25 Nov 2015 16:38:56
Probably the most common post on this site is the one about playing our youth players more, 'how are they supposed to improve if they don't get game time' or 'how can we know how good he is if he doesn't play'. The thought is if we just give the right player more time we may just have the next Gerrard or Fowler on our hands.
The problem is our expectations are way off base. How likely is it that the Liverpool Academy will produce a English Champion's League (CL) level player?
As of Oct 27th 141 English players had appeared in the Premier League (PL) this season. Possibly there are a few more guys injured who have yet to make an appearance so let's say 150. Let's say the average career of an established PL player is 10 years. Therefore 15 English PL quality players have to be produced by the academy system to maintain current levels.
Some of these 15 guys will actually attend non-PL academies so we'll say the PL academies produce 10 English PL quality players a year. Liverpool's academy is one of 20 of these so we should, on average, produce a PL quality player every other year.
But Liverpool isn't looking for PL quality, it's looking for CL quality. Doing more simple maths says only 20% (the proportion of CL teams in the PL) of the players produced will be good enough for the CL.
That means that the Liverpool Academy should only be expected to produce a player good enough for Liverpool once every 10 years!
The facts suggest it's even worse. According to the above calculations there should be 30 English CL level players. Depending on what you define as first team the current 4 CL teams have only have 17 English players amongst them. Of those 17, only 3 came through the academy of their club.
You can argue with the figures I've used but even if I'm 100% out it's still once every 5 years. The good news is that the last time a great player emerged from our academy was 17 years ago so we're overdue for another one, let's hope he emerges soon.
25 Nov 2015 17:08:32
Would be curious to know how many Champions league players Southamptons academy produces. Probably more than Liverpools and that's the point I guess, Southamptons youth players are much more likely to get a game than an equally talented Liverpool youngster. Same is true for Everton who recently have produced more first team academy players than us.
If I was a parent of a child that showed potential as a footballer I would rather send them to Saints or Everton as I think they would be more likely to develop as the chances of breaking into the first team are higher.
The irony of course is that because we can't compete with the wealthy 4 on wages and transfer costs we are the most dependant on getting top players through the academy. Hopefully with Klopp in charge this will change.
25 Nov 2015 17:45:28
Interesting point, I just checked the dates and between 2006 and 2012 Southampton's Academy produced 6 players who all went onto 'bigger' clubs, Walcott, Bale, Lallana, Shaw, Alex O-C and Chambers, (Clyne came for Crystal Palace's academy) .
All six have played in the Champion's League and whilst you can argue whether each is 'CL Quality' or not it's certainly a group significantly better than the average.
Statistically it's not unusual to get clusters like this that seemingly contradict the model. I expect it was caused by a combination of factors, good coaching, necessity (cheaper than buying players) and a decent slice of luck.
{Ed001's Note - is this post a wind up? Or is this gibberish something you actually believe?}
25 Nov 2015 18:48:00
Hey Ed 1, my brain works in numbers and the numbers back up the conclusion. On average we produce a decent player every few years and a very good one once or twice a decade. Occasionally you'll get a spike (class of '92 or Southampton's recent crop for example) but the lack of consistency suggests that it's less about the academy and more about the raw materials.
{Ed001's Note - clearly your brain doesn't work at all! This is just a crock of something brown and smelly. You have taken a bunch of meaningless numbers and tried to make something of them. Have you taken into account anything other than numbers of players? This is like the crappy stats everyone uses to decide who is good and who isn't, it is just useless without context and you are providing absolutely no framework to build any kind of working hypothesis or theory. This is about as true as global warming!}
25 Nov 2015 19:44:06
Oh Ed1, of course there's context, there's reputation, their's enticements, there's personalities. As newposition pointed out he'd want his son to go to Southampton or Everton and that gives those two academies the advantage for now.
What I've written above isn't proof that the next Gerrard should arrive next year, it's evidence that we, as fans, who label every youth player as the next-insert random legend's name have massive over-expectations of what the academy is going to achieve.
