Liverpool FC Forum

[RedAnt]

I'm intrigued about people's opinions in this now very common policy of loaning out young players for apparent first team experience.

But what is first team experience? The gulf in class between the PL and the rest of the English leagues is often mentioned. For players such as Jay Spearing, this might make sense to toughen him up and get him used to a faster, more physical game. But it seems we being in so many young, highly rated players who are not really hear of again, or are loaned out.

What is the purpose of an academy? To cast a wide net in the hope that amongst the many boring fish is a beauty? Or should we narrow the scope and focus on only the best?

I don't see much sense personally in sending players to a different league for experience. I imagine they could learn a lot more from our senior players, not only on the field, but also to absorb Anfield and what it means to play for LFC.

If players aren't good enough to gain experience with us, I don't see much point in having them on the books. I hope BR will show more favour towards the young uns. It's not like our squad is huge.

[SouthCoastShankly]

The youth system primarily exists to develop talent internally, however to hit gold with that player that will be a natural first team player you have to develop many players to cater for the fact that not all talent either lives up to expectation or realises his full potential.

A consequence of this is the youth system becomes another facet of the business. Buying and selling youth players is a micro economy within football. Loaning out those  players who have potential but not enough to serve your own needs is a shop window activity that reaps rewards.

[JC_81]

I think loaning out young players for first team experience is a good idea personally.

If you look at the likes of Robinson and Coady, they've come up through the ranks and have had plenty of coaching from our staff over the years.  They are really at the stage where they're ready for a step up from the reserves/U21 team, but not yet ready for our first team.  They'll play more competitive games at a higher level for Blackpool and Sheffield Utd.  The downside of that is you don't really know the standard of coaching they're getting through the week at those clubs, which is likely to be inferior to what they'd get here.  The ideal scenario would be for bigger English clubs to be allowed to field a development squad in the lower leagues, therefore those players get the benefit of quality coaching and a better standard of competitive football.  Benitez argued for years that English clubs should be allowed to do this and I've heard rumours in the media about that argument gathering pace again.

Some things I don't agree with, such as loaning out players to teams in other countries.  I'm not sure what this achieves if you're trying to develop them for the Premier league.  The Suso deal confused me, as did the serial loaning of Pacheco to Spanish teams.

Not all young players you develop are going to make it into the first team so the scatter gun approach is used by most big clubs these days.  We are starting to bear the fruits of this now with Sterling, Ibe and Wisdom all contributing to the first team.  None of them are scouse, having been either brought in from other English clubs (Sterling and Ibe) or scouted from other cities as kids (Wisdom - Leeds).  There is plenty more talent in our ranks outwith those three too.

[RedAnt]

I like the youth system, too. I'm sure it's a vital part of the football economy rooted deep. But for us personally it must cost obscene amounts, the administration costs, subsidising players training and development by splitting the wages with the target club.

But is it really effective? Of course the effects of a game flooded with players from other nations is taking its toll. But look at the players we've produced in recent years. Sterling is a prime example. A decent player with ability, but no world beater. No Gerrard or Carra. Man U too, go back a bit and they have a young Scholes/Giggs/Beckham. Who do they have now?

I can't help but feel our international team is the best if the average these days. But are we responsible too, aswell as all the foreign players in the league?

Robinson and Coady have been mentioned, but what will they gain away from us? Gerrard, Fowler, Macca all earned their stripes with us. They were good enough. Surely by sending players to the likes of Sheffield United, we're giving them the 'not good enough' stamp. Or are we now at a level where playing time at these clubs who's culture is to play on lesser stages is considered valuable to a team hoping to get back into the CL?

[JC_81]

Whether the youth set up and loaning of young players is as efficient as it can be, to do away with it and not have a youth set-up would surely be detrimental to the club.

I don't know what running a youth team costs, but I would think if you produce one world class player every 10 years or so that probably offsets the costs of running it.  The money generated by having (and therefore not having to buy) these players home grown, and in some cases by the money generated when they're sold on, must surely pay for the running of the youth team, otherwise clubs would look at it and scrap it.

Gerrard, Carragher, Owen, Fowler, McManaman - what would it have cost the club to buy players of this calibre?

Then there's the likes of Redknapp, Murphy and Sterling brought in for relatively low fees from smaller lower league clubs to earn their stripes in the reserves before going on to (in Sterling's case potentially) to be International class players.

Plenty more have been sold on for a couple of million here and there - Matteo, Warnock, Spearing, Wright (young fullback we got 2-3 mil for off Sunderland) and others.

It would be interesting to see the actual figures for running costs of the academy/reserves though, definitely.  I did make a point a few years ago when Jack Hobbs was captain of the reserves and we had an injury crisis at centre half - lots of people didn't think he was good enough to come in and play with the first team.  What then is the point of having a reserve team when the captain of it isn't even good enough to be 4th/5th choice centre back for the first team?  Our reserves team looks a lot better these days in terms of potential talent that might be able to step up in the next few years though.

