I'd say that all clubs play a part in developing the talent. You can only get better by playing against superior opponents. Therefore it's natural and required for a youngster to move up the leagues as they develop. In truth Bale started his growth at Southampton, Spurs then helped him progress and you'll probably see the finished article at Madrid.
"No. Take Cesc as an example, he was 16 when you signed him. He was a first team regular after only one year at the club. Do you think he learned more in the one season at Arsenal than the 6 years at la Masia."
-----
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc, so you're basically basing your arguement about what consitutes an Arsenal academy player on one player, when counless others have been brought in and spent two, three, four years there before been integrated into the first team squad.
Tbh it just makes you sound a bit bitter. You should ask yourself this... If La Masia is a great as everyone says it is, how come it's been so easy for Arsenal to cherry pick so many of it's prized assets?
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc
---------------------------------------------------
That's because Cesc was ready!
Cesc was ready but was never going to get the game time he required to develop properly. It's not as if Wenger dragged him away from Spain kicking and screaming. He also knew he'd go back. Arsene nurtured his potential and showed great belief in him which paid off to an extent. I agree that if you buy a wunderkind then you should guarantee them a decent share of games. Someone like Rodwell is a good example of a young talent that was poached too soon in my opinion. Cesc was one of a kind.
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 15 minutes ago
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc
---------------------------------------------------
That's because Cesc was ready!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed he was. Not sure you're point is though tbh, bud.
My point is in my reply bud. Hardly rocket science
But your comment was hardly contracting what I'd already said, rendering it... well, a bit pointless really.
Sorry... bud.
this article if you're actually counting Hart as a yoof player (joined at 19) and Marcos Lopes (played once) the then we have Szczesny, Wilshere, Ramsey, Walcott, Gibbs as starters.. Jenkinson, Flamini, The Ox, Bendtner, Sanogo, Gnabry, Chamberlain, Bendtner, Miyaichi, Diaby, Frimpong, Zelalem, Bellerin, Hayden, Eisfeld etc.
You're right, my mistake bud.
I saw a headline and reacted. Next time i'll read the rest before I post
1-0 to you
Hey, no worries fella. Chalk that goal off, as you were still lining your wall up.
comment by Lexington eins zwei fünf Punkt zwei (U8879)
posted 28 minutes ago
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc, so you're basically basing your arguement about what consitutes an Arsenal academy player on one player, when counless others have been brought in and spent two, three, four years there before been integrated into the first team squad.
Tbh it just makes you sound a bit bitter. You should ask yourself this... If La Masia is a great as everyone says it is, how come it's been so easy for Arsenal to cherry pick so many of it's prized assets?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not basing it on the one player at all, Cesc spent months if anytime at all with your academy. I just think that the most significant part of a players development happens pre and early teens.
Cesc was an extreme example of how another two clubs were more responsible for his development and ability than Arsenal. Why is it so hard to believe that another club or two may have a more decisive role in the career of other kids who were as much as 11 - 15 years in the making before they arrived at Arsenal, Chelsae or City. Club and player are irrelevant, I think the same about Pedro who came to Barca at 17.
I am not bitter about la Masia kids being offered deals by the likes I Arsenal, it's an admission from your clubs about how far behind Barca you are on youth development. Barca don't have scouts watching your academy sides that's for sure.
But Barca are perfectly withing their rights to feel aggrieved that clubs such as yours can offer their kids a big money (for the age) deal a year before Barca can sign them on a pro contract. Barca invest in excess of £25m a year on these kids and they form a huge part of the long term planning at the club.
Fortunately all the best players do stay.
"Barca don't have scouts watching your academy sides that's for sure."
----
Yet they wanted to sign Afobe a few years back...
Anyway to put it into layman's terms, would you say you learnt more at primary school, or at secondary school?
In other words, yes the early part of a footballer's learning is important to his development, but to suggest that he's totally set at the age of 15 or 16 is ridiculous.