Terry, Wilshire, Gibbs. Three academy graduates, one legend, one with potential and one squad player. The sum total of Chelsea, Utd, City and Arsenal's academies output that have actually succeeded at the top level. That's not design, that's happenstance. We haven't got a single established academy graduate at the moment. Hopefully that will change soon, but when it does, it won't be because we coached that guy right, it will be because a talented player came through our door.
{Ed001's Note - what on earth are you on about? What you have written above is just nonsense and this whole conversation is utter crap from someone who clearly has no clue about youth development. This is a pointless conversation, you are utterly clueless about this area of football. Gibberish. Mindless gibberish at that. This is why English football is so crap, because we have this kind of moronic thinking about how to develop youth. The right coaching enabled Crewe to turn rejects into top class talents. It is this stupidity of it being natural talent that is all that matters which has left British football so far behind, while the top nations concentrate on good coaching.}
25 Nov 2015 19:50:22
To be fair there is and always will be an element of luck with producing superstars out of academies.
Take untited class of 92! How many of that level bavr come out since.
Gerrard, Owen, fowler, carra, macca. How many since.
And watch the Southampton space.
Walcott, ox, bale, Shaw, chambers. Over the next 10 to fifteen years they won't just keep producing that level of player.
You can have come from academies good players but the elite ones can't just keep getting churned out.
{Ed001's Note - and yet some do manage it. Good coaching will produce better players. Southampton's issue is hanging on to their coaches, as the bigger clubs poach them or they get promoted to work at a higher level. All clubs make the same mistake, the best coaches work with the first team, where there is less they can do to really make a difference. Look at Pepjin, a top class youth coach that we now have working with the first team squad youngsters, rather than letting him continue to work with younger age levels.}
25 Nov 2015 20:01:07
When u r acaddemy big clubs, its harder. Like seriously how many have Barcelona and Real madrid produce? I means besides the generation of messi, iniesta, xavi, pedro. Most players are bought, u habe to be really exceptional i. e a yoing scademy youth got to play better than existing star players to get a look in. Seriously how many get to do that? Liverpool had Sterling before and Ibe now. Gg forward i do see texeira. Not sure about kent, rossiter, brad smith, allan.
{Ed001's Note - Real Madrid produced Morata, he is doing ok. Barca have a few in and around the first team again now. It is not so much they have to play better as they need a manager to trust in them.}
25 Nov 2015 20:18:12
Ex, what would be your view on Borrello and his time at the club. Brought in as the next messiah for youth under Rafa and haven't t seen anything of his work come through from youth and cement a place in the squad, let alone first team.
{Ed001's Note - he was there to restructure the academy, which he did. Anything else is impossible to judge him on as he wasn't with us long enough to really build on the foundations he laid.}
25 Nov 2015 20:25:27
Ed1, I'm getting a hint you think I'm wrong, don't worry, I'm insightful that way.
You haven't affected my point of view and I look forward to reading what you think of my next masterpiece.
{Ed001's Note - it is not that you are wrong, it is that it is complete nonsense with no basis in reality. You have plucked out a bunch of numbers with no context at all and don't have the insight needed to see what I mean. So it is a pointless conversation. You need to spend a bit more time learning about all the aspects of youth development, then you might understand that there is a lot more to it than you have seen. There is a reason why teams like Crewe bring through a greater number of players than others, and it is not because of the quality of players going into the academy at all.}
25 Nov 2015 20:48:49
Muscat, you`ve been making this pathetic argument about our youth players not being either ready to play or making up reasons as to why they shouldn`t play. One time, you gave a pathetic reason as to why our youth never got a chance under BR, saying that if they were good enuff, then he would play them despite the Ed01 telling you that BR couldn`t be arsed as to even go watch them play. You are doing the same thing now and you`re getting hammered again. At what point will you stop this nonsense of yours? The Ed is spot on. Good coaching is the reason a less talented player can make it in place of a more gifted player. Why? A good coach would always be ready to coach a player who`s willing to listen and ready to improve which goes to Ed`s point. Hendo is a great example of this. He was determined to make hence, willing to listen and do whatever it took to get better. he still does and still listens to his coaches and will only get better as soon as Klopp gets a hold of him. Another great analogy is what Klopp is doing to our squad that many on here trashed as being average. They are willing to learn and improve hence, Klopp is ready to work with them. Smashing a more talented team like City can only be done if your team is well-coached and well-drilled on the game plan to use. They need some talent but not a lot. Money or talent alone can`t do that. So stop always trying to justify the reasons why our kids don`t get a game. It`s becoming pathetic, boring and desperate. As for your stats, keep them to yourself because they make no sense, have no basis in reality and context and last of all, are pointless.
