LCFC U21 / Development Squad 2016/17

[Thracian]

30 minutes ago, EGBFitness said:

As you put with some of the names graduated, some have gone on to premier league football Schlupp, Gradel and King (clubs ambition last 5 years) and other players mentioned play/played at championship level which is where the club was and maybe unfortunately was fortunate to be playing when those players broke into the first team - doesn't that mean the club have produced players in the academy good enough to play into the senior side depending on the ambition of the club at the time? As I've put in other posts (not to you) although we are investing financially into the academy now it doesn't mean we are going to see the success tomorrow, the club have ambitions of playing more European football in the next few years so we will be having to produce players that are good enough. The clubs rise has been unbelievable and can have a knock on effect to the clubs youth expected level, does someone like Chilwell not have the potential to play for a top half prem side? 

 

Some me of the points you are making I agree with but I don't think the issue lies just with Leicester. Is English football producing enough talent through the youth set ups? I'd say no and it is a concern - clubs are more concerned on short term success. What has happened to the success of the likes of West Ham's academy? United? The only reason they have pushed players through to first team is because of injuries. There should be more done at grassroots level too, more coaches should be educated to a higher level which is easier said than done as grassroots is ran of voluntary work and without them we would have even less talent coming through - if personally like to see pro clubs work more with grassroots through funding/coaching to catch and develop more talent, similar to Athletico Bilboas approach to only developing players in the basque. 

 

Its not not for a fact I'm mocking you for believing players should have a winning mentality it is for the fact that youth football isn't built on just winning games, I understand what your saying that players shouldn't have a losing mentality, the main focus is the players development and challenging them - hence why you see players played in so many different positions etc to help develop them even though it could potentially effect the result as the players are learning. 

 

How are are you so sure Southampton provide a winning mentality within their academy? 

Let me say I entirely appreciate your input to this debate. You've offered an insight, tried to answer the questions raised and it does you credit. My comment regarding Southampton relates to their impressive output in terms of standard and having a middle son who's a longstanding Southampton fan, something that made it embarrassingly uncomfortable watching our 3-0 first team defeat down there not too long ago!     

 

From a distance it seems that Southampton's scouting must count for much, but also their willingness to show belief in their proteges and give them the sufficient game time to settle, to learn details and to build the confidence necessary to perform at their best.

 

That, where a manager or coach is concerned, not only requires good judgement in recognising when a player is ready but the personal courage and commitment necessary to see the last stage of his development through to fruition.  

 

Chilwell's an excellent example of a young man at exactly that stage - an accomplished, thinking-man's footballer with good close control and quickish feet who just needs to improve his awareness, experience the pitfalls of momentary lapses in his focus or understanding, and to emerge as a player his team-mates can have complete confidence in.

 

He'll do it, no question but one thing even he needs to improve even now, is not to compromise his determination to win either by being muscled aside or baulking at the prospect of being whacked by a free-kick.

 

Because lapses like those - and we've all been guilty - make the difference between winning and the bitterness of coming second.

 

You can see compromise right from the start and even on the training ground with something as simple as a series of shuttle runs.

 

Some players will cut corners by not quite going the full distance before they turn. It's a perfectly understandable self-protecting measure, but no good in a match when there are no short cuts only the need to give your all and make that last couple of inches to get your shot in - or a last ditch tackle.

 

And that's where the coach comes in. Attending to little things like that and explaining why they're so important.     

 

 

 

                      

[moseeds]

I think it's fairly clear our Academy whilst not quite a failure, has not been a success by any relevant measure in the past decade at least. I felt Pearson recognised it as such hence hoovering up and willing to take risks with youngsters from elsewhere.

 

I wonder if during the summer the board will now be looking to appoint a manager to overhaul the entire club apparatus to match the club's new found status, along with physical infrastructure changes to cement last season's gains. 

[EGBFitness]

12 hours ago, Thracian said:

Let me say I entirely appreciate your input to this debate. You've offered an insight, tried to answer the questions raised and it does you credit. My comment regarding Southampton relates to their impressive output in terms of standard and having a middle son who's a longstanding Southampton fan, something that made it embarrassingly uncomfortable watching our 3-0 first team defeat down there not too long ago!     

 

From a distance it seems that Southampton's scouting must count for much, but also their willingness to show belief in their proteges and give them the sufficient game time to settle, to learn details and to build the confidence necessary to perform at their best.

 

That, where a manager or coach is concerned, not only requires good judgement in recognising when a player is ready but the personal courage and commitment necessary to see the last stage of his development through to fruition.  

 

Chilwell's an excellent example of a young man at exactly that stage - an accomplished, thinking-man's footballer with good close control and quickish feet who just needs to improve his awareness, experience the pitfalls of momentary lapses in his focus or understanding, and to emerge as a player his team-mates can have complete confidence in.

