier to get real league experience. A few of the players to come in this season have looked reasonable but u23 games seem to lack in preparing them.

 

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Think the likes of sims/reed/hesketh were messed about by blocked pathway.

Reed has Premier League quality, but which players were Hesketh and Sims blocked by who they are better than? 

[tajjuk]

Sometimes players just don't come through, happens to all clubs, not sure its a systematic thing though there are probably certain things that could be done better and I am sure those are things that Crocker etc. are looking at.

But like how many top talents have come through at say Liverpool between like Gerrard and TAA? Sterling maybe and they stole him

In 2018-19 we we third for total amount of minutes played by academy produced players across the PL, behind Spurs and Man Utd, we were also third in 2017-18

In October 2020, we were again third with 13 youth products in the PL, behind Man Utd and Chelsea

I think we also regularly appear high up in the youth minutes rankings as well, with chances given to home grown players.

So I am not sure 'broken' is exactly right. 

[Baird of the land]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Reed has Premier League quality, but which players were Hesketh and Sims blocked by who they are better than? 

Reed understandably developed by playing games, so has targett.

Elyounessi was a massive waste of money, 20 useless games and we're still loaning him out. We bought a raw Djenepo, now 22 yr old has already had 30 games at saints in 2 seasons despite having numerous injury problems and being pretty erratic.

Sims made an impact on his debut at 19? Had a total of 27(50% in his debut sesson) appearances, of which 8 were starts and 5 of those starts were during his debut season. The next 2 seasons we had manager chaos (Pellegrino, Hughes, ralph arrival).

 

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Reed understandably developed by playing games, so has targett.

Elyounessi was a massive waste of money, 20 useless games and we're still loaning him out. We bought a raw Djenepo, now 22 yr old has already had 30 games at saints in 2 seasons despite having numerous injury problems and being pretty erratic.

Sims made an impact on his debut at 19? Had a total of 27(50% in his debut sesson) appearances, of which 8 were starts and 5 of those starts were during his debut season. The next 2 seasons we had manager chaos (Pellegrino, Hughes, ralph arrival).

 

Hesketh and Sims have had plenty of exposure to first team football, but not impressed football managers/scouts enough to have developed above League One/Lower Championship level.

[egg]

Interesting and necessary thread. For me the biggest issue has been managerial changes. New managers have come in and had to establish themselves, and its harder to do that with unknown kids. That's led to a lack of opportunity and consequently poor development. 

Les Reed had high hopes for Sims and I have to say there was hope. That run and pass against Liverpool was the sign of a proper player. Since then he's never had a proper chance or run of games and he's drifted.

People underestimate the importance of confidence, and being dropped / not given a chance must be demoralising for young players. 

I also wander of the managerial changes have impacted in loaning out players. On one hand a manager won't trust a kid, but on the other hand doesn't want to send the kid out as he wants to see him in training or reserve / u21 /u23/games. By the time the manager has decided the kids not in his plans the loan opportunity has gone and the lad has another season / half season without mens football and the development that flows. 

On the whole though I think we've mismanaged our kids and not helped them or us.  After a point these lads have to take what they can get. I'm not convinced that all of the lads listed are playing at their level. 

On the players on that list, the one who really had something was Seager. He had awful injuries, then dropped down the leagues, then his dad became very ill. He tried his luck again at  Havant & Waterlooville a couple of years ago and speaking to their management at the time, the lad still had something but it was never going to be for him. He's making a couple of quid at Hungerford (I think) and hopefully he can scratch a living from the game. 

 

[CamSaint]

We won the PL U-21 League Cup in 2015. Some may remember the screamer Gallagher got in the 94th minute in the 2nd leg to win it. You can find the full line up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014–15_Under-21_Premier_League_Cup, but the squad included Gazzaniga, Targett, Gallagher, Reed, Seager, Hesketh, McQueen, Sims, Sinclair & Slattery. That was almost 6 years ago, and I seem to remember that we thought that we had a pretty good cohort there. Yet only Targett has really developed into a PL player. Reed might establish himself in PL depending on Fulham's fortunes. I seem to remember that group playing together for the U-21s regularly, creating a 'team' but now the minute anyone seems to show any promise they are promoted to the first team squad & actually play far less football. Does being thrown into the first team pool too early inhibit their progress or is it a basic lack of the 'spark' that's needed? After all, if some of the awful signings that we have made had turned out to be decent, we wouldn't be relying on the youngsters - we would be waiting for one or two of them to force their way into contention.

[Daft Kerplunk]

Between April 2010 and November 2018, Reed was Head of Football Development and the Vice-Chairman of Football at Southampton.