Why is it so hard to believe that another club or two may have a more decisive role in the career of other kids who were as much as 11 - 15 years in the making before they arrived at Arsenal, Chelsae or City.
------
Cesc disagrees
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2033869/Cesc-Fabregas-owes-Arsene-Wenger.html
I never said they were totally finished article at 15, 16 or even 22. No footballer should ever be the finished article all should want to develop and get better. I read recently Xavi saying he has learned lots from Cesc about timing late runs into the box and getting goal. He's 33 and managed to add more goals to his game.
To use your analogy, primary school laid the foundations that made all the other learning possible. Without that first stage of formal education then I wouldn't be able to read, write, count or do sums. This is the basis for all the other the other education I have received. Without it Secondary school would of been a wash out, uni would not have happened. And certainly would not have had a good career at the end.
So to take it back to football without the time and resources that clubs have invested, sometimes up to 15 years, in these kids in the early year they would not have the likes of Arsenal, Man U, Barca, Chelsea et al interested in them.
I'm not saying Arsenal done nothing for them. What I'm saying you are not at the front of the que for the plaudits for producing them, because you didn't. You signed them because someone else already had taught them core talent your management were interested in, all you do is add the finishing touches.
You don't sign average young players to develop them into superstars do you?
I don't think any one said they produced Cesc, but the fact is that if Cesc didn't come to Arsenal and Wenger didn't put the faith in him to play this kid, he would'vd be the player he is today.
The reason why OX, Walcott, Ramsey and a lot of other youth choose Arsenal is that they know they would be given the opportunity to play, apart from Man Utd of old, the other top four clubs would'nt do that!
Well since Barca have a much better track record of producing, developing and making talent First team ready I think it's reasonable that someone could think Barca could of made more of his talent. Watching him they definaty could have he is sloppy in possession, not very mobile and very poor at his defensive duties. That's why he rarely plays in the biggest games when others are fit. He would have got ample oppertunities to make the first team as all kids do.
Ramsey, Walcott and Ox would all have played significantly more games had they not joined Arsenal. So the first team ops is a mute point.
Of course primary school has an effect on one's education, Trojan2, but I think you're possibly downplaying the effect on your life your secondary school had on your education.
Perhaps as a deliberate ploy because you think it helps you prove a point, but then again, maybe you just went to a crappy secondary school that didn't help round you for the next step in your life?
Frankly I don't really care either way.
And as pp1212, I don't think many, if any, Arsenal supporters really consider Cesc to have been a product of the Arsenal academy, so quite why you're even using him as an example is beyond me.
This really is a load of old guff. The only people who should receive plaudits for 'producing' Cesc is his parents.
Anything else is talent spotting, and nuturing talent. To use this analogy of schools, at the start of the first year in primary 30 kids turn up, that school will do nothing to make them smarter. It can make them more knowledgable, and with that help them apply the talents they have - it cannot add to that talent. At all. In my opinion.
Trojan, you seem very good at dismissing Arsenal's contribution to players, yet overly agrandising Barcelona's - it's all BS. Barcelona have had a real purple patch, akin to ManU's when Beckham et al came through - nothing more. All clubs 'produce' top players, and all those players will have learnt something from an earlier club/association/whatever - I mean where the hell else do they come from? I'm fairly sure even Barca don't have 'breeding pods' or 'cloning tubes'....yet.
Henrys Cat
A purple patch akin to Man U’s in the mid 90’s? Its all the parents?
So how have Barca managed to have significant numbers kids from la Masia becoming key first team players for the last 25 years. Their is nothing different about la Masia kids or their parents to the ones that are born in London, Manchester, Newcastle, Paris, Brazil or any other town, city or village in the world except what football academy they went to.
