English players aged under 21 used in just one per cent of Brighton league minutes

[Brighton Breezy]

The BBC carried a story today about the lack of playing time given to English players aged 21 or under in the Premier League. It is about 2.8 per cent of the total game minutes.

I did a blog on the stats at Brighton HERE and it works out as just 1.1 per cent.

Only Dunk, Forster-Caskey and Barker have featured in Albion league matches. Forster-Caskey got just ten minutes all season.

Hopefully the academy will improve things.

 

[BigGully]

The BBC carried a story today about the lack of playing time given to English players aged 21 or under in the Premier League. It is about 2.8 per cent of the total game minutes.

I did a blog on the stats at Brighton HERE and it works out as just 1.1 per cent.

Only Dunk, Forster-Caskey and Barker have featured in Albion league matches. Forster-Caskey got just ten minutes all season.

Hopefully the academy will improve things.

There was a stat a couple of years ago saying that the average age of an English debut was 18 yrs and a few months whilst abroad the average age was something like 21yrs and a few months.

The reasonable conclusion was that here in England arbitrary decisions are therefore made on any potential player at about 18 yrs, either by 'make or break' Carling Cup debut or even releasing players that are unlikely to be ready for the first team at that age, it encourages physically bigger and early maturing players that might not offer the best solution in the medium term in regards developing the technicians England rarely has.

It seems a more patient approach by our European partners might offer greater opportunities to those late developers, allowing a gradual progression for players under the age of 21yrs and a better rounded player is therefore developed.

So perhaps we need to shift the age statistic to 21-23 year group.

Just a thought as I suspect that the influx of foreign players effect every age group here in England.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

There was a stat a couple of years ago saying that the average age of an English debut was 18 yrs and a few months whilst abroad the average age was something like 21yrs and a few months.

The reasonable conclusion was that here in England arbitrary decisions are therefore made on any potential player at about 18 yrs, either by 'make or break' Carling Cup debut or even releasing players that are unlikely to be ready for the first team at that age, it encourages physically bigger and early maturing players that might not offer the best solution in the medium term in regards developing the technicians England rarely has.

It seems a more patient approach by our European partners might offer greater opportunities to those late developers, allowing a gradual progression for players under the age of 21yrs and a better rounded player is therefore developed.

So perhaps we need to shift the age statistic to 21-23 year group.

Just a thought as I suspect that the influx of foreign players effect every age group here in England.

That makes a lot of sense and probably explains why less top foreign talent appears to suffer the burn out of some British players rushed into the first team earlier.

 

[BigGully]

That makes a lot of sense and probably explains why less top foreign talent appears to suffer the burn out of some British players rushed into the first team earlier.

To be honest I am not sure that there has been much 'burn out' of English players either, the lack of opportunity has left very little chance of that.

The structural problem remains that even the development teams and their academy's are full of foreign youngsters benefiting from this new modern approach.

Who really cares whether our English youngsters are progressing, the foreign owner, the foreign manager or the foreign 'Head of Academy' ??

 

[Perfidious Albion]

A symptom of what is wrong with English football

 

[strings]

Poyet has said before that British youngsters are blooded too young, so in that respect this is not surprising.

Having said that, I would have liked to see more of JFC, although he did spend time on loan, didn't he?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Talking of England u21s I see they were humiliated last night. One Italy player made 76 more passes than any England player. Doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[BigGully]

Talking of England u21s I see they were humiliated last night. One Italy player made 76 more passes than any England player. Doesn't bode well for the future.

To develop the playing technicians that some other countries do, you have to tolerate young players failing at whatever technical skill they try.

It is risky in terms of the result and I am not sure our level 1 parent/coaches are ready to lose a match trying to play the 'right way', Academy's are meant to fill that role but not all offer this perspective !!

I went and saw the FA Youth Game versus Stoke this year at the Amex, Stoke won 4-0 and deserved the win yes, but you could see a physically inferior BHA youth team had more inclination to pass the ball and I thought we had some good young technically skilled players.

I read the Stoke's view of the game on their website and their coach quoted “It wasn’t so much about outstanding individuals, but collectively it was excellent. That’s what the Club is about: work-rate and commitment.”

I fully accept that those are valid qualities, but for me it offers an insight into the mentality and ethos of those that power broke what our youngsters are being encouraged to do.

This isnt necessarily a comment on Stoke City or that coach but for me it tells a story and there is work to be done before we too can out pass our international opposition.

 

[Doc Lynam]

The BBC carried a story today about the lack of playing time given to English players aged 21 or under in the Premier League. It is about 2.8 per cent of the total game minutes.

I did a blog on the stats at Brighton HERE and it works out as just 1.1 per cent.

Only Dunk, Forster-Caskey and Barker have featured in Albion league matches. Forster-Caskey got just ten minutes all season.

Hopefully the academy will improve things.

Walt Jabsco you might be interested in reading this book.

 

[VHA on NSC]

Poyet has said before that British youngsters are blooded too young, so in that respect this is not surprising.

Having said that, I would have liked to see more of JFC, although he did spend time on loan, didn't he?

Messi made his debut for Barcelona aged 17, and won the Ball on D'or and FIFA World player of the year by the age of 21. Cristiano Ronaldo made played for his club's under 16, 17, 18, B team and first team all in the same season. And none of this is uncommon. If Gus did say this, he was patently talking bollocks.