In this time many of the strong but perhaps forthright coaches were got rid of and replaced with average yes men, or worse, just mates of those at the top who aren’t that great but have got the plum roles.

Add declining recruitment and more challenge from the likes of Chelsea who pay parents or offer ridiculous contracts to youngsters and there is a blend of problems.

All these players making the first team now are just statistics to sell the club to sponsors, prospective buyers and fans who can’t tell the difference between a genuine good prospect and an average one.  The last players of genuine ability and the hunger required came through the academy a decade ago. 

Matt Crocker has a huge job on his hands, the success won’t come because of cowering corporate behaviour, pretty powerpoints and pulling socks up, it’ll come by having the best coaches, perhaps even some ex-players in the environment who know the club and what it takes to make it in the game, and then convincing parents that this is the place for talented kids playing among other talented kids, not just kids taken on to boost the numbers. Some will be lost because of the money, many will know that with the best coaches, this would be the only place to be. That’s what has been lost. Some still choose to ride on a wave that fell flat on the shore a decade ago. 
 

 

[SuperSAINT]

Re: Valery & Vokins

Whilst I get the whole "they won't play under Ralph, so better to loan them out" point of view, I find it interesting that, effectively, the players to replace them as back-up basically become Will Ferry & Kayne Ramsay.

- Will Ferry has been an experimental left-back for the B-Team this season (yet he's probably the best attacking wide player we have down there).

- Ramsay plays at primarily at centre-back for the B's (with Agbontohoma being preferred at right-back).

I know we have a ridiculous injury list, but it shows how disjointed things are at the moment. 

[woodsaint1]

Fully understand our need for a steady stream of youth players filtering into the first team (lack of investment forcing our hand), but theres also a worrying stubborness about us promoting youth at all costs and becoming chained to the 'Southampton Way'.

I could understand if we were regularly bringing through youth players ready for first team football, signing the best youth talent and competing near the top of the PL2/under 18 PL. But we havent been successful at this for years and alot of other clubs academies have surpassed us, yet you dont see these clubs pushing youth players to the same extent as us. Yes clubs like City, Chelsea etc dont need to with their riches, but it appears we're expecting an awful lot of our academy when a large majority are nowhere near good enough or ready for the PL. It is incredibly difficult to make the step up from PL development to the real thing and its certainly not helped by the relaxed nature of development leagues (would love to see figures of academy graduates across PL clubs making 10+ appearances a season in the past 5 years). PL U23 performances in the Checkatrade Trophy (or whatever its called now) has been poor across the board. Its all well and good learning Ralphs style of play, but theres a huge difference applying it in PL2 and the actual PL.

The game is changing. We're seeing some clubs reducing their academy structures and preferring to focus their efforts on smarter recruitment and creating partnerships with other clubs. Our recent poor seasons were determined by poor recruitment, not the lack of youth ingegration. 

Its disappointing that I cant get excited by any of our young players right now, but I'm wary of previous high expectations placed upon the likes of Slattery, Vokins, Hesketh, Obafemi etc and seeing where they are now. The club need to be realistic that in the current system we can hope for 1 or 2 players breaking into the first team every couple of years, but thats the height of it. Hopefully if we get a new owner in the future, they place less expectation on our academy and recognise that any youth players who do make the grade are a bonus used to supplement sound recruitment.

Edited 4 February, 2021 by woodsaint1

[verlaine1979]

We became a championship club again 10 years ago, with a decent infrastructure and a good reputation. If our scouting/black box/yadda yadda was actually as good as we claimed at the time, our current crop of 16/17/18 year old players should presumably be top drawer.

Ah, and having just checked our under 18 league placing, I see we're actually second bottom.

Edited 4 February, 2021 by verlaine1979

[Danbert]

We should have kept Matt Targett

[Pilchards]

It’s good to bring in the odd young player into the team especially when the first team is playing well.

The situation we have now is the youngsters are in a struggling team plus we have about 8 in the match day squad together.

Asking too much of them too soon. I honestly think if Tella and Smallbone would of stayed fit and we were playing good football then we would be saying another two off the production line.

 

[S-Clarke]

3 hours ago, Danbert said:

We should have kept Matt Targett

Unfortunately we needed an extra attacker up top (Adams) and we needed to be creative with who we sold in order to allow that to happen.

Targett wasn't amazing, but he'd be a damn sight better squad option than we've had there for the last year.

[Matthew Le God]

3 hours ago, Danbert said:

We should have kept Matt Targett

He wanted to be first choice, something he wouldn't get here.