 

He'll do it, no question but one thing even he needs to improve even now, is not to compromise his determination to win either by being muscled aside or baulking at the prospect of being whacked by a free-kick.

 

Because lapses like those - and we've all been guilty - make the difference between winning and the bitterness of coming second.

 

You can see compromise right from the start and even on the training ground with something as simple as a series of shuttle runs.

 

Some players will cut corners by not quite going the full distance before they turn. It's a perfectly understandable self-protecting measure, but no good in a match when there are no short cuts only the need to give your all and make that last couple of inches to get your shot in - or a last ditch tackle.

 

And that's where the coach comes in. Attending to little things like that and explaining why they're so important.     

 

 

 

                      

Thank you mate, you too. Sorry for the abrupt start  I do understand some of the points you are making especially with the winning mentality and replicating Southamptons philosophy. Southampton seem to have a very good structure in place with their youth recruitment and as put before are happy to develop these players to, at a later date, know their investment will be rewarded through a high transfer fee soon as they are to a good enough standard. 

 

As a fan you'd love to see the club regularly producing local homeground talent good enough to challenge the first teams standards or winning competitions at all levels, unfortunately it lays with the clubs objectives with the academy. Hopefully it will be something we see more of especially with the raised profile of the club.  A little while ago I was looking at the FA Youth Cup and was surprised that we'd never reached a final in the competition, Southampton had only reached the final once too. Some of the most represented clubs was United (who did have an incredible set up) and in recent years Chelsea yet they fail to be able to then get these players playing for the first team? Maybe they aren't developing their players by challenging them individually and working on their potential but more focused about the initial short term success of the club which could be stopping players reaching their potential? One of the main objectives with FA courses especially when you get on the youth module awards in how you can develop a player rather than looking at just winning and losing. 

 

I still think it's important to install that competitive environment like using the example you did with the shuttle runs. Challenge the players and see how well they respond - fitness drills, playing out of position during games, challenge to get round the full back x amount of times during a game etc that's where a good coach can identify what will help a players potential and help them develop rather than just looking at the results. 

 

Theres a lot of well respected and highly qualified coaches out there working with academies/ youth set up, football management at a senior level is a results business and can sometimes take the enjoyment away, I know a lot of coaches that have either managed at a respectable level or have the experience/qualification to manage senior football but choose to stay developing youth as they get more enjoyment. 

 

As well as the clubs ambition for academies it's also quite a complicated one with grades and premier league standards. They are all judged on a points system through the quality of coaching (external assessments), facilities, graduates etc for example United would be getting points for every time we play James, Drinkwater, Simpson etc not to mention other players at other clubs. The better grade you get the more likely you can attract better players, deliver more coaching hours etc part of the reason why I say it's not completely a results business when it comes to academies.

 

[Foxy-Lady]

On 29/04/2017 at 13:49, EGBFitness said:

Thank you mate, you too. Sorry for the abrupt start  I do understand some of the points you are making especially with the winning mentality and replicating Southamptons philosophy. Southampton seem to have a very good structure in place with their youth recruitment and as put before are happy to develop these players to, at a later date, know their investment will be rewarded through a high transfer fee soon as they are to a good enough standard. 

 

As a fan you'd love to see the club regularly producing local homeground talent good enough to challenge the first teams standards or winning competitions at all levels, unfortunately it lays with the clubs objectives with the academy. Hopefully it will be something we see more of especially with the raised profile of the club.  A little while ago I was looking at the FA Youth Cup and was surprised that we'd never reached a final in the competition, Southampton had only reached the final once too. Some of the most represented clubs was United (who did have an incredible set up) and in recent years Chelsea yet they fail to be able to then get these players playing for the first team? Maybe they aren't developing their players by challenging them individually and working on their potential but more focused about the initial short term success of the club which could be stopping players reaching their potential? One of the main objectives with FA courses especially when you get on the youth module awards in how you can develop a player rather than looking at just winning and losing. 

 

I still think it's important to install that competitive environment like using the example you did with the shuttle runs. Challenge the players and see how well they respond - fitness drills, playing out of position during games, challenge to get round the full back x amount of times during a game etc that's where a good coach can identify what will help a players potential and help them develop rather than just looking at the results. 

 

Theres a lot of well respected and highly qualified coaches out there working with academies/ youth set up, football management at a senior level is a results business and can sometimes take the enjoyment away, I know a lot of coaches that have either managed at a respectable level or have the experience/qualification to manage senior football but choose to stay developing youth as they get more enjoyment. 

 

As well as the clubs ambition for academies it's also quite a complicated one with grades and premier league standards. They are all judged on a points system through the quality of coaching (external assessments), facilities, graduates etc for example United would be getting points for every time we play James, Drinkwater, Simpson etc not to mention other players at other clubs. The better grade you get the more likely you can attract better players, deliver more coaching hours etc part of the reason why I say it's not completely a results business when it comes to academies.

