Who develops more young players - Arsenal or Liverpool? He is much more likely going to get first time opportunies at Arsenal than he is at Liverpoo.
Correct me if I'm wrong but dont Arsenal buy most of there young players from other clubs?? So they dont actually bring hardly anyone through.
Leave this argument. Arsenal are a club that develop youngsters, although the majority are bought. Liverpool are a club that like to mix up experience with youngsters, thus, reducing the risk of a lack of experience. Arsenal don't have the right mentality sometimes if you ask me. Some players are too old, some too young. Liverpool play a balance and are slowly reducing the average age of the squad.
The sad fact is that hardly any team bring players through anymore... Whether thats becuase the talent just isnt there or its cheaper and easier to look abroad is another debate for another thread lol
Liverpool buy alot of youngsters? Shelvey wasn't developed by Liverpool as he was 'bought' from another club. Was Pedro developed at Barcelona as he was 17/18 when he joined there academy?
It stems down from the academies. I was watching a programme about Lionel Messi the other day, it also included parts about La Masia, the Barcelona Youth Academy. Whatever the age of the teams, they focus on technique, ball control, vision and generally the technical side of the game opposed to throwing in some physical players, that's why they have managed to pull of amazing players like Pique, Fabregas (Albeit developed at Arsenal), Iniesta, Xavi and to some extent Messi all in the same generation. Rafa Benitez left a progressing Youth Academy at Liverpool when he left, introducing this sort of Spanish influence of technique over physical ability, although we won't get as good results as Barcelona have, who have had this idea for quite some time. Every player, every age group, every position, its all about being comfortable on the ball, technique, pass accuracy, being about to play quick one-twos. So that's it really, not much more to say about that subject, although of course referring back to your point, the reason we don't really bring players through is because of the time required to instill these philosophies into a whole setup.
British football is littered with old fashioned 'if in doubt kick it out' and 'you are too small' type coaches. Do you remember training as a kid and doing endless shuttle runs and strength work?? All completely pointless! Getting touches on the ball is what counts. The problem lies with the kids parents, they want little johnny to get a bunch of medals and trophies in his bedroom. These kids teams go for there version of the 'quick fix' which is putting a fast powerful player up front to dominate all the players around him. This is pointless as what you actually do is teach kids to rely on key players rather than develope themselves. In the states they dont record the results of young kids games and older kids have a mercy rule where by one team cant score more than 5 goals. I could go for a while on this..... somebody stop me lol
Buts kids football shouldn't be based around being competitive, its should be about learning the game. What does a team learn by battering another team 10-0?? I've seen a lot of youth football in the UK and those scorelines happen everyweek at the junior levels.
It teaches people to win and lose. If you don't learn how to lose, you end up being more bitter than Fergie after the Everton game. Take away the competitivness, you take away the lesson.
Good point. I've never really played football in my life due to a medical condition, I can play, but choose not to really. I understand the points made though, but its not really about the parents, the coaches don't get stick from parents, the coaches need to understand that with patience, with time, a new philosophy of 'real' football can be introduced, and it definitely be worth the wait. Think about it, why do people prefer Barcelona over Real Madrid as the best club in the World? Because they have the better TEAM, the better style, the better Academy, all with this special philosophy, a sustainable future too (in regards to producing World Class players). Agreed.
Back on topic. Personally I've always thought that Walcott would be better off up the middle off the main striker. Lightning quick and he can finish. Out wide he sometimes has too much time to think and makes the wrong decision. Never a wide player IMO.
LOL ! The problem with competition at a young age is that coaches then go out to find the best players, normally the biggest and fastest. Not all kids grow or develope at the same speed so what happens is alot of potential talent gets passed over before its had a chance to blossom. Kids drop out of the game and never come back to it. I bet you know yourself, players that were good when they were 10 but **** by the time they turned 13. Or (and this is English football to a ****ing tee) players that are told that are technically good enough but are told they are too small. The coaches who run some of these teams tend to live there own dreams through the kids and forget that they are only there to develope talent.
I've played football since I was a 6 years old but it wasn't until I started coaching that I really learnt about the game.
