It's not just a case of us developing our own kids from scratch; it's also about getting players early enough in their careers to bring them along further. Let's face it, up to the age of about 15, football coaching is all about basic skills. It's only when the kids get to about 15 or 16 that the type of coaching they get from these academies really kicks in. Up to that point, the lads simply don't have the physical attributes to truly benefit. So, getting in 17-19 year olds and running them through our academy for three or four years is surely the way to go? The cost of buying a 19 year old with promise is a lot less than buying a fully formed 23 year old.
There should be a combination of both, of course. But we're not arguing about what City should be doing. We're questioning whether youth development will be a vital factor to ensure success for the top clubs, in addition to spending money. But in a time where there is an increased pressure and expectation on managers to perform, and a need for instant success at the top clubs, I'd wager us seeing less academy products coming through the ranks at the most trophy-laden teams. City may well be viewed as another PSG by you or I or even 99.9% of footballing fans around the world. But will their fans and owners really care so long as they are winning stuff?
Fixed Well it looks like I've accidentally sparked quite an interesting debate. I tend to think it's a combination of the two. In the era of vast wealth from TV money I would agree that bringing in players from external sources has become more prevalent and more important. But there's no question that having a team that plays with real passion and commitment is a massive, massive advantage when you're talking about a 38-game marathon with almost no break for the players. With all due respect, but put a few more HG players in your squad over the past few years and I don't think you'd have been limited to celebrating your annual 4th place trophy...I think that little bit more passion, passion and commitment that was visibly lacking against Southampton for example, could've carried you that little bit further. As I've said at least a dozen times on various boards and threads this season, TV money has levelled the playing field in that clubs like City and Chelsea are increasingly unable to spend their way out of a ditch...unless they spend wisely, because ultimately everyone else is spending too. The likes of Watford, Stoke, Palace, West ham and Leicester have spent very wisely in recent years - and they are now reaping the dividends. I don't think anyone can look at the almost terminal decline of United, Liverpool and Chelsea over the past few years and say anymore, with any real conviction, "they will always have the competitive advantage when it comes to signing the better players and will end up getting more success than you" - as that sentiment is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. If it wasn't, Arsenal wouldn't be favourites to win the league this year. No disrespect meant. For once, Spurs and Levy seem to be getting something right: A wonderful academy that is producing a steady stream of players who either improve the first team squad or are sold on at a tidy profit. This combined with spending wisely (for a change!) in bringing in players like Dier, Alli, Toby, Davies - players who haven't broken the bank but are clearly essential components to our drive for top 4. I'd argue that currently, City, Liverpool, United and Chelsea are doing both of these things wrong: They haven't invested in grassroots, and have signed stupidly for years now. The advent of TV money means that unless both of these things change and soon, seeing the likes of Stoke, Palace, Leicester and little ol Spurs finish above them can and will become the new norm. To that end, I'd conclude my argument by saying that the real advantage these money-bag clubs possess is that they can more or less hire the top managers, coaches, scouts and technical directors...and build the best academy facilities...to really make these things happen.
Mason, Carroll, Pritchard as mentioned by RDBD. Josh Onomah has now made full senior appearances. Nathan Oduwa, Cameron CV, Harry Winks, Milos Velikovic have all featured on the bench this season or last and are tipped to have bright futures. Obviously you can't have a team full of academy products, but the difference 3 or 4 can make (which we comfortably have) is immeasureable. And yes, all of the players you have listed above represent the 'clever spending' I refer to. Some of them represent extremely clever spending.
"Mason, Carroll, Pritchard as mentioned by RDBD." Here is the thing. Of the U21 'class of 2012-13' that were demolishing teams for fun in that league and played a fair number of games that season ... Kane / Townsend / Mason / Bentaleb / Carroll / Pritchard are still with the club, and have mainly been regular senior starters.