 

Just wanted to make three final points on this thread and your comments;

 

Firstly, if you have ever watched Cheslea Yth Academy play and read about their Yth philosophy and their review system for both players and COACHES development to ensure the system is continuously improving and evolving, you would appreciate that that the CFC academy system is one of the best examples of Yth Devlopment you will find anywhere in the UK and/or Europe. 

Most of their players are recruited pre-U12 and from the 'local' London area so they are NOT reliant on foreign talent and they are trying to develope young English players that also dominate their respective England age groups from U21 dowards.

The issue with Chelsea YTh Acadecmy and its coaches is NOT that they dont produce top quality players (they do!!!)...rather that the players do NOT have a pathway into the 1st team which is the failing of the club as opposed to the academy.  Trust me when i tell you that nearly ALL of Chelseas Yth team players would get in virtually every other Yth Academy team in the country for their respective age groups if they chose to play elsewhere...!

 

Secondly......Fully agree that LCFC might not be the only Academy in the country struggling to show any tangible evidence of successful Yth devleopment in rceent years.....but seeing as this is an LCFC fans forum, the issue we are discussing here is why LCFC cant emulate the more successful academy systems like Southampton as opposed to why we are no worse than West Brom or Hull?!? 

Having read Michael Calvins excellent latest book on Englands failing Academy systems ("No Hunger in Paradise") it does appear that simply accepting the appalingly high failure statistics in Yth Development failure as a part of Football is OK on the basis that you are no worse than most others and we can always blame "someone else" to hide our own systemic failings.........which is a view that should NEVER be accepted in any progressive organisation seeking to challenge itself to grow and develop into a market leader.

Do you want our club to measure itself against the lowest common denominator or do you want to see LCFC continue to capitalise on its current position of strength and continue to evolve and grow in a 360 degree manner which would require success in ALL areas, not just recruitment?  

Is there really any reason why LCFC couldn't achieve the same success in Yth Development as a club like Southampton as we have access to the same resources and finances...?!?

 

And lastly....I definetely agree that Academy/Yth Development should never be a results driven business in terms of winning, losing, league tables etc... but equally, if there is very little tangible evidence of player development success, how exactly should our Academy success be measured and how do we know that we have the right people in the right positions doing the right jobs?

In life, if you know that are running in the wrong directon, running faster and/or trying harder will not improve the situation unless you change direction.  Equally, simply having "more coaching hours" will never be the right solution unless we have firstly have the right coaches and systems and the only way we will know that is if their performances and results are consistently reviewed and measured in the same way that we are all measured in our jobs.....

 

I know for a fact that if i was investing £2m into the hands of "expert" finanancial advisers each year and they failed to show any tangible return on my investment year-after-year (or even a loss in my investment!), it wouldn't be long before I became warey of their excuses and realised that perhaps my money would be more wisely invested elsewhere and i might consider employing alternative advisers...!       Just a thought but suspect that most people would share the same view,...

  

[Aus Fox]

5 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

Just wanted to make three final points on this thread and your comments;

 

Firstly, if you have ever watched Cheslea Yth Academy play and read about their Yth philosophy and their review system for both players and COACHES development to ensure the system is continuously improving and evolving, you would appreciate that that the CFC academy system is one of the best examples of Yth Devlopment you will find anywhere in the UK and/or Europe. 

Most of their players are recruited pre-U12 and from the 'local' London area so they are NOT reliant on foreign talent and they are trying to develope young English players that also dominate their respective England age groups from U21 dowards.

The issue with Chelsea YTh Acadecmy and its coaches is NOT that they dont produce top quality players (they do!!!)...rather that the players do NOT have a pathway into the 1st team which is the failing of the club as opposed to the academy.  Trust me when i tell you that nearly ALL of Chelseas Yth team players would get in virtually every other Yth Academy team in the country for their respective age groups if they chose to play elsewhere...!

 

Secondly......Fully agree that LCFC might not be the only Academy in the country struggling to show any tangible evidence of successful Yth devleopment in rceent years.....but seeing as this is an LCFC fans forum, the issue we are discussing here is why LCFC cant emulate the more successful academy systems like Southampton as opposed to why we are no worse than West Brom or Hull?!? 

Having read Michael Calvins excellent latest book on Englands failing Academy systems ("No Hunger in Paradise") it does appear that simply accepting the appalingly high failure statistics in Yth Development failure as a part of Football is OK on the basis that you are no worse than most others and we can always blame "someone else" to hide our own systemic failings.........which is a view that should NEVER be accepted in any progressive organisation seeking to challenge itself to grow and develop into a market leader.

Do you want our club to measure itself against the lowest common denominator or do you want to see LCFC continue to capitalise on its current position of strength and continue to evolve and grow in a 360 degree manner which would require success in ALL areas, not just recruitment?  

