Liverpool FC Forum

[JC_81]

We've recently had a thread assessing whether any of our current crop of youth/reserve team players are going to be ready for the step-up to the first team within the next year.  A few names came up a few times, such as Anderson, Hammill, Lindfield and Ajdarevic, who have arguably looked the most promising.  But what happened to the likes of Roque, Hobbs, Antwi and Barragan, who just over a year ago were the players we thought might push for a place in the first team squad by now.  One, Barragan, seemingly got homesick and left, Antwi has just been loaned to a league 1 side for experience, Roque doesn't seem to really have kicked on, and Hobbs after a disastrous 1st team debut is back and seemingly impressing in the reserves again.

In the last week or so Benitez has confirmed 8 more youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19 from across Europe who will be joining the youth ranks.  We know nothing about them apart from the fact the kid from Barce sounds like a great prospect and the Bulgarian keeper has had a few nightmare showings in the past.  The rest are complete unheard-ofs identified by our scouting network.

My question is, does this scattergun approach increase our chances of finding new talent?  Or does it simply stop local talent from getting chances?  Statistically very few of these signings will ever get a sniff of first team action here.  Also statistically there is far less chance of us unearthing the next Owen/Fowler/Gerrard/Carra etc.  Is it best for these young kids' development for them to move countries so early?  Or should they develop naturally in their own environment surrounded by family and friends before trying their luck abroad when they're mature enough to be able to make the most of it?

People will point to Arsenal and the 'success' they've had from flooding the youth system with foreign talent.  But in fact they've won nothing since adopting this policy and of their regular first teamers only Clichy and Fabregas were brought over as teenagers (van Persie/Adebayor/Toure/Eboue were no younger than 20).  Maybe they will reap the benefits in future, who knows? 

The fact is that Wenger has only brought through one local lad in Cole, and the other most promising guys like Sidwell and Bentley had to move on.  Bentley is on the fringes of the England squad and Sidwell has now been snapped up by Chelsea and I wonder just how valuable these players could have been to Arsenal if they'd been given more of a chance when they were younger. 

My point is that while Wenger certainly has an eye for talent at a reasonably young age, it is a myth that this flooding of the youth system with foreigners at Arsenal has worked.  In fact most get loaned out and eventually leave the club without ever breaking through - Muamba/Svard/Alliadiere spring to mind.  They may make a small profit out of these players, but is it worth it if you decrease the chances of developing local talent?  It is my concern that we are heading in the same direction and in the 3 years Benitez has been here we've not seen a single teenager brought from abroad that looks like genuinely cementing a first team spot.  In 10 years the only real quality teenagers Wenger has found have been Anelka and Fabregas, the rest have developed more at their home town clubs before making the switch in their early 20's.

Am I being harsh here?  What are your views?

[66-1112520797]

Good post John, and a very good point.

Far from it, I dont think your being harsh infact I think you could be right.

I havent seen many of the youth players to comment on there abilities, but the stats dont lie. I cant think of many youth players, if any atall who have broken into the first team since Gerrard possibly whether there foreign or English.

This "scatter gun" opinion could be just that buying up and recruitng talent and of course the more you buy the higher the chance of unearthing a special talent. A bit like buying scratch cards I suppose   although that never works for me either.

I remember Benitez saying a while back that youth had to be brought in to help unearth quality players for the future before the likes of Chelsea and their millions can get in there first and out bid you on a senior level.

My question is, does this scattergun approach increase our chances of finding new talent?

In theory John it should. If your scouts are spotting hot prospects then yes you'd think the chances of this would improve. As of yet we havent seen it though, maybe within the next year or two hopefully we'll see a few breakthrough and obviously more fail to make the grade.

As for the too young bit and moving country, it shouldnt really affect them to much. Obviously each kid is mentally different, but football is a simple game. If there good enough IMO there old enough, alot of the time the kids may fail the grade because of the pressures put on them and what not which will of course be expected from time to time. But
If we'd had and English manager and backroom staff I'd say the move accross Europeor wherever these kids are from possibly would have a negative affect on the way kids develope. I think English/British mangers and coaches nulify alot of the silky footwork and skill at a young age, a convert the lads to become a more arthodox style of player, to suit the English game, hardwork, physical build and stamina. I am generalising about the coaching style and could be way off the mark but I dont think so, with Benitez and his team here hopefully a bit more of the continental approach will go into it, and I'm presuming and hope so of course thar they encourage the silky skills and a bit of the 'ball hogging' etc etc.