25 Nov 2015 21:02:17
I can't tell if edoo1 is just baiting you into am argument or if he is truly a blatant denier of statistics. His point is one that should be noted, it is statistically unlikely to develop multiple top quality talents from one youth program. Hence the need for transfer windows. If you could 'grow' talent consistently, Chelsea and city would spend more money on youth academies than players. It would be a ln investment that would pay off hugely in the long run. However, due to the inability to accurately predict how a player will develop, mature, get injured etc, it is highly unlikely to develop multiple world class talents in a single group of player even with the best youth academies. Your statistical point is well taken here muscatred! Tell ed001 to blindley reach into a bag of M&Ms and pull out multiple reds in a row and we'll talk! Let him even have a peak then shake the bag which is the metaphorical equivalence of a youth academy in this scenario!
{Ed001's Note - that is a completely moronic argument! You really do not have a clue do you? Comparing coaching players to pulling sweets out of a bag, what kind of idiotic comment is that? Embarrassing that is! You really are proving my point that it is morons that use stats to back up their lack of insight. Man City and Chelsea have invested huge sums into their academies in recent years, which just shows what a dumb pointless discussion this is when you don't even know that little point which renders your whole idiotic argument completely null and void.
As for a denier of stats, I am no such thing, I am against using pointless stats to back up moronic arguments because people offer no context for the stats they use. Such as your pathetic M&Ms comment. It is completely irrelevant. If you think that is in any way what it is like, then we may as well scrap all academies. However, the truth is that Germany, for instance, is the country that have placed the most emphasis and investment in youth development in recent years. Before that it was Spain. Before that it was France. Funnily enough all three countries saw their investment result in a world cup. But what do they know? They should have saved their money and carried on winning sweet FA as it was obviously wasted and they may as well have just grabbed some red M&Ms.
I really can't believe the stupidity of your argument, it makes muscat's seem brilliant and intelligent. When it is far from either. This is why statistical analysis is such a difficult field, so many people do not understand it and want to just pluck a few random numbers out to suit their argument, rather than letting the numbers shape their thinking.}
26 Nov 2015 01:30:05
My head hurts.
25 Nov 2015 21:54:14
Thanks for the reply ed.
So with the restructuring of the youth system may I ask 1, is that structure still In place and 2, obviously depending on the players themselves when do you think we will see the benefits of the new structure.
{Ed001's Note - yes and over the next 3 or 4 years we will see it.}
25 Nov 2015 22:07:51
Ed001 you have mentioned Crewe as a case for great academies, but how many of there players are at prem Level?
Its easier down there and much more of a necessity as there isn't as much money for transfers.
Barcelona currently have those good players coming through but the truly elite ones aren't coached I'm afraid ed they are born with that talent and you just have to hope that your academy picks them up.
Are you telling me iniesta, Scholes, giggs, Gerrard, fowler, Rooney, messi, xavi, Rio, terry, Shaw, bale. You trully think they were that good because they were coached that good? And if yes then the year after they broke through before any of the coaches were nabbed by the bigger clubs, why were more players of that quality churned out?
Wasn't the class of 92's coach still there till a few years ago aswel?
{Ed001's Note - are you serious? If it is easier and a necessity down there, why do so few teams down at that level do it? It is easier to pick up frees. You are talking crap.
As for how many of their players are at Prem level, you do realise they only get to pick from players who Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Stoke etc don't want. So to get any of their players to Prem level is due to how well run they are.
This is embarrassing, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. If it was just pure ability, those players were far from the best. As was Carragher, Flanagan and many others that broke through. It is not just talent. If that was all it was then there would be no need for coaches and academies.