@Citizen Kane The notion that we needed 'passion' or 'commitment' to defeat Southampton seems to me like another media stereotype. What we lacked that game was quality, tactical acumen and the right personnel to combat Southampton's pressing game. Flamini is one of the most committed and hard-working players at Arsenal. But what he lacks in quality showed in that game. This has been the biggest issue for Arsenal over the years. It is not having the right calibre of players to play the game that Wenger wants to. If anything, the top 4 trophy we won in 2012-13 showed we did have commitment and passion because we were 7 points behind you in mid-February, got spanked by Bayern Munich yet ended up going on title-winning form to secure the coveted 4th spot. The idea that the statement you highlighted in bold is becoming a thing of the past simply isn't true. The fact that we are favourites for the title is partially due to us spending big. £35m on Alexis and £42m on Ozil has played a huge role in that (in addition to the longevity of our manager). Also, and this is the point I'm making, we will not be winning numerous league titles in the long term. Many pundits have said that we need to win the league this season because we won't get a better chance for a while. Charlie Nicholas said if we don't win it this season, it could be 10 years before we challenge for it seriously again. This is completely correct because the big-spenders will spend big again and the status quo will remain. There will be teams who surprise us from time to time, but in the end, the City's and Chelsea's of this world will always end up on top. You cite teams like Barcelona and Bayern Munich as an example, when the former get disproportionately more money from TV rights and commercial deals than all the other clubs in the Spanish division, bar Real Madrid. Bayern Munich also have vast financial resources, miles ahead of any other club in their league. Yes, these teams have continuity and have developed top players, but the fact that they are so wealthy allows them to retain their players at the club and add to it. That's another issue. Retaining players at the club when you're perhaps not the most wealthy side and the vultures are circling.
I've not heard of any of those players except for Mason and even he took ages to break into your team. You can't use these players as examples of being 'successful' when they've not proven themselves in your first team yet. Looking promising is different to being a successful, established first team player that came up the ranks. It remains to be seen just how good these players are.
Some excellent points BG. I specifically didn't cite teams like Barca and Bayern as an example because TV money and global support (and lack of corrupt banks propping you up in times of need a la Real Madrid) make the PL essentially unique amongst the big leagues. If the likes of Getafe or Eintracht were to spend £25m in a single transfer window, they'd probably go bust. As for your points about spending: this is exactly what I meant! Ozil took a season to get his feet under the table, but now both he and Sanchez look like extremely astute signings by your otherwise Scrooge-like manager. Both complement and augment your style of play superbly and it shows on the pitch, as you have said. That's what I call 'spending cleverly'. It's what you have done with them, it's what we did with Alderweireld and Alli. It's what Stoke did with Arnautovic and Bojan. It's what Leicester did with Kante and Mahrez. It's what Palace did with Cabaye and Bolasie. It's what West Ham did with Kouyate and Payet. It's what Watford did with Igalho and Anya. I could go on ad infinitum, but I think the point is clear: It's what Chelsea didn't do with Pedro or Cuadrado, nor City with Mangala or Fernandinho, nor United with Depay or Di Maria, nor Liverpool with Lovren and Lallana. I'll keep repeating it until I'm blue in the face: TV money means that everyone can spend now, so the trick is to spend wisely or you will simply be left behind by clubs who 3 years ago had the decency and common sense to roll over and play dead whenever they faced a 'big' club.
Genuine questions - out of all of these teams, who do you think will end up winning the most league titles and cups? Not denying City buying lots of flops whilst Spurs invested shrewdly, but who do you think will come out on top in the end when it comes to silverware? And also, do you honestly think that these players e.g. Kante, Mahrez, Ighalo etc, if they keep up their form, will not move on to something better in the future when the bigger clubs come calling? City and Chelsea may well spend bonkers fees on players, but it is because of their willingness to spend so much that they always end up getting the man they want.