Obviously the main worry in all this though is where do the Scouse and English kids come into it. They dont really, there job is made even more hard by this "scatter gun" approach. Which doesnt look bright for the future and English lads and football anymore, but that was happening anyway really with the amount of money spent by English clubs on senior players, preventing the youngsters from getting a look in.

[bigmick]

It's an intersting one John but I woudn't personally say that the fact that very few youngsters have come through is an illustration that the "scatter gun" is a bad policy. I think it probably more goes to prove that it is difficult bordering on impossible to pick a kid of sixteen who is absolutely definately going to make it at a top club. It's probably an acceptance of this scouting lottery that leads the top teams to adopt such a policy, one player such as Messi coming through from a group of fifty makes the whole thing worthwhile for the bigger teams.

I do however think that football follows fashion to an extent and that there is a very big chance that while we are trawling the representative leagues of U16 Europe, we are probably missing the odd player coming through locally. It's probably a fair question to ask what would do with your kid if he were prodigiously gifted? Would somewhere like Liverpool appeal with the obvious top-class coaching and facilities as well as the chance to play with better players? Or would Tranmere and the much higher chance of first team football be a better calling? It's probably still Liverpool for most people but substitute Tranmere for say, Everton and it's not so clear cut (and please spare me the anti-Everton stuff I'm just using them as an example, use Man City or Bolton if you prefer). It probably is a shame for instance that we let the young centre-half whose name escapes me right now go to Crewe and kept hold of Palletta. Having seen the Argentine a couple of times and having a great respect for Dario Gradi as a judge of a footballer, it's hard for me to contemplate that we have kept the better option for central defensive cover.

[JC_81]

Bamaga - decent points, but one I can't agree with unfortunately, is that it shouldn't matter moving country when you're 16-18.  I remember what I was like at that age and not having family around you at that stage can have a huge bearing on what you turn out like.  If you read Gerrard and Fowlers' books they can't emphasise enough how the support of their family and friends helped focus them on developing their talents at an age where you can be distracted by so many things.  Only a couple of years ago a young scandinavian lad in United's youth team went off the rails and got done for drunk driving.  Obviously that's the extreme of it, and I don't suspect any of our youngsters are up to that sort of stuff, but I do think it must be far harder to concentrate on your football, when you're having to grow up so quickly in so many other aspects of your life. 

I think there's something to be said for letting these lads come of age in natural surroundings and if they're still good enough when they're 20 then take them over.  Obviously the problem arises in that other clubs don't adopt that approach and will come in and snap the player up before you.  Therefore I think there should be a ruling about kids moving country to play football before the age of 18/19 and I won't be surprised if someone like Platini suggests it in the next few years.  I know Brazilian players weren't allowed to leave Brazil before the age of 18 in the past, but not sure if that still applies.

Mick - I accept your point that it's difficult to say at age 16 which players are going to turn out to be the quality ones, and therefore the scattergun approach may be the way to go.  It may be.  But on the flipside, who's to say that a 16 year old spaniard who's developed as a player very quickly, will turn out any better in the long run than a 16 year old scouser who has the talent but may be a slightly later developer.  Kids all develop at different ages and it is only the minority such as Owen, Rooney and Fabregas that develop real quality at such a young age (16-17).  The likes of Gerrard and Beckham have no less quality but needed an extra couple of years to reach that level. 

Let's say for the sake of argument that Gerrard was just coming through the youth ranks now, aged 16/17 under the Benitez regime.  All of a sudden several equally as good or better 16/17 year old players at that age are brought in from abroad.  Does Gerrard still get as many chances to start games at youth level and then reserve level?  No.  Does he develop in the same way and at the same rate he did 10 years ago?  No.  Would he still be at LFC, be club captain and one of the best midfielders in Europe?  He might well be, but I certainly wouldn't put my house on it.  Substitute Jamie Carragher's name in that same example with similar results.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that because players develop at different rates, buying all the best 17 year olds in Europe doesn't guarantee that they're going to turn out better than the 17 year olds already in the youth set up.  Occasionally you may find a gem like Fabregas or Messi, and hopefully this lad Pacheco we've taken from Barce, but unless they're supremely talented I'd be more selective about who we bring in

[66-1112520797]

Bamaga - decent points, but one I can't agree with unfortunately, is that it shouldn't matter moving country when you're 16-18.  I remember what I was like at that age and not having family around you at that stage can have a huge bearing on what you turn out like.  If you read Gerrard and Fowlers' books they can't emphasise enough how the support of their family and friends helped focus them on developing their talents at an age where you can be distracted by so many things.  Only a couple of years ago a young scandinavian lad in United's youth team went off the rails and got done for drunk driving.  Obviously that's the extreme of it, and I don't suspect any of our youngsters are up to that sort of stuff, but I do think it must be far harder to concentrate on your football, when you're having to grow up so quickly in so many other aspects of your life. 