Is there really any reason why LCFC couldn't achieve the same success in Yth Development as a club like Southampton as we have access to the same resources and finances...?!?

 

And lastly....I definetely agree that Academy/Yth Development should never be a results driven business in terms of winning, losing, league tables etc... but equally, if there is very little tangible evidence of player development success, how exactly should our Academy success be measured and how do we know that we have the right people in the right positions doing the right jobs?

In life, if you know that are running in the wrong directon, running faster and/or trying harder will not improve the situation unless you change direction.  Equally, simply having "more coaching hours" will never be the right solution unless we have firstly have the right coaches and systems and the only way we will know that is if their performances and results are consistently reviewed and measured in the same way that we are all measured in our jobs.....

 

I know for a fact that if i was investing £2m into the hands of "expert" finanancial advisers each year and they failed to show any tangible return on my investment year-after-year (or even a loss in my investment!), it wouldn't be long before I became warey of their excuses and realised that perhaps my money would be more wisely invested elsewhere and i might consider employing alternative advisers...!       Just a thought but suspect that most people would share the same view,...

  

On the financial aspects, I would argue since 2000 the sale of youth team players alone has netted reoughly 2 million quid a season. That's without taking into consideration the success we have had with youth team players in the first team.

[Ric Flair]

15 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

Just wanted to make three final points on this thread and your comments;

 

Firstly, if you have ever watched Cheslea Yth Academy play and read about their Yth philosophy and their review system for both players and COACHES development to ensure the system is continuously improving and evolving, you would appreciate that that the CFC academy system is one of the best examples of Yth Devlopment you will find anywhere in the UK and/or Europe. 

Most of their players are recruited pre-U12 and from the 'local' London area so they are NOT reliant on foreign talent and they are trying to develope young English players that also dominate their respective England age groups from U21 dowards.

The issue with Chelsea YTh Acadecmy and its coaches is NOT that they dont produce top quality players (they do!!!)...rather that the players do NOT have a pathway into the 1st team which is the failing of the club as opposed to the academy.  Trust me when i tell you that nearly ALL of Chelseas Yth team players would get in virtually every other Yth Academy team in the country for their respective age groups if they chose to play elsewhere...!

 

Secondly......Fully agree that LCFC might not be the only Academy in the country struggling to show any tangible evidence of successful Yth devleopment in rceent years.....but seeing as this is an LCFC fans forum, the issue we are discussing here is why LCFC cant emulate the more successful academy systems like Southampton as opposed to why we are no worse than West Brom or Hull?!? 

Having read Michael Calvins excellent latest book on Englands failing Academy systems ("No Hunger in Paradise") it does appear that simply accepting the appalingly high failure statistics in Yth Development failure as a part of Football is OK on the basis that you are no worse than most others and we can always blame "someone else" to hide our own systemic failings.........which is a view that should NEVER be accepted in any progressive organisation seeking to challenge itself to grow and develop into a market leader.

Do you want our club to measure itself against the lowest common denominator or do you want to see LCFC continue to capitalise on its current position of strength and continue to evolve and grow in a 360 degree manner which would require success in ALL areas, not just recruitment?  

Is there really any reason why LCFC couldn't achieve the same success in Yth Development as a club like Southampton as we have access to the same resources and finances...?!?

 

And lastly....I definetely agree that Academy/Yth Development should never be a results driven business in terms of winning, losing, league tables etc... but equally, if there is very little tangible evidence of player development success, how exactly should our Academy success be measured and how do we know that we have the right people in the right positions doing the right jobs?

In life, if you know that are running in the wrong directon, running faster and/or trying harder will not improve the situation unless you change direction.  Equally, simply having "more coaching hours" will never be the right solution unless we have firstly have the right coaches and systems and the only way we will know that is if their performances and results are consistently reviewed and measured in the same way that we are all measured in our jobs.....

 

I know for a fact that if i was investing £2m into the hands of "expert" finanancial advisers each year and they failed to show any tangible return on my investment year-after-year (or even a loss in my investment!), it wouldn't be long before I became warey of their excuses and realised that perhaps my money would be more wisely invested elsewhere and i might consider employing alternative advisers...!       Just a thought but suspect that most people would share the same view,...

  

When will Chelsea take any real interest in their academy progressing through to their first team though? They are a disgrace in that sense, even though they are producing first team class players and often selling them and various young fringe players for vast profits.

[Foxy-Lady]

3 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

On the financial aspects, I would argue since 2000 the sale of youth team players alone has netted reoughly 2 million quid a season. That's without taking into consideration the success we have had with youth team players in the first team.

My £2m point wasnt challening the financial model of the LCFC academy as i have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever in this area other than the £2m avg figure quoted in Michale Calvins book.  It was simpy to highlight that in any aspect of life, you wouldnt keep doing the same thing year-after-year if it wasnt working...