[Mystic Force]

I remember a struggling team flirting with the bottom of the table even had a game that season called el Sackico, that season we brought in a new young left back, and our performances actually got better, he started off playing limited football within himself and over time was allowed to roam more freely. The problem is not a struggling team it is that what he have available is not as good as it was a few years ago.

If we thought we had a reliable pipeline. I doubt many of those brought in and failed to find a way in to the squad, would probably not have been signed. It is hard to bring in good second choices at any position, that is why you have youngsters waiting to get a chance (and then seizing it), but for many positions if they are not showing it by a fairly young age, they are not going to be succeeding. There are some late bloomers but as a percentage wise it is smaller than those who come on at the "normal" age. I think we have held on to long, to too many hoping they will come good, possibly stymying the development of those who came afterwards.

The simple fact is that we are not producing the players we once did and told the world we were going to continue to do. Coming up with ad-hoc reasons for each case is to ignore the systematic problem that is plain.

As for Target, he had a chance, you can only keep someone playing second fiddle so long, and if they do not prove themselves better than the incumbent, they will choose to move on, after a few years of this you would hope that the next academy product will be along to fill that spot. The problem is that each succeeding generation of back ups has become weaker. To the point that when we see the academy players on the bench we are filled with dread rather than excitement.

When football finances look to be taking a hit, a club which can produce its own talent should be in an enviable position, however we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot and instead we will be hobbling around rather than making hay while the sun shines.

[tajjuk]

9 hours ago, Danbert said:

We should have kept Matt Targett

He is not the best full back, good crossing and passing ability, not the best defensively and regularly gets done for pace. He does ok for Villa because he has Grealish in front of him who is such a threat teams often double on him, leaving Targett relatively free in most games, but you see when good wide players get at him he struggles.

The cash for him was a decent deal for a player who was never much more than a back up, and is probably one of those players who is not quite prem quality but too good for the championship. 

[hackedoff]

25 years ago,appalling facilities but good scouting network and coaches.Result endless conveyor belt of quality youngsters.

Now,state of the art facilities but a chronic lack of successful prodigies.

You can Chuck all the money you like at the infrastructure,but without skilled recruitment and development personnel,the product will fail.

[trousers]

Anyone got a list of previous winners of this award? Might be an interesting indicator of the quality of recent academy output.

 

 

Edited 4 June, 2021 by trousers

[SuperSAINT]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Anyone got a list of previous winners of this award? Might be an interesting indicator of the quality of recent academy output.

 

 

Jank won it last season

[HarvSFC]

Will Ferry and Jake Vokins the previous two winners before Jankewitz.

JWP 2013, Hesketh 2014.

Edited 4 June, 2021 by HarvSFC

[OldNick]

On 04/02/2021 at 21:50, hackedoff said:

25 years ago,appalling facilities but good scouting network and coaches.Result endless conveyor belt of quality youngsters.

Now,state of the art facilities but a chronic lack of successful prodigies.

You can Chuck all the money you like at the infrastructure,but without skilled recruitment and development personnel,the product will fail.

You can have many black boxes you want but if the person who is loading the info and reading what is spewed out is a poor judge you may as well forget it

[captainchris]

On 02/02/2021 at 15:09, trousers said:

Can this all be traced back to our flirtation with non-existence followed by c.5 years of lower league football?  i.e. the players looking to break into the first team over the last few years would have joined the club as kids during a period where we wouldn't have been able to attract the best 8, 9, 10 year olds into the academy? #thinkingoutloud

There lies the issue, or one of them....

Recruiting players far too young! It’s ridiculous to recruit players at 8,9,10. At that age no one has a clue how they will turn out. Recruit at 14 upwards and please please the least we can do, the very least is teach them to kick with both feet!!!!! 
Our coaching is a joke. 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, captainchris said:

There lies the issue, or one of them....

Recruiting players far too young! It’s ridiculous to recruit players at 8,9,10. At that age no one has a clue how they will turn out. Recruit at 14 upwards and please please the least we can do, the very least is teach them to kick with both feet!!!!! 
Our coaching is a joke. 

Lots of our best academy players were recruited at 8, 9, 10. Stopping recruitment at that age means Saints would miss out on players to other clubs. Only recruiting at 14 upwards means you've missed out on coaching them at a high level for 6 years. So how does that help us?

[Sarisbury Saint]

55 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Lots of our best academy players were recruited at 8, 9, 10. Stopping recruitment at that age means Saints would miss out on players to other clubs. Only recruiting at 14 upwards means you've missed out on coaching them at a high level for 6 years. So how does that help us?

At the age of 14ish is when players are more hungry and determined. 
The percentage of players that succeed at 14ish is a higher than  those at 8 or 9.