[tadhger09]

I think the reason the younger lads are sent out on loan to Championship clubs is to get used to playing against grown men in an envoirnment where the games are fiercely competed and the pace of the game is also on par with the PL. I like the idea of it and think its a valuable experience for the youngsters. It also allows the club to strenghten the squad while our youngsters go out and learn their trade at a slightly lower level and the ones who don't cope at that level will probably wont make it at the level above., so it acts as a good marker for the club to see what level the youngsters are really at.

[Stu the Red]

Experience is the most overated thing in football.

Players can learn more about themselves with it improving decision making and in some circumstances aggression and determination. They can learn to utilise what they have alot better through it. It doesn't however make a bad player a good one, just because they've got experience.

[RedAnt]

Some good points I hadn't thought of.

But JC, you talk of our reserve and youth set up, claiming its in better shape now, whilst measuring the "spice boys" who some could have been considered world class, against recent players like Sterling, Kelly, Robinson. I think that highlights how ineffective it is.

Stu makes a good point in that experience dosen't make a bad player into a good player.

And of the players brought in to gain their stripes as young players, there's again a marked difference in class between Murphy and Jojo Shelvey.

[JC_81]

Some good points I hadn't thought of.

But JC, you talk of our reserve and youth set up, claiming its in better shape now, whilst measuring the "spice boys" who some could have been considered world class, against recent players like Sterling, Kelly, Robinson. I think that highlights how ineffective it is.

Stu makes a good point in that experience dosen't make a bad player into a good player.

And of the players brought in to gain their stripes as young players, there's again a marked difference in class between Murphy and Jojo Shelvey.

I meant that the youth set up now is better than in the days when Hobbs was reserve team captain in the Rafa era, but maybe it didn't read like that.  Obviously with the players who broke through in the late 90's, we're not producing players of that calibre just yet.  With 2 and 3 players, and in United's case in the early 90's a whole team, coming through at the same time there is clearly an element of luck.  You can pump all the money into a youth set up you want, you need the players to have the talent to begin with.

As for the 'marked difference between Murphy and Shelvey' I'm not so sure.  I think Shelvey has a lot of talent and we let him go too soon, but time will tell.

Stu's comment about experience being the most overrated thing in football is bollox as far as I'm concerned.  Obviously every player is different, the world class players like Owen, Gerrard, Rooney etc, it's obvious they're good enough straight away and don't need experience before being thrown in the first team.  But don't tell me that first team experience didn't help develop them and make them better players!!  If you're not good enough to get straight in the first team then a period on loan can provide that - Beckham and Lampard benefitted from this and more recently Danny Rose at Spurs looks twice the player after a spell on loan at Sunderland.  Experience is vitally important, that's why players peak in their late 20's and why teams that win trophies have an average age in the late 20's.

[RedAnt]

I agree that experience improves players. But as you've said too, you'll seldom, if ever, manage to push a player beyond his capacity.

[RedAnt]

Shelvey v's Murphy, I don't think I agree. Shelvey was missing key ingredient. He's very good at what he does. He's very natural, perhaps more so than Gerrard with his speed of thought. I'm not sure he will ever be good enough though. He showed both sides to his game against us. He'd suit a Keegan type manager. Just hope he scores more for you than he does for them

[Stu the Red]

Some good points I hadn't thought of.

But JC, you talk of our reserve and youth set up, claiming its in better shape now, whilst measuring the "spice boys" who some could have been considered world class, against recent players like Sterling, Kelly, Robinson. I think that highlights how ineffective it is.

Stu makes a good point in that experience dosen't make a bad player into a good player.

And of the players brought in to gain their stripes as young players, there's again a marked difference in class between Murphy and Jojo Shelvey.

I meant that the youth set up now is better than in the days when Hobbs was reserve team captain in the Rafa era, but maybe it didn't read like that.  Obviously with the players who broke through in the late 90's, we're not producing players of that calibre just yet.  With 2 and 3 players, and in United's case in the early 90's a whole team, coming through at the same time there is clearly an element of luck.  You can pump all the money into a youth set up you want, you need the players to have the talent to begin with.

As for the 'marked difference between Murphy and Shelvey' I'm not so sure.  I think Shelvey has a lot of talent and we let him go too soon, but time will tell.

Stu's comment about experience being the most overrated thing in football is bollox as far as I'm concerned.  Obviously every player is different, the world class players like Owen, Gerrard, Rooney etc, it's obvious they're good enough straight away and don't need experience before being thrown in the first team.  But don't tell me that first team experience didn't help develop them and make them better players!!  If you're not good enough to get straight in the first team then a period on loan can provide that - Beckham and Lampard benefitted from this and more recently Danny Rose at Spurs looks twice the player after a spell on loan at Sunderland.  Experience is vitally important, that's why players peak in their late 20's and why teams that win trophies have an average age in the late 20's.