Perhaps you need to consider that maybe Barca are proving that when you do it right, invest in it and trust in it a youth academy is not just dumb luck or who just happens to born near your club. If it was dumb luck or a purple patch how could one single club produce 14 central midfielders who have almost identical skills, traits and playing style in Amor, Guardiola, Ivan de la Penna, Xavi, Arteta, Gerard, Iniesta, Cesc, Busquets, Thiago, Sergi Roberto, Rafinha and Samper over a 25 year period.
Perhaps Barca produce these players because they decided one day what a Barca player should be like, from GK to CF. They then perhaps dedicated significant resources and hired people who understood that vision. Then perhaps those people took that vision and turned it into a coaching philosophy. Then maybe this philosophy was actually taught to every 5 – 35 year old who ever attended la Masia or played for the youth teams, C team, B team or the first team.
And I do credit Arsenal for making already well coach and talented kids first team ready, or giving them the platform. But I don’t think you played the key role in their journey from 5 year old to first team player. Because if you were then why don’t your own academy graduates make it in any decent number? My original point in this topic was no PL club but Southampton can be proud of their youth development program because none of them are remotely prolific or consistent at bringing them through.
Yes, I'm sure Barca take average, fairly talentless players off the street and make them into top footballers.
I'm not taking anything away from Barca, and haven't mentioned anything about 'dumb luck' - but they produce nothing, and there is obviously a degree of luck in it. We have a colourful phrase for it here, "You can't polish a túrd". They identify and develop, and that's no different to anyone else - they're just very good at it.
The only reason I mention it at all is your insistance that player age age x cannot be said to be developed by club y, but players one year young can. It's nonsense, you talk about people like they're in some computer game or something - you must earn 16 health point before your player can move onto a level 3 CB. Life just isn't that simple.
Sign in if you want to comment
Youth Product
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 15/1/14
I'd say that all clubs play a part in developing the talent. You can only get better by playing against superior opponents. Therefore it's natural and required for a youngster to move up the leagues as they develop. In truth Bale started his growth at Southampton, Spurs then helped him progress and you'll probably see the finished article at Madrid.
posted on 15/1/14
"No. Take Cesc as an example, he was 16 when you signed him. He was a first team regular after only one year at the club. Do you think he learned more in the one season at Arsenal than the 6 years at la Masia."
-----
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc, so you're basically basing your arguement about what consitutes an Arsenal academy player on one player, when counless others have been brought in and spent two, three, four years there before been integrated into the first team squad.
Tbh it just makes you sound a bit bitter. You should ask yourself this... If La Masia is a great as everyone says it is, how come it's been so easy for Arsenal to cherry pick so many of it's prized assets?
posted on 15/1/14
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc
---------------------------------------------------
That's because Cesc was ready!
posted on 15/1/14
Cesc was ready but was never going to get the game time he required to develop properly. It's not as if Wenger dragged him away from Spain kicking and screaming. He also knew he'd go back. Arsene nurtured his potential and showed great belief in him which paid off to an extent. I agree that if you buy a wunderkind then you should guarantee them a decent share of games. Someone like Rodwell is a good example of a young talent that was poached too soon in my opinion. Cesc was one of a kind.
posted on 15/1/14
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 15 minutes ago
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc
---------------------------------------------------
That's because Cesc was ready!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed he was. Not sure you're point is though tbh, bud.
posted on 15/1/14
My point is in my reply bud. Hardly rocket science
posted on 15/1/14
But your comment was hardly contracting what I'd already said, rendering it... well, a bit pointless really.
Sorry... bud.
posted on 15/1/14
*hardly contradicting...
posted on 15/1/14
this article if you're actually counting Hart as a yoof player (joined at 19) and Marcos Lopes (played once) the then we have Szczesny, Wilshere, Ramsey, Walcott, Gibbs as starters.. Jenkinson, Flamini, The Ox, Bendtner, Sanogo, Gnabry, Chamberlain, Bendtner, Miyaichi, Diaby, Frimpong, Zelalem, Bellerin, Hayden, Eisfeld etc.
posted on 15/1/14
You're right, my mistake bud.