At 8 or 9 you get a lot morel that drop out because they’re not mentally ready for it.

[Matthew Le God]

44 minutes ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

At the age of 14ish is when players are more hungry and determined. 
The percentage of players that succeed at 14ish is a higher than  those at 8 or 9.

At 8 or 9 you get a lot morel that drop out because they’re not mentally ready for it.

That didn't answer the question.

[Sarisbury Saint]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That didn't answer the question.

It kinda of does.

Kids at such a young age are expected to attend at there club 4 times a week and many at the age of 8 or 9 lose interest because it becomes a chore rather than an enjoyment.

Many of those kids could well have progressed better had they been left to mature and love the game at a later age.

Ive seen for myself how kids at such a young age have fallen out of love of the game because of the demands put on them at such a young age.

 I hope that answers your question .

[Matthew Le God]

42 minutes ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

It kinda of does.

Kids at such a young age are expected to attend at there club 4 times a week and many at the age of 8 or 9 lose interest because it becomes a chore rather than an enjoyment.

Many of those kids could well have progressed better had they been left to mature and love the game at a later age.

Ive seen for myself how kids at such a young age have fallen out of love of the game because of the demands put on them at such a young age.

 I hope that answers your question .

It didn't... as my question was how would Saints switching to only signing 14+ year olds if other clubs pick up the best players help Saints? Which you didn't address.

Plus, missing out on 6 years of professional coaching isn't going to help.

Edited 5 June, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Sarisbury Saint]

41 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It didn't... as my question was how would Saints switching to only signing 14+ year olds if other clubs pick up the best players help Saints? Which you didn't address.

Plus, missing out on 6 years of professional coaching isn't going to help.

I’m glad to see you edited your response.

I can assure you that many kids who are picked up at the age of 8 are released and overtaken by those who didn’t have 6 years of academy training by the time they get to 14.

I know personally that 8 year olds don’t progress as well as those that are brought in at the age of 14.

6 years of coaching is great for a few but many more are successful from a later age without the coaching.

You seem to underestimate the strength of street football.

 I strongly believe that kid’s should be left to develop and progress until a later age.

 

[eelpie]

On 04/02/2021 at 09:22, Danbert said:

We should have kept Matt Targett

This.

What was the real reason that Matty left?  He wasn't the fastest , but his positional play. tackling, crosses and attacking skills were better than many, and much better than our reserve replacements. So why did he leave?

[qwertyell]

2 minutes ago, eelpie said:

This.

What was the real reason that Matty left?  He wasn't the fastest , but his positional play. tackling, crosses and attacking skills were better than many, and much better than our reserve replacements. So why did he leave?

Because he was 24 and needed to be someone's first choice LB.

Also, we were (and still are) skint, and £15m-odd for a back up player helped fund Adams' transfer.

[Disco Stu]

4 minutes ago, eelpie said:

This.

What was the real reason that Matty left?  He wasn't the fastest , but his positional play. tackling, crosses and attacking skills were better than many, and much better than our reserve replacements. So why did he leave?

Because the offer was good. Simple as that unfortunately.

[ErwinK1961]

4 minutes ago, eelpie said:

This.

What was the real reason that Matty left?  He wasn't the fastest , but his positional play. tackling, crosses and attacking skills were better than many, and much better than our reserve replacements. So why did he leave?

Because he was second choice behind Bertrand and he wanted to play regularly. We got £16m for him which we bought Adams with.

[Hayling Saint]

2 hours ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

I’m glad to see you edited your response.

I can assure you that many kids who are picked up at the age of 8 are released and overtaken by those who didn’t have 6 years of academy training by the time they get to 14.

I know personally that 8 year olds don’t progress as well as those that are brought in at the age of 14.

6 years of coaching is great for a few but many more are successful from a later age without the coaching.

You seem to underestimate the strength of street football.

 I strongly believe that kid’s should be left to develop and progress until a later age.

 

Totally agree with this.

[verlaine1979]

4 hours ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

I’m glad to see you edited your response.

I can assure you that many kids who are picked up at the age of 8 are released and overtaken by those who didn’t have 6 years of academy training by the time they get to 14.

I know personally that 8 year olds don’t progress as well as those that are brought in at the age of 14.

6 years of coaching is great for a few but many more are successful from a later age without the coaching.

You seem to underestimate the strength of street football.

 I strongly believe that kid’s should be left to develop and progress until a later age.

 

You might be right, but it's not something Saints could do unilaterally. If all the other clubs that recruit in our catchment continue bringing in kids from 8 up, then all we'd do is miss out on anyone who shows exceptional early promise, while still having to compete on an equal footing for anyone who develops later.

