This BBC article highlights Arsenal's policy of favouring youth development over spending big money on players. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24569490 "... But as well as buying the 24-year-old German, Wenger has also given a Premier League debut to 18-year-old youth team product Serge Gnabry this season - and pointed to other players developed by the club, including Kieran Gibbs, Carl Jenkinson, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Aaron Ramsey, Wojciech Szczesny and Wilshere. ..." One should question how much AOC has developed since joining Arsenal. I also noted this sentence at the bottom of the article with interest: "Recent independent analysis for the Premier League showed Arsenal produces more players than any other club in England..." Is that really true? Which players count as being "produced" by Arsenal? Is AOC "produced" by Arsenal, for example? I really struggle to see how they are better at youth development than another, even more southern team that currently plays in a similar kit...
I would love to sign in and comment about what was written regards AOC [and Walcott for that matter whenever he's mentioned in connection with developing at Arsenal], but of course, this is a contentious article, so one can't do that at Auntie Beeb.
Depends on your point of view really. Some people give Saints credit for Schneiderlin's development here and he signed for us at about the same age as Oxo was when he went to Arsenal.
Bad looking as the present Saints kit is, it's not Arsenal-bad looking. They have never, ever had a good looking kit in either Home or Away versions.
The gold away shirt from the 2001/2 double winning season was pretty good, I thought. I think my son's still got his, and he was 11 at the time (I know, I know, it's all my fault. Should never have given in and taken him to Highbury).
Not slightly tacky.? Even so. One shirt design in their entire existence. Doesn't really stand up, does it.
Chamberlain's meant to be out until about Christmas (but it's an Arsenal injury, so he'll probably miss about three years). Theo had a knock but should be back soon.
Few would argue that Schneiderlin has developed outstandingly since he's been here though. I guess my question is how much has AOC's game developed since joining Arsenal?
AOC will be like Walcott, a wasted young talent who were lured by the cash & promises of glory (mostly sat on the bench or injury table) of a bigger club. Luke - take note of those who have gone before you
That's a fair point but he's only been there a couple of years and Schneiderlin has been here 5 now. For what it's worth I always thought Walcott was seriously over-rated so I'm not surprised he's failed to become what people expected. He's hardly a wasted talent though.
I know I've asked this before, but how can Walcott possibly be deemed to have wasted his talent? Considering how limited he is as a player really, he has done extremely well.
And yet he still scores and assists a lot of goals, regularly starts for England, and gets paid a salary of £70k a week. I think it's pretty tough to argue that he's not doing well for himself.
The point being that in circumstances like that article, the inference is that players like AOC [and Walcott, for that matter] are seen as Arsenal's lads and there has been no effort made to clarify how the developments paths have progressed. Arsenal have simply taken these players on, early in their professional careers [just like us with Schneiderlin] and coached and trained them further. Personally, I actually question their ability to get the best out of these emerging players. In contrast, these days especially, Saints seem to be able to take players of almost any age and improve them.