 

Definition of madness...  "...keep on doing the same thing the same way and expect to get different results...!"

 

PS  when you talk about "netted" returns on investment and players contibution to the first team, are you including players wages in the "netted" figures as Jeff Schlupp's transfer fee to Palace was mostly offset by his salary costs over the past 4-5 seasons so the "net" return would be quite close to ZERO

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

When will Chelsea take any real interest in their academy progressing through to their first team though? They are a disgrace in that sense, even though they are producing first team class players and often selling them and various young fringe players for vast profits.

Perhaps that is their business model. At least it gives young English players a chance ( from what Foxy-Lady) was saying.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Perhaps that is their business model. At least it gives young English players a chance ( from what Foxy-Lady) was saying.

Maybe so, but it's odd for a club where finances aren't particularly a pressing concern. Fair enough buying a lot of young talent and selling them for a profit but their record at bringing through academy players is nothing short of a disgrace. Ok, they are England's most successful club in the last 5-10 years in terms of title wins, domestic cups and European trophies but it's a cop out to not think they're very lazy and neglectful of their youth players.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 minute ago, Foxy-Lady said:

My £2m point wasnt challening the financial model of the LCFC academy as i have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever in this area other than the £2m avg figure quoted in Michale Calvins book.  It was simpy to highlight that in any aspect of life, you wouldnt keep doing the same thing year-after-year if it wasnt working...

 

Definition of madness...  "...keep on doing the same thing the same way and expect to get different results...!"

 

PS  when you talk about "netted" returns on investment and players contibution to the first team, are you including players wages in the "netted" figures as Jeff Schlupp's transfer fee to Palace was mostly offset by his salary costs over the past 4-5 seasons so the "net" return would be quite close to ZERO

Probably best to exclude wages as those are for services rendered. If we weren't paying him we'd presumably be paying someone else. Net should just mean transfer fees received less costs such as coach wages incoming transfer fees, cost of facilities, etc.

[Foxy-Lady]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

When will Chelsea take any real interest in their academy progressing through to their first team though? They are a disgrace in that sense, even though they are producing first team class players and often selling them and various young fringe players for vast profits.

Fair point, totally agree and certainly not one for me to answer. 

Very sad that they produce such good players and then dont provide them with a pathway to their first team but at least those boys will 'probably' go on to play professional football at some level earning a very good living due to the excelent coaching and development during their yth at CFC.

 

In CFCs defence, they make no secret or apology for the fact that they see Yth Development as a completely separate and independent businss model from the 1st team with its own revenue streams from player sales whcih is part of the reason why its so important for them to have such good quality coaching and coaches to ensure they have saleable assests at the end of the process.  Simple businss practice really which is very well enforced.

 

Being at CFC Yth Academy is a bit like going to a top university really as it generally opens doors for you in later life (...and no i dint before you ask!)  

[Ric Flair]

5 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

Fair point, totally agree and certainly not one for me to answer. 

Very sad that they produce such good players and then dont provide them with a pathway to their first team but at least those boys will 'probably' go on to play professional football at some level earning a very good living due to the excelent coaching and development during their yth at CFC.

 

In CFCs defence, they make no secret or apology for the fact that they see Yth Development as a completely separate and independent businss model from the 1st team with its own revenue streams from player sales whcih is part of the reason why its so important for them to have such good quality coaching and coaches to ensure they have saleable assests at the end of the process.  Simple businss practice really which is very well enforced.

 

Being at CFC Yth Academy is a bit like going to a top university really as it generally opens doors for you in later life (...and no i dint before you ask!)  

Of course, you've got to be in it to win it and they are certainly very different to every other club with their academy. I thought Man City were going the same way as they have some very good youngsters but as of yet they aren't either going elsewhere for handsome fees nor are they being touted for their first team bar the odd one. It just strikes me as odd how Chelsea aren't in a position to use some of their academy, they haven't got ' that ' big a first team squad that they use (so many are out on loan) and maybe with Europe next season a few will get a chance. I think Loftus-Cheek is in danger of stagnating, Ake is too good not to be playing much and Baker and Abraham will be England class within a year or two if they play top level football immediately. Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern and many other of the elite clubs in Europe wouldn't think twice of integrating their youngsters in to the first team and often do. Chelsea's last youngster to play more than about 50 first team games for them is probably John Terry or Jody Morris hahahahaaaa.

[Foxy-Lady]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Maybe so, but it's odd for a club where finances aren't particularly a pressing concern. Fair enough buying a lot of young talent and selling them for a profit but their record at bringing through academy players is nothing short of a disgrace. Ok, they are England's most successful club in the last 5-10 years in terms of title wins, domestic cups and European trophies but it's a cop out to not think they're very lazy and neglectful of their youth players.