I think there's something to be said for letting these lads come of age in natural surroundings and if they're still good enough when they're 20 then take them over.  Obviously the problem arises in that other clubs don't adopt that approach and will come in and snap the player up before you.  Therefore I think there should be a ruling about kids moving country to play football before the age of 18/19 and I won't be surprised if someone like Platini suggests it in the next few years.  I know Brazilian players weren't allowed to leave Brazil before the age of 18 in the past, but not sure if that still applies.

Yes you are probably right on that, I thought though sometimes the parents come over with them to help out and guide them along. Of course off the field needs to be as comfortable and happy as playing on it, I'm sure the club do there bit to help out, but I wont deny its hard for them. But I bet they wouldnt think of us when earning a good crust, or even better for them earning in a week what I earn in a year, so its swings and roundabouts.

At the end of the day I think it should be down to the kid and his family to decide whether they or he himself wants to sign. Obviously though if your coming from some old Eastern block state or a poverished country in Africa, your probably be kicked out of the door by your parents to earn good money. So yes there are some negatives and positives in this.

[Happy-Punter]

I would not call it a scattergun approach. Rafas just sorting out another good squad for the Liverpool B team that will start in the Championship in a few years time.

Seriously though I think Rafa just wants to add more class to our youth. I mean they train together, they play together. If they are playing with better players it should help their development in theory.

But yes it will mean it is harder for local talent to come through. A player to do that now or more importantly over the next few years will have to be almost World class. Definatly world class potential.

But its also true for the foriegn youngsters. Torres wont be the only big signing in the next 12 months. If any youngster is to make a claim now for a Liverpool start they need to be very special.

[stmichael]

I think the academy has a very difficult task and is doing a decent job but the changing face of football means it needs to get better and be clearer about what its there for. I'm not sure it does just exist to produce first team players. I think part of its remit has to be to the local community doesn't it? Nugent, Nolan, Baines, McEveley, Barton would be some of the youngsters that we have missed all coming to prominence at NW clubs.

There are a number of implications/speculations you can make.

Would those players have developed as well if they had stayed at the academy? They would not have had the chances to play but on the other hand they would have been training with better players.

I think the top clubs have a more difficult time than the rest – a player that will be given a chance to play for Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn, Preston even City  would likely not make the bench for Liverpool. Two reasons, one is those clubs don’t have the financial clout to bring in top quality players in the numbers that the big clubs do, the squad size is enormous these days, the second is their ‘standard’ of player and play is lower.

Ideally at 17/18 the best youngsters are training, playing and learning alongside the best. The likes of Fowler, McManaman, Gerard, Owen, Carragher all made the first team in the league by 18. They improved because of that experience. These days to be able to do that at a top club the player has to be already international class at 17 – Rooney, Fabregas, Ronaldo even Walcott.

Has any kid who has been shipped out on loan to gain experience gone on to be successful at their club? Bentley, Richardson, Warnock, Hoyte, Pennant, Aliadiere…..although it seems to make sense there is no evidence that loaning players out actually works.

The individual often decides they want regular football even if the owning club want to keep them they will not give them the regular football a lower placed club will. The player leaves.

Those who stay at the club on the fringes of the squad get itchy feet as well – Pongolle, Le Tallec, Welsh, Potter – the overriding factor is that they want to be playing at the best level they can , earning the most money they can, getting recognition wealth and sometimes becoming the best player they can.

So how can the academies at the top 4 clubs work?

Firstly they have to capture the precocious talents like Owen, Gerrard – those who stand out above the rest – those destined for the top from  a very early age - there are only so many of these and they come around infrequently – naturally gifted, physically excellent, mentally strong. These players need to be in the first team squad by 17 and playing regularly by 19/20. Not aware that we have any stand out players of this ability in the academy.