Give it up, you haven't the slightest smallest idea what you are talking about and making yourself look stupid.}
26 Nov 2015 01:16:50
Ed001 sorry i'm sure you are done by now. but if this was sucsessful what has changed. Is it just evolution and some one doing it better. or change in attitudes (france) . i'm not questioning what your saying just curious!
{Ed001's Note - there are hundreds of factors, from number of quality coaches, training methods, attitudes etc. It is not one thing.}
26 Nov 2015 03:00:55
You and me both. I read ed001 replies as shouts in my head.
{Ed001's Note - they are not shouts, no point shouting at people who don't understand.}
26 Nov 2015 09:38:16
You can't just call my points crap and insult my intelligence, you should give me the opposite of what I said as it should be a discussion.
Crewe are a fantastic academy and I asked how many of there players are prem level.
If any of the top academies were down there with them then I'm sure there's would be deemed as successful.
You used carra and fallagan as example against me buy that wasn't my point, I agree with you if you read mine properly.
I have said academies can basically do more to achieve good players (I didn't use names but players like flanno, carra, welbecks, cleverlys, Townsend etc) there not elite but are good players and very very good considering they were from your own academy.
My point was the elite players as I mentioned in my last post just aren't coached to that level as if there was a formula or it was down to a coach then they would be the highest paid people on the planet.
Barcelona had there goldens out of la desima (I think its called :S) but now there back tl producing good players rather than worldies.
Roberto, tiago, rafina, traore etc there good players and will grow into the Barcelona system (I know two have left) but there not going to become world class but they will keep churning them out for years to come (selling, loaning and buy backs) until they hit another world crop/player.
I mean take messi for example the only reason Barcelona got him over the big argentina club that wanted him was because they were willing to pay for his growth hormones or more importantly could afford them. Was that down to good coaching, I'm unsure.
You watch videos on the echo of Gerrard at 13 or summit absolutely ripping it up like he was a teacher playing with the kids in the play ground. He was always that good, maybe his overall success came from a manager who changed his position etc that's were coaching comes into it but his talent was god given not coach given.
If it was coaching then. i would be a fecking superstar rather than on here ranting and causing problems between myself and ed! I want a discussion ed, not to fall out. I love you man!
{Ed001's Note - you are literally missing the point. Gerrard was one of hundreds of kids who are, at any one time, ripping it up at the age of 13 around the country. Why does England not produce a 100 kids every year that are that good?
As for Crewe, you are again missing the point. They are a League 1 side, yet they produce youngsters that consistently end up playing at a higher level, such as Westwood at Villa, Murphy at Leeds, Powell at Man Utd etc etc. This despite Crewe only getting players into their academy that are deemed not good enough to make it at any of the other academies in the area. So why on earth are you arguing they aren't making players up to Prem level? You are making no sense, they have consistently produced players that make it to the Prem, despite a smaller budget than almost every other team in League One, let alone the Championship and Prem. In fact most teams in League Two, plus a number in the non-league have a bigger budget.
As for Barca, you are actually backing up my point, they have no longer got the coaching staff that built the youth academy and produced the quality players. Liverpool poached them years ago, so why would you expect them to achieve the same results if it is about coaching? If it was merely about numbers, then they would be producing the same quality, as they are bringing in the same number of players as they always did.}
26 Nov 2015 12:43:58
Sorry but that just means Crewe are another normal academy producing good players not excess amounts.
Mk dons have Ali, ojo and few others.
In the past you have west ham, Defoe, lampard, Rio, Cole. There golden generation.
You have also just backed up my point haven't you with regards to coaching? If those coaches are the reason Barcelona got iniesta and xavi etc then Liverpool took them coaches then were are our iniesta and xavi?
Everyone needs good tools to work with. Those talents that those players had made the coschss job a hell kf a lot easier. You can't have bad players and just coach them to be great or every player would have the ability to be great.
There ks always bad players and good players and then there in the elite who are always going to be elite before any coaching.
25 Nov 2015 21:54:00
Muscatred,
I think even on stats alone, there are problems with your reasoning.