You fail to mention their U18 YTh team just won the FA Yth Cup for the 3rd successive year as well the European U19 Champions league trophy last season, whcih they might well have successfully defended had they had been allowed to...

 

4 recent Academy graduates in CFC 1st team squad been with club since U-12s (Nate Chalobah, RLC, Ola Aina, Dominic Solanke) + John Terry + Tammy Abrahams, Izzie Brown, Kasey Palmer out on loan in Championship + over U-23 players out on loan ta various Div 1, 2 and European clubs

 

Compare this level of success with Chilwell (only academy graduate in LCFC 1st team squad) + Barnes out on loan at MK Dons 

[Aus Fox]

36 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

You fail to mention their U18 YTh team just won the FA Yth Cup for the 3rd successive year as well the European U19 Champions league trophy last season, whcih they might well have successfully defended had they had been allowed to...

 

4 recent Academy graduates in CFC 1st team squad been with club since U-12s (Nate Chalobah, RLC, Ola Aina, Dominic Solanke) + John Terry + Tammy Abrahams, Izzie Brown, Kasey Palmer out on loan in Championship + over U-23 players out on loan ta various Div 1, 2 and European clubs

 

Compare this level of success with Chilwell (only academy graduate in LCFC 1st team squad) + Barnes out on loan at MK Dons 

Ok you clearly have some sort of personal issue with relted to something or someone within our youth set up. 

Look at the investment Chelsea have at their disposal, consistently comparing us to them is unrealistic, compare us with other midlands teams, trying to attract simliar players, with similar budgets.

How do we way up against, Stoke, WBA, Villa etc.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Foxy-Lady said:

You fail to mention their U18 YTh team just won the FA Yth Cup for the 3rd successive year as well the European U19 Champions league trophy last season, whcih they might well have successfully defended had they had been allowed to...

 

4 recent Academy graduates in CFC 1st team squad been with club since U-12s (Nate Chalobah, RLC, Ola Aina, Dominic Solanke) + John Terry + Tammy Abrahams, Izzie Brown, Kasey Palmer out on loan in Championship + over U-23 players out on loan ta various Div 1, 2 and European clubs

 

Compare this level of success with Chilwell (only academy graduate in LCFC 1st team squad) + Barnes out on loan at MK Dons 

It's all very impressive, but i'll reserve judgement until they start giving these players proper first team recognition with them. Chalobah, RLC, Aina, Ake and Solanke have about 15 games between them. It's not comparable to us as our academy right now is the pits and we're not producing anywhere near enough players. Chelsea produce them, just can't be arsed to use them.

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

On the financial aspects, I would argue since 2000 the sale of youth team players alone has netted reoughly 2 million quid a season. That's without taking into consideration the success we have had with youth team players in the first team.

But that "success" you refer to seems to be eroding and we've had hardly any new youth team benefits for several seasons. If you take off the £2m a season (which I've accepted without bothering to check it out) how does that compare with the massive cost of running our Academy?

 

Being fair it seems there may be two or three players fairly close to breaking through or being sold for a reasonable return (Chilwell being one) but that shouldn't disguise the degree of failure that we need to address - including proper commitment to providing a pathway through to the first team.

 

I say that, not out of sentiment, but because, it would be beneficial once we got the treadmill fully operational.

 

I've worked lots with young players in two sports and know that once standards are sufficiently high within the group the knock-on effect is ongoing. We even had a taste of such success at Leicester when a succession of players broke through in a relative short period of years.

 

But that success should be a signal for improving standards still further - not treading water, getting complacent and perhaps lowering recruitment/coaching/team-based development standards.

 

I mention the latter because when I think about our downturn I always think back to what I called the specific "foreign legion" imports of the Mandaric days and the way that particular group (we've always had multi-national and multi-cultural recruits but these arrived all at once) seemed to disrupt the flow of our graduates - and the team from which they might have graduated.

 

It really is of no benefit trying to develop players in a hotch-potch team situation. Our successful period came with and from a group of youngsters who evolved together over a period of time.        

 

And that's been my own experience too. You need to evolve teams that "live and die" for one another. Like the Gradel/King team which won the youth cup at Sunderland and Vardy/Mahrez team which won the The Premiership. Both were "teams" in the broadest sense of the word.          

[Foxxed]

Have we been relegated then?

 

To be honest, regardless of our youth team, we have promising young midfielders in Hamza, Barnes and Ndidi. At least one decent winger in Gray. A very promising left back/wing back in Chilwell. Five under 23s, although we had to buy two, isn't shabby. I wish we'd produce some more strikers though. What ever happened to Dodo at Rangers?

[TheMightySystem]

23 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Have we been relegated then?

 

To be honest, regardless of our youth team, we have promising young midfielders in Hamza, Barnes and Ndidi. At least one decent winger in Gray. A very promising left back/wing back in Chilwell. Five under 23s, although we had to buy two, isn't shabby. I wish we'd produce some more strikers though. What ever happened to Dodo at Rangers?