Secondly, sounds insane but at a very early age they need to do the science, look at the kids make up, whether the fibres in his legs are long or short,  the lung capacity, the genetics of his mum and dad, everything – it’s the type of scientific approach the Australian sports academies preach and use from 7 upwards I think – they find athletic youngsters and help them find the sport best suited to their abilities, they gear them towards success. No reason why Liverpool can’t do that, the rest will follow suit. One problem is there is no test for footballing ability, technique, balance, vision etc and thats were the coaches and scouts must come in . Craig Johnstone tried to devise a simple set of tests to grade ability, not sure it works but the idea was sound. But the academy has to be built around improving the individual not the performance of the academy team, not playing favourites.

Problem is only the best will succeed for the rest it will be a very hard lesson at a very early age and the risk will put many off. At the moment I think people like the uncertainty, like to be able to dream about being a contender, not sure cold hard science will be accepted but it’s inevitable the more of a business the game becomes. There will continue to be the need to identify ‘talent’ but as has been discussed physical ability is becoming as important if not more important and it’s a lot easier to measure. Because it can be measured it will become more important again.

Thirdly, the academy needs to decide what it is there for. Is it to find and nuture young local talent or to produce footballers for the first team. The two things are not necessarily the same thing. The academy producing  a local lad that leaves on a free to play for Chester or Stockport is seen as a successful result for the academy. Its like a  successful apprenticeship. But should that lads coaching and development have been given to a 14 year old from Mali, with lungs that will go all day, whose parents are both 6 foot plus and whose balance and speed mean he could compete at the Olympics?

Most clubs are trying to do both – they are setting up academies around the globe to develop and nuture the best of foriegn talent and serve as a base for scouting etc. In Arsenals case the best are shipped to Belgium to get them a European passport or working visa so that they can start to assess the mental side, prepare them for Europe etc.

I would hope that the Academy is a place to nuture local talent up to say 16. That the best local kids are given every opportunity to succeed up to that age. That scouting and assessment trawls the local schools and clubs to identify the best youngsters. From 16 on up I think competition from elsewhere probably should be introduced, if we are serious about developing talent from elsewhere. Those brought in would need to be better than those they replace. Another hard lesson. The other issue would be at what point do you introduce kids from the rest of the country, we already have plenty of examples of youngsters at the academy from Scotland, Ireland and Wales and more recently two 16 year olds from Scandinavia. The implication is that we are already identifying ‘british’ (small b)  talent from 9 years upwards. Local has already been extended somewhat. European from 16 seems to be the next likely extension.

Given the Arsenal model whether widening the ‘pool’ is best done in Liverpool is another issue. I think it would be far harder for kids from Africa, Asia and South America to come here at 16 and adapt and serious thought needs to be given to that.

All in all a bit of a mess and it needs better brains than mine to figure it out. 

[DAV]

Best post I have read in weeks

[Bad Bob]

Is there also something to do with getting foreign kids in at a certain age so that they can be considered 'English' for the purposes of that FA regulation on proportion of English players in the side?  Or am I dreaming that up?

[JC_81]

It's an interesting question you posed St Mike, about what the actual function of the youth academies is - to provide a facility for coaching local talent or to produce players for the first team.  For if it is purely for the latter, then imo we may as well scrap it the way things are going.

When you think of the cost of running the academy, the salaries of all the coaching staff, all the scouts and all the young players we are acquiring, is it worth it?  God knows what the annual running costs must be - I'd like to see the figures.  It's not far off 10 years since the club last produced a talent that came up through the ranks and cemented a place in the first team - Steven Gerrard.  On top of that we've made about 5-6 million in total from the sales of Warnock and Stephen Wright.  You could argue that Owen, Carra, Mcmanaman and Fowler came through prior to that in more of a purple patch for the youth set up, but it's an understatement to say we've not found and/or developed the players in recent years, and dare I say it since we've had foreign managers.  It was reported that that is one of the reasons Heighway left the club - he felt players like Spearing could easily do a job in the first team but would never be given the chance.  I suppose Heighway felt 'what's the point', and left.

Someone mentioned that the idea of the academy was so we could bring in global talent at a younger age to avoid the kind of outlay Chelsea and United make on players.  But now we're doing that too - 26 million on Torres?  And he won't be the last.  So why do we have the academy?

I think that LFC has a duty to the community to provide facilities to coach young players from the area and give them a chance at a career in the game, but the days of relying on the youth team to produce first teamers may well be numbered.