I saw a headline and reacted. Next time i'll read the rest before I post
1-0 to you
posted on 15/1/14
Hey, no worries fella. Chalk that goal off, as you were still lining your wall up.
posted on 15/1/14
187 on an undercover cop
posted on 15/1/14
comment by Lexington eins zwei fünf Punkt zwei (U8879)
posted 28 minutes ago
But no other player has been fast tracked through our academy as quickly as Cesc, so you're basically basing your arguement about what consitutes an Arsenal academy player on one player, when counless others have been brought in and spent two, three, four years there before been integrated into the first team squad.
Tbh it just makes you sound a bit bitter. You should ask yourself this... If La Masia is a great as everyone says it is, how come it's been so easy for Arsenal to cherry pick so many of it's prized assets?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not basing it on the one player at all, Cesc spent months if anytime at all with your academy. I just think that the most significant part of a players development happens pre and early teens.
Cesc was an extreme example of how another two clubs were more responsible for his development and ability than Arsenal. Why is it so hard to believe that another club or two may have a more decisive role in the career of other kids who were as much as 11 - 15 years in the making before they arrived at Arsenal, Chelsae or City. Club and player are irrelevant, I think the same about Pedro who came to Barca at 17.
I am not bitter about la Masia kids being offered deals by the likes I Arsenal, it's an admission from your clubs about how far behind Barca you are on youth development. Barca don't have scouts watching your academy sides that's for sure.
But Barca are perfectly withing their rights to feel aggrieved that clubs such as yours can offer their kids a big money (for the age) deal a year before Barca can sign them on a pro contract. Barca invest in excess of £25m a year on these kids and they form a huge part of the long term planning at the club.
Fortunately all the best players do stay.
posted on 15/1/14
"Barca don't have scouts watching your academy sides that's for sure."
----
Yet they wanted to sign Afobe a few years back...
Anyway to put it into layman's terms, would you say you learnt more at primary school, or at secondary school?
In other words, yes the early part of a footballer's learning is important to his development, but to suggest that he's totally set at the age of 15 or 16 is ridiculous.
posted on 15/1/14
Why is it so hard to believe that another club or two may have a more decisive role in the career of other kids who were as much as 11 - 15 years in the making before they arrived at Arsenal, Chelsae or City.
------
Cesc disagrees
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2033869/Cesc-Fabregas-owes-Arsene-Wenger.html
posted on 15/1/14
I never said they were totally finished article at 15, 16 or even 22. No footballer should ever be the finished article all should want to develop and get better. I read recently Xavi saying he has learned lots from Cesc about timing late runs into the box and getting goal. He's 33 and managed to add more goals to his game.
To use your analogy, primary school laid the foundations that made all the other learning possible. Without that first stage of formal education then I wouldn't be able to read, write, count or do sums. This is the basis for all the other the other education I have received. Without it Secondary school would of been a wash out, uni would not have happened. And certainly would not have had a good career at the end.
So to take it back to football without the time and resources that clubs have invested, sometimes up to 15 years, in these kids in the early year they would not have the likes of Arsenal, Man U, Barca, Chelsea et al interested in them.
I'm not saying Arsenal done nothing for them. What I'm saying you are not at the front of the que for the plaudits for producing them, because you didn't. You signed them because someone else already had taught them core talent your management were interested in, all you do is add the finishing touches.
You don't sign average young players to develop them into superstars do you?
posted on 15/1/14
I don't think any one said they produced Cesc, but the fact is that if Cesc didn't come to Arsenal and Wenger didn't put the faith in him to play this kid, he would'vd be the player he is today.
The reason why OX, Walcott, Ramsey and a lot of other youth choose Arsenal is that they know they would be given the opportunity to play, apart from Man Utd of old, the other top four clubs would'nt do that!
posted on 16/1/14
Well since Barca have a much better track record of producing, developing and making talent First team ready I think it's reasonable that someone could think Barca could of made more of his talent. Watching him they definaty could have he is sloppy in possession, not very mobile and very poor at his defensive duties. That's why he rarely plays in the biggest games when others are fit. He would have got ample oppertunities to make the first team as all kids do.