22 apperences, 4 starts 18 sub apperences, 5 goals for Dodoo, was disapointed for him to leave as we needed a younger striker but those stats at the moment don't seem great (Granted Vardy didn't score many in his first premier league season.  http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=74277

 

Now that we are free of any relegation worries I would be giving Chilwell, Gray and Barnes some game time. Gray I would start over Mahrez even though Mahrez has been better recently then earlier in the season, maybe him coming on against tired legs may result in a few more goals and assists which may improve his confidence? Chilwell I would rotate with Fuchs. Fuchs can play against Tottenham and Man City, Chilwell against Watford and Bournemouth. Would give Drinkwater an early holiday to get his injury sorted. Start King and give Barnes some time off the bench if he can play for us, at least 30 minutes per game. With the other positions having the usual players in it will still provide a solid platform for the youngsters to learn in and can better assess how they will perform if given chances next year.

 

About Choudhury I wonder if he has a future here? Think a few seasons ago after he signed his first contract he had a few problems off field thinking he had made it if I remember correctly what someone said on here. Seems to have matured since but missing out on half a season of development wasn't good for him. Couldn't get in Burtons championship side yet we played him against Oxford in pre season, maybe another year of development at Ipswich could help him out?

[Foxy-Lady]

9 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Ok you clearly have some sort of personal issue with relted to something or someone within our youth set up. 

Look at the investment Chelsea have at their disposal, consistently comparing us to them is unrealistic, compare us with other midlands teams, trying to attract simliar players, with similar budgets.

How do we way up against, Stoke, WBA, Villa etc.

For the record, i have no personal issues with anyone at LCFC academy just a reasonable knowledge of the systems due to acquaintances and research..... but your inaccurate assumption highlights one of the main issues in English Academy football in that anyone who raises difficult questions or highlights factual failings is immeditaely classified as having a problem or a personal issue where as the alternative (say nothing, do nothing) simply allows any failings to go unnoticed,  unpublicised and unchallenged!

 

"Damned if you do and damned if you don't"

 

If you follow the earlier comments in this thread, you will see that most of the comments from myself and others were focussed on comparing LCFC academy Vs the success of Southampton who are a club with similar resources but signficantly greater success.

The comments on Chelsea were merely to highlight to Ric Flair what can be done with significnat investment and defened the fact that it is not CFCs academy that is faiing to produce players, it is the 1st team that do not suport the academy.

 

So in answer to your question, how do you think LCFC way up against Southampton academy?

[Foxxed]

7 hours ago, TheMightySystem said:

22 apperences, 4 starts 18 sub apperences, 5 goals for Dodoo, was disapointed for him to leave as we needed a younger striker but those stats at the moment don't seem great (Granted Vardy didn't score many in his first premier league season.  http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=74277

 

Now that we are free of any relegation worries I would be giving Chilwell, Gray and Barnes some game time. Gray I would start over Mahrez even though Mahrez has been better recently then earlier in the season, maybe him coming on against tired legs may result in a few more goals and assists which may improve his confidence? Chilwell I would rotate with Fuchs. Fuchs can play against Tottenham and Man City, Chilwell against Watford and Bournemouth. Would give Drinkwater an early holiday to get his injury sorted. Start King and give Barnes some time off the bench if he can play for us, at least 30 minutes per game. With the other positions having the usual players in it will still provide a solid platform for the youngsters to learn in and can better assess how they will perform if given chances next year.

 

About Choudhury I wonder if he has a future here? Think a few seasons ago after he signed his first contract he had a few problems off field thinking he had made it if I remember correctly what someone said on here. Seems to have matured since but missing out on half a season of development wasn't good for him. Couldn't get in Burtons championship side yet we played him against Oxford in pre season, maybe another year of development at Ipswich could help him out?

Hamza did get into the Burton side at the start. But then he trailed off. It's hard to say if that has more to do with the Burton side or Hamza. There could well have been two decent defensive midfielders in their prime in the team that outshone a young Hamza. Hard to write him based on his Burton experience. But I agree, a better loan somewhere else would give him a decent start. For the remainder of the season, a 5/10 minute start at the end of a game where we're doing well wouldn't go amiss. Same with Barnes.

[Dan LCFC]

Southampton should be the benchmark in the long-run for two very simple reasons - one, they're excellent at producing players, two, they are probably the most similar sized club to us in the country. Bloody hell even their ground is basically ours in red.

 

A very good point made earlier in the thread that highlights a huge fundamental flaw for me - comparing us to other failing academies. Why are we trying to excuse it? Southampton are putting us, and plenty of our size to shame. I'm not expecting us to turn into Southampton overnight, but it's ridiculous to think we shouldn't aspire to that. It's that exact mindset that makes England shit and it's precisely why we have the most half-arsed national side on the planet. We're only as good as we are internationally because we're a very big country on football, but for how popular it is we under-achieve ridiculously at that level and it's because of attitudes like that.