You write:
"Some of these 15 guys will actually attend non-PL academies so we'll say the PL academies produce 10 English PL quality players a year. Liverpool's academy is one of 20 of these so we should, on average, produce a PL quality player every other year.
But Liverpool isn't looking for PL quality, it's looking for CL quality. Doing more simple maths says only 20% (the proportion of CL teams in the PL) of the players produced will be good enough for the CL."
The problem in the first paragraph, for example, is in order to conclude, as you do, that Liverpool will only develop one EPL level player every other year "on average" is by assuming we're just "one of 20" clubs. That is, you're assuming a rough equality among all 20 EPL clubs. We know, obviously, that this is not true. As Ed001 has pointed out, some clubs invest far more in their youth academies. Therefore, it makes more sense to conclude that even assuming you're right that only 10 EPL quality players are produced a year, that some clubs who invest more, will produce a greater share of those 10 EPL players, while smaller clubs a lesser share. This would actually be an argument for youth academy investment.
The problem with the second paragraph, is you're making a huge leap of logic in asserting that only players on a CL side (one of the four) can be viewed as "CL quality" simply because they're playing in CL. This, obviously, is nonsense. In any given year, teams finishing close to the top four, and far outside, are arguably populated by players good enough for CL competition. Obviously there are probably more on those teams finishing 5th, 6th, or 7th, but there are also CL players on teams further down the table. Thus, your 20% figure is far too small.
26 Nov 2015 13:17:33
Crewe were engineered by one of the greatest coachES this country has ever seen, Dario Gradi. His commitment and enthusiasm for academy football is seconded by nobody in the modern era. Anyone can make a good meal out of fillet steak but its the great chefs who can produce a great meal from the off cuts.
26 Nov 2015 14:05:45
I love the fact that we have someone as intelligent as Ed001 who understands football. He's quite right up and down the country there are kids banging in goals, hell go on Youtube and there are videos of wonderkids left right and centre. The issue that those hundred kids don't all have the same opportunity to progress. Some drop out due to other commitments, some get injured and others get put in systems that don't work for them.
There is a brilliant book called Bounce which describes how this myth of 'talent' can be broken down. Improvement is based on positive practice. So all that 10000 hours which makes you an expert isn't just kicking the ball against the wall it is better training again and again. If you have coaches at a young age that ensure you are improving and that quality continues upwards then you are more likely to have players that make this weird grade of CL or PL that you are talking about.
The difficulty I see is that youth players have to be better than or equal to established senior players to get in the side. Therefore we need to have a good loan system in place which was never the case just loaning people out for the sake of it in the past. Personally I think that some teams are better for helping develop which is why again understanding the club we are loaning out to will help, since if their coaching is good or even if they play similar styles to Liverpool then it will help. You see it with feeder clubs in other sports.
If we look at clubs that bring through their good young players for example Everton it is because the opportunity was there for their youth to play because the established players were poor and they don't have the money to improve those areas. Their coaching staff was also decent, albeit some have moved on (just look at how their defence fell off in the second season) . Those players are therefore getting positive improvement in practice, I mean look at Stones. I've seen him a couple of times and am not completely sold on him but he is young and in that position a young player making mistakes is bad, which is one of the reasons I think there is a lack of quality centre backs in this country and probably the world because of that issue. Still the more experience he gets the better I think Stones will be.
Flano got his chance due to injury and was good enough to stay in the squad, I think people forget how good he was/is. Sakho (I know he isn't from the academy but still young) who I think is outstanding only got back in the squad due to injury but the more he plays the better he is and I can not wait till he is back.
Basically throughout this ramble I'm saying that consistent coaching is the way forward. To throw random stats saying we should have so many players due to averages is ludicrous because there are variables in every player. One of the variables that effects how players improve and make the grade is coaching if we get that to a good standard and retain those coaches then we will see benefits of the system.
{Ed001's Note - I will have to have a look for that book, cheers for the heads up.}
26 Nov 2015 17:56:08
Stats are only used by lazy thinkers who couldn't be arsed to use their brains and thought processes to make well thought out points. People who don't use stats but actually use their eyes, brains and context will always base their opinions on reality, a place where stats have no meaning.