Ramsey, Walcott and Ox would all have played significantly more games had they not joined Arsenal. So the first team ops is a mute point.
posted on 16/1/14
Of course primary school has an effect on one's education, Trojan2, but I think you're possibly downplaying the effect on your life your secondary school had on your education.
Perhaps as a deliberate ploy because you think it helps you prove a point, but then again, maybe you just went to a crappy secondary school that didn't help round you for the next step in your life?
Frankly I don't really care either way.
And as pp1212, I don't think many, if any, Arsenal supporters really consider Cesc to have been a product of the Arsenal academy, so quite why you're even using him as an example is beyond me.
posted on 16/1/14
This really is a load of old guff. The only people who should receive plaudits for 'producing' Cesc is his parents.
Anything else is talent spotting, and nuturing talent. To use this analogy of schools, at the start of the first year in primary 30 kids turn up, that school will do nothing to make them smarter. It can make them more knowledgable, and with that help them apply the talents they have - it cannot add to that talent. At all. In my opinion.
Trojan, you seem very good at dismissing Arsenal's contribution to players, yet overly agrandising Barcelona's - it's all BS. Barcelona have had a real purple patch, akin to ManU's when Beckham et al came through - nothing more. All clubs 'produce' top players, and all those players will have learnt something from an earlier club/association/whatever - I mean where the hell else do they come from? I'm fairly sure even Barca don't have 'breeding pods' or 'cloning tubes'....yet.
posted on 16/1/14
Henrys Cat
A purple patch akin to Man U’s in the mid 90’s? Its all the parents?
So how have Barca managed to have significant numbers kids from la Masia becoming key first team players for the last 25 years. Their is nothing different about la Masia kids or their parents to the ones that are born in London, Manchester, Newcastle, Paris, Brazil or any other town, city or village in the world except what football academy they went to.
Perhaps you need to consider that maybe Barca are proving that when you do it right, invest in it and trust in it a youth academy is not just dumb luck or who just happens to born near your club. If it was dumb luck or a purple patch how could one single club produce 14 central midfielders who have almost identical skills, traits and playing style in Amor, Guardiola, Ivan de la Penna, Xavi, Arteta, Gerard, Iniesta, Cesc, Busquets, Thiago, Sergi Roberto, Rafinha and Samper over a 25 year period.
Perhaps Barca produce these players because they decided one day what a Barca player should be like, from GK to CF. They then perhaps dedicated significant resources and hired people who understood that vision. Then perhaps those people took that vision and turned it into a coaching philosophy. Then maybe this philosophy was actually taught to every 5 – 35 year old who ever attended la Masia or played for the youth teams, C team, B team or the first team.
And I do credit Arsenal for making already well coach and talented kids first team ready, or giving them the platform. But I don’t think you played the key role in their journey from 5 year old to first team player. Because if you were then why don’t your own academy graduates make it in any decent number? My original point in this topic was no PL club but Southampton can be proud of their youth development program because none of them are remotely prolific or consistent at bringing them through.
posted on 16/1/14
Yes, I'm sure Barca take average, fairly talentless players off the street and make them into top footballers.
I'm not taking anything away from Barca, and haven't mentioned anything about 'dumb luck' - but they produce nothing, and there is obviously a degree of luck in it. We have a colourful phrase for it here, "You can't polish a túrd". They identify and develop, and that's no different to anyone else - they're just very good at it.
The only reason I mention it at all is your insistance that player age age x cannot be said to be developed by club y, but players one year young can. It's nonsense, you talk about people like they're in some computer game or something - you must earn 16 health point before your player can move onto a level 3 CB. Life just isn't that simple.
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8