[captainchris]

8 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Lots of our best academy players were recruited at 8, 9, 10. Stopping recruitment at that age means Saints would miss out on players to other clubs. Only recruiting at 14 upwards means you've missed out on coaching them at a high level for 6 years. So how does that help us?

You don’t understand at all do you ....

You cannot rate potential at at the age of ten !!!!!!!!!

if you can’t understand that then God help you !!!!!

 

 

 

[Pilchards]

9 hours ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

I’m glad to see you edited your response.

I can assure you that many kids who are picked up at the age of 8 are released and overtaken by those who didn’t have 6 years of academy training by the time they get to 14.

I know personally that 8 year olds don’t progress as well as those that are brought in at the age of 14.

6 years of coaching is great for a few but many more are successful from a later age without the coaching.

You seem to underestimate the strength of street football.

 I strongly believe that kid’s should be left to develop and progress until a later age.

 

I strongly agree too as I know a few that have been involved in the youth system.

The problem you have is that at the age of 13 and you are not snapped up by Saints already the parents would probably take the other option of another club as a safe back up.

You need all the clubs to agree that no child should be approached by any club until it’s 14th birthday. They can be scouted at any age by a club but never approached as it’s important they know how they are progressing.

[Sarisbury Saint]

6 hours ago, verlaine1979 said:

You might be right, but it's not something Saints could do unilaterally. If all the other clubs that recruit in our catchment continue bringing in kids from 8 up, then all we'd do is miss out on anyone who shows exceptional early promise, while still having to compete on an equal footing for anyone who develops later.

That’s the problem. As Pilchards has said above, there should be a rule put in place that clubs can’t recruit until older. Or maybe say that from the age of 11 they can sign them, but only train once a week and still allow them to play for their local club .

 

[Matthew Le God]

7 hours ago, captainchris said:

You don’t understand at all do you ....

You cannot rate potential at at the age of ten !!!!!!!!!

if you can’t understand that then God help you !!!!!

I did not say you could.

My question was about if Saints stopped  signing 8 to 13 year olds, how would that help Saints as other clubs would get the best youngsters. 

Extremely rare for a player who makes it not to already be in the academy system before the age of 14.

[Sarisbury Saint]

18 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Lots of our best academy players were recruited at 8, 9, 10. Stopping recruitment at that age means Saints would miss out on players to other clubs. Only recruiting at 14 upwards means you've missed out on coaching them at a high level for 6 years. So how does that help us?

8, 9,10 year olds you quoted. Now you’ve spun it to 13 year olds aswell !

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

8, 9,10 year olds you quoted. Now you’ve spun it to 13 year olds aswell !

I didn't spin it. Read my post in the context of what it was replying to!

captainchris said...

Quote

Recruit at 14 upwards

That is what my post was a response to. You keep taking my replies out of context.

[Sarisbury Saint]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I didn't spin it. Read my post in the context of what it was replying to!

captainchris said...

That is what my post was a response to. You keep taking my replies out of context.

How old was your hero Matt Le Tiss when he was snapped up at a professional academy ?

[Matthew Le God]

31 minutes ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

How old was your hero Matt Le Tiss when he was snapped up at a professional academy ?

How is this relevant? The academy system in England did not start until circa 1998, so Le Tissier was not in one.

[Smirking_Saint]

8 hours ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

That’s the problem. As Pilchards has said above, there should be a rule put in place that clubs can’t recruit until older. Or maybe say that from the age of 11 they can sign them, but only train once a week and still allow them to play for their local club .

 

In all fairness, whilst I do agree with the overall consensus that potential cannot be adequately identified until a higher level of maturity, if we simply stopped recruiting under the age of 14 then the promising kids will still be recruited by satellite academies, it just wouldn't be ours

The trick is to have a bit of both, clubs around the UK have a different model of youth recruitment. I think Brentford changed tack completely to move to a system of binning off the academy in general and only, like you say, pick up players released from other academies... thats fine, and saves a chunk of youth budget, but you then rely on your success through the players you have picked up and no longer have a chance of picking up a young player under 11 that 'makes it'

There is of course an issue with players falling out of love for the game through sheer volume of coaching at a young age, but that is more of a symptom of how coaching works at those ages, so change the way you do it rather than stop it altogether

'Why is our academy output broken ?' Its probably a multitude of issues, changing recruitment/youth heads probably doesn't help, as well as academies of clubs our size being cyclical. We were in league 1 ten years ago, that probably caused us problems with youth recruitment at the time, and now being a prem club it means that those recruited 10 years ago need to be at a higher pedigree then they probably were signed for at the time, and have less opportunity available to them