[heimdall]

Best post I have read in weeks

I agree, I think the system does work but it is all about numbers, for every jewel you find there are plenty of youth players who never work out. The more players you have at the academy the better. I don't really think it hurts local players because if they are to get into the first team they have to be the best, there shouldn't be any bias towards them. Just imagine if you find that great player, like Carson, it means you save yourself a lot of money in the transfer market plus end up with a player with true loyalty and passion for the club, well aprt from Owen 

[stmichael]

When you think of the cost of running the academy, the salaries of all the coaching staff, all the scouts and all the young players we are acquiring, is it worth it?  God knows what the annual running costs must be - I'd like to see the figures.  It's not far off 10 years since the club last produced a talent that came up through the ranks and cemented a place in the first team - Steven Gerrard.  On top of that we've made about 5-6 million in total from the sales of Warnock and Stephen Wright.  You could argue that Owen, Carra, Mcmanaman and Fowler came through prior to that in more of a purple patch for the youth set up, but it's an understatement to say we've not found and/or developed the players in recent years, and dare I say it since we've had foreign managers.  It was reported that that is one of the reasons Heighway left the club - he felt players like Spearing could easily do a job in the first team but would never be given the chance.  I suppose Heighway felt 'what's the point', and left.

Someone mentioned that the idea of the academy was so we could bring in global talent at a younger age to avoid the kind of outlay Chelsea and United make on players.  But now we're doing that too - 26 million on Torres?  And he won't be the last.  So why do we have the academy?

It's a fair point that you make John.

Our academy has been going for around 10 years, and takes 1 million a year to run. Add up the transfer fees made for the following players...Thompson, Wright, Matteo, Warnock, Ostemobor, Welsh, Raven, Potter, Whitbread, Mellor, Guthrie, Hamill and a few more besides.

Have we received more than 10 million?

If so, then the academy, while not producing superstars, is making profit for the club to sign better players, and is giving young local kids a break into the professional game.

Something Heighway said in some interview he gave astounded me. 9 of the 11 lads in the current U-18 side, many of whom helped win the Youth cup last season, have been together since they were signed at 9. NINE. That is bloody impressive, seeing the potential in a group of 9 year olds and then seeing them progress to a very good standard at u-18. Whether any of them goes on to make the first team isn't really the point. We've done the best that we could with what was available : won the FA Youth Cup. If the best available from the catchment area doesn't have the speed, stamina, control, intelligence, desire etc, to compete with seasoned internationals from all over the World, then it's hardly the academies' fault.

If anyone thinks THEY can spot 9 year old kids from within an hour or so of Liverpool and turn them into Worldbeaters at 18, then instead of coming on here criticising the academy system they should put their money where their mouth is and apply for Heighway's job. Good luck.

[grayghost]

The standard of football has risen so high in the past couple of years that it is hard for youngesters to get a look in but that how it has to be. If you not good enough then you don't get in but the talented players will always rise to the top it does't matter if there english ur not as long as they play for Liverpool is all that matters.

[JC_81]

When you think of the cost of running the academy, the salaries of all the coaching staff, all the scouts and all the young players we are acquiring, is it worth it?  God knows what the annual running costs must be - I'd like to see the figures.  It's not far off 10 years since the club last produced a talent that came up through the ranks and cemented a place in the first team - Steven Gerrard.  On top of that we've made about 5-6 million in total from the sales of Warnock and Stephen Wright.  You could argue that Owen, Carra, Mcmanaman and Fowler came through prior to that in more of a purple patch for the youth set up, but it's an understatement to say we've not found and/or developed the players in recent years, and dare I say it since we've had foreign managers.  It was reported that that is one of the reasons Heighway left the club - he felt players like Spearing could easily do a job in the first team but would never be given the chance.  I suppose Heighway felt 'what's the point', and left.

Someone mentioned that the idea of the academy was so we could bring in global talent at a younger age to avoid the kind of outlay Chelsea and United make on players.  But now we're doing that too - 26 million on Torres?  And he won't be the last.  So why do we have the academy?

It's a fair point that you make John.

Our academy has been going for around 10 years, and takes 1 million a year to run. Add up the transfer fees made for the following players...Thompson, Wright, Matteo, Warnock, Ostemobor, Welsh, Raven, Potter, Whitbread, Mellor, Guthrie, Hamill and a few more besides.

Have we received more than 10 million?

If so, then the academy, while not producing superstars, is making profit for the club to sign better players, and is giving young local kids a break into the professional game.

Something Heighway said in some interview he gave astounded me. 9 of the 11 lads in the current U-18 side, many of whom helped win the Youth cup last season, have been together since they were signed at 9. NINE. That is bloody impressive, seeing the potential in a group of 9 year olds and then seeing them progress to a very good standard at u-18. Whether any of them goes on to make the first team isn't really the point. We've done the best that we could with what was available : won the FA Youth Cup. If the best available from the catchment area doesn't have the speed, stamina, control, intelligence, desire etc, to compete with seasoned internationals from all over the World, then it's hardly the academies' fault.