Age is nothing to do with whether someone is a good player and also as you pointed out... class players like Gerrard and Owen didn't need "experience". Owen was 18 and scored a goal in a world cup that Messi would be proud of... he'd played less than fifty first team games.

As for the stats on why teams are of a certain age that win titles well I'm sorry, thats rubbish. Nearly all squads average out over a similar age simply because most squads are looking to evolve, move older players out, younger players in. etc etc. You never see a squad of 20 year olds but if you did and they had the right level of quality then experience wouldn't matter one iota.

I also never said experience won't improve you slightly, of course it does, only a fool would think otherwise. But you cannot make diamonds from turd. The player must have the ability in the first place. They must also learn how to use the attributes they have. A player won't become good at something just because he has experience. Steven Gerrard was known as a kid for his ability to strike a ball, yet in his first season at Liverpool he scored 1 goal. That didn't mean he couldn't shoot, he already had the attritbute, he learnt how to use it properly. Which was exactly my point.

I also believe that Beckham and Lampard would have enjoyed similar careers had they not had loan periods, Scholes, Butt, Giggs, Neville, Owen, Fowler, McManaman, Carragher, Rooney, Wilshere etc have never had loan periods to "gain experience" yet all have and are succeeding (to varying  extent).

[RedAnt]

That's kind of my question. Do we hold into a player because he's good enough? Or is it because we hold onto them so they improve? Somewhere in the middle is my answer. My overall point is that those that stay are good players. If we send a player on loan, we're more or less saying they're not as good as that top tier we once produced, like those mentioned.

[Stu the Red]

I like the youth system, too. I'm sure it's a vital part of the football economy rooted deep. But for us personally it must cost obscene amounts, the administration costs, subsidising players training and development by splitting the wages with the target club.

But is it really effective? Of course the effects of a game flooded with players from other nations is taking its toll. But look at the players we've produced in recent years. Sterling is a prime example. A decent player with ability, but no world beater. No Gerrard or Carra. Man U too, go back a bit and they have a young Scholes/Giggs/Beckham. Who do they have now?

I can't help but feel our international team is the best if the average these days. But are we responsible too, aswell as all the foreign players in the league?

Robinson and Coady have been mentioned, but what will they gain away from us? Gerrard, Fowler, Macca all earned their stripes with us. They were good enough. Surely by sending players to the likes of Sheffield United, we're giving them the 'not good enough' stamp. Or are we now at a level where playing time at these clubs who's culture is to play on lesser stages is considered valuable to a team hoping to get back into the CL?

With regards to the youth set up I personally believe the club has all wrong. Its a scatter gun approach and I believe it has major flaws.

As a child, its impossible to accurately judge a player at 14 or 15 and even 16. Sometimes you will have an exceptional talent who has pro footballer written all over them... but thats more the exception than the rule. Sometimes on rare occasions you get a 19 year old who will develop late. Yet Liverpool are obsessed with bringing in kids in their mid teens.

For me, you would be better having two youth teams, consisting only of local lads and even more so, finding lads from local leagues and nurturing them properly. You are bound to get one or two through that will make the grade. Bringing in players from abroad and other parts of the country seems to be the major rule, rather than the major exception and for me thats the wrong way to go about it. You can buy and sell good foreign players later on, don't do it when they are kids.

For example.... I am going to use random numbers for this but the point remains the same.

Lets say there are 5 teams in every league, 5 players in a team spread across 5 leagues.

That makes 125 players.

There is one world class player in every league. For you to use the scatter gun approach you are giving yourself a 1 in 25 chance of finding that world class player.

Where as if you just take all the players from one league, you're "gaurenteeing" yourself at least one world class player.

Following? No? Get lost then... if not... carry on...

Now, I understand that its not as exact as that. But my point is that it would be better to intensely search an area (for example Liverpool ) than bring in Joe Bloggs from london because he looks a good prospect. He maybe the one who doesn't physically grow... or the one who has a bad attitude... *coughs*RaheemSterling*coughs*

[damjan193]

That's kind of my question. Do we hold into a player because he's good enough? Or is it because we hold onto them so they improve? Somewhere in the middle is my answer. My overall point is that those that stay are good players. If we send a player on loan, we're more or less saying they're not as good as that top tier we once produced, like those mentioned.

Or maybe we send them because they're unlikely to get the first team action which they are ready for. We held onto Sterling and Ibe because we needed them and we have no one else to serve as back up for the wingers. Coady and Suso were sent on loan because they needed first team action but they weren't going to get it here because midfield is already full (sort of). Wisdom, the captain of the English u21s, was about to get sent on loan until Johnson got injured. He wasn't going to get sent on loan because he isn't good enough, but because he wasn't going to get the needed first team action with us.