 

German clubs care about their academies. The vast majority of Bundesliga sides are producing players. England comparatively produce fvck all.

 

I'm not saying we're any worse than Derby, or Forest, or West Brom, or Stoke, or Norwich etc... but I'm naturally more bothered about what we do than the others. If clubs in England put as much emphasis on their academies as German clubs did we'd have a far better national side and a lot more English players in the Premier League. The Premier League has the lowest % of domestic players of any league in Europe. Not one bit surprising, but a pretty embarrassing stat all the same.

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

Hamza did get into the Burton side at the start. But then he trailed off. It's hard to say if that has more to do with the Burton side or Hamza. There could well have been two decent defensive midfielders in their prime in the team that outshone a young Hamza. Hard to write him based on his Burton experience. But I agree, a better loan somewhere else would give him a decent start. For the remainder of the season, a 5/10 minute start at the end of a game where we're doing well wouldn't go amiss. Same with Barnes.

If Huddersfield don't go up send Barnes there.

[Foxxed]

2 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Southampton should be the benchmark in the long-run for two very simple reasons - one, they're excellent at producing players, two, they are probably the most similar sized club to us in the country. Bloody hell even their ground is basically ours in red.

 

A very good point made earlier in the thread that highlights a huge fundamental flaw for me - comparing us to other failing academies. Why are we trying to excuse it? Southampton are putting us, and plenty of our size to shame. I'm not expecting us to turn into Southampton overnight, but it's ridiculous to think we shouldn't aspire to that. It's that exact mindset that makes England shit and it's precisely why we have the most half-arsed national side on the planet. We're only as good as we are internationally because we're a very big country on football, but for how popular it is we under-achieve ridiculously at that level and it's because of attitudes like that.

 

German clubs care about their academies. The vast majority of Bundesliga sides are producing players. England comparatively produce fvck all.

 

I'm not saying we're any worse than Derby, or Forest, or West Brom, or Stoke, or Norwich etc... but I'm naturally more bothered about what we do than the others. If clubs in England put as much emphasis on their academies as German clubs did we'd have a far better national side and a lot more English players in the Premier League. The Premier League has the lowest % of domestic players of any league in Europe. Not one bit surprising, but a pretty embarrassing stat all the same.

I'm guessing we have more money than most German teams. Are we in the position where it's cheaper to buy talent than develop it?

 

I'm wondering if it's cheaper to spend 15 million on a German or Spanish striker (and and financially gain from finishing a couple of places farther up the league) than spend 5 million on developing three English strikers with only 1/3 chances of recouping the money.

 

In the long term, investment if spent wisely would pay for itself, but many owners probably aren't going to look five or ten years into the future. I bet it was massively cheaper to have Walsh scouring the French second division.

[Dan LCFC]

4 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

I'm guessing we have more money than most German teams. Are we in the position where it's cheaper to buy talent than develop it?

 

I'm wondering if it's cheaper to spend 15 million on a German or Spanish striker (and and financially gain from finishing a couple of places farther up the league) than spend 5 million on developing three English strikers with only 1/3 chances of recouping the money.

 

In the long term, investment if spent wisely would pay for itself, but many owners probably aren't going to look five or ten years into the future. I bet it was massively cheaper to have Walsh scouring the French second division.

That's definitely a factor but Southampton still manage both spending and integrating academy players.

Chelsea are a prime example of where it goes wrong in England. They have the players yet no pathway to the first team, so the majority of them end up out on loan never to be seen again. Chelsea don't have any need to pick their youngsters and develop them because they can just buy ready made players anyway. It's scandalous really.

 

The Premier League couldn't supplement the national side less.

 

I just find it disappointing really, like I say with Southampton the two don't have to be mutually exclusive

[Foxxed]

11 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

That's definitely a factor but Southampton still manage both spending and integrating academy players.

Chelsea are a prime example of where it goes wrong in England. They have the players yet no pathway to the first team, so the majority of them end up out on loan never to be seen again. Chelsea don't have any need to pick their players because they can just buy ready made ones.

 

The Premier League couldn't supplement the national side less.

 

I just find it disappointing really, like I say with Southampton the two don't have to be mutually exclusive

I don't know Southampton's ownership but it would have been a fairly big long-term decision to make the academy investment. Championship Southampton could have spent 5 million on a foreign striker and recouped those costs with the money from promotion and TV rights.

 

The money in English football seems reward quick improvements through the transfer market: you'll offset money on foreign talent by Sky giving you money for finishing a bit higher up the league.

 

You're right they don't have to be mutually exclusive. But I bet Top's financial men are thinking about the returns in two or three years. Investment in the academy will only start showing profit at about five.