If anyone thinks THEY can spot 9 year old kids from within an hour or so of Liverpool and turn them into Worldbeaters at 18, then instead of coming on here criticising the academy system they should put their money where their mouth is and apply for Heighway's job. Good luck.

I agree St Mike, it was a great achievement to win the youth cup with a set of lads who'd been together since they were 9, but unfortunately that'll be as far as some of them go in the game - the pinnacle of their careers at just 17/18.  It's fair to say sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say that's fair enough, there isn't the talent in the local area.  I do agree with keeping the youth team going, as I've said before I think it's the duty of the club to put something back into the community and provide kids a chance to make a career for themselves, if not for us then at a smaller professional club.

That said, let's not kid ourselves that the academy is helping LFC to produce first team players and improve our sporting chances at the top end.  It's not.  Harsh reality.

I'd also challenge that the academy costs only 1 million a year to run.  That may include physical costs of running the facilities (upkeep, electricity, maintenance), along with coaching staff and YTS wages.  But what about the costs of covering recruitment and the worldwide scouting for teenage prospects?  That has to cost us far more on top.  This Dutch guy we've brought in to oversee coaching at the academy has to be on a few hundred grand a year, as does Elias, the guy we brought from Southampton to oversee recruitment.  1 million quid a year??  No chance.  It's got to be losing money big time and the whole set up has to be looked at if we still aren't producing players a couple of years down the line.  I'm willing to give the academy a couple of years to see what happens after the recent re-structure, but I'm not overly optimistic.

Let's not forget the academy was set up post-Steven Gerrard.  It hasn't produced one single player for the first team yet.

[LFC2007]

I agree St Mike, it was a great achievement to win the youth cup with a set of lads who'd been together since they were 9, but unfortunately that'll be as far as some of them go in the game - the pinnacle of their careers at just 17/18.  It's fair to say sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say that's fair enough, there isn't the talent in the local area.  I do agree with keeping the youth team going, as I've said before I think it's the duty of the club to put something back into the community and provide kids a chance to make a career for themselves, if not for us then at a smaller professional club.

That said, let's not kid ourselves that the academy is helping LFC to produce first team players and improve our sporting chances at the top end.  It's not.  Harsh reality.

I'd also challenge that the academy costs only 1 million a year to run.  That may include physical costs of running the facilities (upkeep, electricity, maintenance), along with coaching staff and YTS wages.  But what about the costs of covering recruitment and the worldwide scouting for teenage prospects?  That has to cost us far more on top.  This Dutch guy we've brought in to oversee coaching at the academy has to be on a few hundred grand a year, as does Elias, the guy we brought from Southampton to oversee recruitment.  1 million quid a year??  No chance.  It's got to be losing money big time and the whole set up has to be looked at if we still aren't producing players a couple of years down the line.  I'm willing to give the academy a couple of years to see what happens after the recent re-structure, but I'm not overly optimistic.

Let's not forget the academy was set up post-Steven Gerrard.  It hasn't produced one single player for the first team yet.

The "scattergun" approach suggests that Rafa and his scouting network are not scrutinising each young player as much as they should before signing them. Only now has he had the real opportunity to bring in talent with a more rounded consideration of what is needed. Judge him on how the current crop of youngsters turn out and not those who were signed or inherited 3 years ago, at least now he is aware of the problems academies face and aware of the type of talent we need to sign - foreign youngsters are technically much more developed and more suited to making the step up to a "cosmopolitan league" which the EPL has now become and was not so much 10 years ago - a key problem.

Our coaching techniques for young talent i.e. below the age of 16 are more focussed on competitive play as opposed to skills based work. By the age of 16 you have a fair idea of the potential of a player - i.e. if they are technically good enough or not for the Premier League. Our young players, because of the flaws in their earlier training programmes, tend not to be anywhere near as technically developed as those particularly on the continent, but in South America aswell. By the age of 18-21 most are either released or sent on loan to lower league clubs, in the end their lack of technical ability limits them to playing at Championship or lower league level football- with the odd exception who are potentially steady eddies in the EPL, but rarely make waves.

I don't blame Rafa for looking for young foreign talent, if the current system is not working then you have to find another source of technical quality with which to work and build from.

On a final note, I think the academy costs nearer £3m a year to run - but given the recent changes this figure may have changed.