It depends what you mean by developed. Rose joined us days after he turned 17 as a left winger. Bentaleb was 2 months past his 17th, a free agent, and with no competition for his signature other than Birmingham. Seems like they certainly both developed in our academy, no? If you don't include signing teenagers then Arsenal's only youth academy product is Wilshere. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. If we can keep bringing through young players from our academy and from other clubs and putting them straight into our first team then the money advantage that other clubs have becomes far less. If we can bring through a Kane every five years and a few Masons, Bentalebs and Roses we're saving ourselves a lot of money. Add a Dier or Alli signing every year or so and it's even better. The less players you have to gamble on in the expensive side of the transfermarket the better. The money advantage isn't as big as it looks on paper either. As Spurf has said, clubs like City, Chelsea and United will waste a lot of that advantage simply because they can afford to gamble big. Arsenal waste quite a lot on wages too, you spend £50-60mill more each year on your players. As others have said, there's plenty of names we can all list as potentially the next to come through. Time will tell as to whether they do but you only need a couple to really improve your club's sustainability. Eitherway, as much as winning trophies regularly would be great, there's a lot of joy to be had watching your side play good football with exciting young talent coming through.
I suppose it depends on your definition, but for me, I don't think you can really claim Rose as coming from your own youth rankings when he joined as a 17 year old. You bought him from another academy. I never claimed that Arsenal's youth academy was amazing and neither is my team relevant to that point, so why you felt the need to bring this up is anyone's guess. It's not just about signing these players, it's about being able to hold on to them when they start showing their quality and other teams take notice. That is when the club's resolve is tested. To be fair I don't think Kane is the type of player that would be requesting to leave urgently (unless you were near relegation or in mid table), but then again, we said the same about Gareth Bale as well. Like you say, we will have to wait and see. We finish where we should finish relative to our wage bill. The money advantage clearly is a big thing, hence why City and Chelsea, despite the latter's poor season, can spend big on players and can attract a higher level of player than Spurs or even Arsenal (to a degree) can. This leads to them competing amongst the best sides in Europe and winning a higher number of trophies because at the end of the day, that is what the stakeholders of those clubs want. Competing for silverware. From your perspective or from my perspective, that may be the case, but you can't say that applies to all football fans in general. I tend to find that the priorities for what each fan of a club want can vary quite significantly.
I think the problem for us will be not in bringing through young talent, not in developing it, but in keeping it! Yes, Fergie brought through that unique group of players in early 90's, but here weren't anywhere near as many predatory competitors with unlimited chequebook power as there are today. Therefore, Fergie was not only able to bring them on, but keep them together developing for several years subsequently. I feel that IF we can do that - keep this core group of young players, and add judiciously, we can be a force to be reckoned with shortly. But, keeping them will be crucial!
The point about the so-called Class of '92 is that, contrary to the version of events the media would have us believe, not all of those players were Man Utd born and bred: Giggs was poached from City's academy and Beckham from ours - and in Beckham's case he attempted to whitewash that out of history in his first autobiography, which drew a stern rebuke from Terry Venables.
"The point about the so-called Class of '92 is that, contrary to the version of events the media would have us believe, not all of those players were Man Utd born and bred: Giggs was poached from City's academy and Beckham from ours - and in Beckham's case he attempted to whitewash that out of history in his first autobiography, which drew a stern rebuke from Terry Venables." As others have said, develop as many as you can E2E in your own academy. And if you see "rough diamonds" in other academies that yours can refine into the finished product, no harm or shame in doing that.
I just think there's a difference between discovering a player and taking him through every level of your youth sides and developing a player through your academy. 17 is far from the complete article and those players came through are youth system and developed. I wasn't having a dig at Arsenal, I just felt you'd think that some of the young players you've signed over the years also were developed in your academy. It doesn't really matter anyway. Bale was a bit different, he'd had CL football with us and then saw us falling away from that level again(despite coming close). It didn't help that Real Madrid told him that it was now or never, either. We may well lose some players in the future but again it comes down to sustainability. Can we keep bringing in academy players and reasonably placed youngsters? We're certainly an attractive prospect given Pochettino's record for bringing through youngsters. If Lloris' quotes this morning are to be believed he's also playing a big part in the thinking of older players too. Other clubs may be able to attract the more expensive players but still, it's not getting them very far, is it? City would be a long way clear if it was just down to the money spent.