 

[theonesmith]

Messi made his debut for Barcelona aged 17, and won the Ball on D'or and FIFA World player of the year by the age of 21. Cristiano Ronaldo made played for his club's under 16, 17, 18, B team and first team all in the same season. And none of this is uncommon. If Gus did say this, he was patently talking bollocks.

Quoting the two best players in the world (definitively anomalies) versus the argument that average youth players are blooded generally too early is not a great riposte...

Cristiano was big and well developed for his age (ala Rooney). Messi is an anomaly in that he learned to cope as a small player vs big players, due to his growth problems.

Generally youngsters develop a lot in the years between 18 & 21, both physically and, sometimes more importantly, mentally too. We do blood youngsters early in this country, we do hype them up and place pressure on them as the future, and ultimately this can inflict both physical and mental damage on them. Just because some anomalies succeed and go on to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, the cream of the best footballers does not mean that improving development and the timings of when we blood the average footballer would not lead to improvements in the middle area of the footballer-age-bellcurve...

 

[VHA on NSC]

Quoting the two best players in the world (definitively anomalies) versus the argument that average youth players are blooded generally too early is not a great riposte...

Cristiano was big and well developed for his age (ala Rooney). Messi is an anomaly in that he learned to cope as a small player vs big players, due to his growth problems.

Generally youngsters develop a lot in the years between 18 & 21, both physically and, sometimes more importantly, mentally too. We do blood youngsters early in this country, we do hype them up and place pressure on them as the future, and ultimately this can inflict both physical and mental damage on them. Just because some anomalies succeed and go on to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, the cream of the best footballers does not mean that improving development and the timings of when we blood the average footballer would not lead to improvements in the middle area of the footballer-age-bellcurve...

I think the fact that the two best players in the world were blooded at such a young age is a great argument. I could have gone on, but stopped there. Would they have been as good players if they'd been left to stagnate in reserve teams for years, do you think?

 

[theonesmith]

I think the fact that the two best players in the world were blooded at such a young age is a great argument. I could have gone on, but stopped there. Would they have been as good players if they'd been left to stagnate in reserve teams for years, do you think?

I do agree, but I see it more as they were capable of stepping up, and so were given the chance. In my opinion, the crux of the matter is the need for better development teams and better individuals overseeing young players at this critical stage.

Barca and other top Spanish clubs blood their youth in the second league in Spain. I'm not advocating a similar system in England (wouldn't work), but it provides an excellent platform for young players.

The Portuguese top league is relatively weak outside of the top clubs, so it isn't an issue blooding players like Ronaldo. This could be considered true for the Bundesliga too, although their youth setup is arguably better than any other nation's.

The problem in the UK is we have neither; our leagues are so strong that we cannot blood youngsters - the gap from youth football (and in some cases, even development/reserve football) is too big to allow for acclimatization for young players. Our youth setup in this country is terrible (relatively speaking) and so, somewhat linked, the youngsters aren't good enough once they go through the youth process to enter the top leagues.

Even gaps between the leagues in the UK are too big - the Championship to the Premiership is a ridiculously high step up.

Furthermore, some players shouldn't be brought through early - and this requires people who are well trained in the physical and mental development of young players to make that call. These people also need to collaborate effectively with the managers of football clubs. Some players' development are impaired by not playing them, some are impaired by playing them too soon/too much.

Some clubs do work hard to bring players through, and the result is quality English talent. But what then for the clubs? Bigger clubs come in, poach the talent and the club stays against its glass ceiling - look at Derby & Crewe for examples.


This whole thing is just one giant Prisoner's Dilemma Game (see here if interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma). It needs cooperation, because there is little competitive advantage to be obtained through bringing youngsters through when you can just buy a player that is ready to slot in. This is particularly salient in the British leagues, where far more emphasis is placed on size and physique as opposed to the emphasis placed on technical ability in other countries.

I do think that the championship should and will play a much larger part in the development of national talent, and as much as I hate to say it, I applaud the way that Palace built a team around their youngsters along with a mix of well bought other players. It makes both good financial sense and a good footballing case, as demonstrated in May...

 

[BigGully]

I think the fact that the two best players in the world were blooded at such a young age is a great argument. I could have gone on, but stopped there. Would they have been as good players if they'd been left to stagnate in reserve teams for years, do you think?

My view was more on the arbitrary decisions on youngsters at the age of 18 years, based on the premise that if they are not ready then some are more prone to be released than others.

You site two outstanding talents that tell us no more than they are exceptionally gifted footballers, when trying to implement a strategy to develop youngsters with the technical abilities of some other nations, then the statistic remains that Europe's average debut age is significantly older than our own historic debuts and this has rightly been investigated why and what might the consequences be.

Maybe the key is to make appropriate decisions on all footballers, whether they need to play early or need further time, but factor this into when making decisions on contracts given to young footballers in England.

 

[VHA on NSC]

Look at the most successful team in the country over the past two or three decades. Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Butt, Neville and countless others. In fact, look at any of the top players in any country, and find any who weren't playing first team football way before the age of 21.

If players aren't playing football at that age, it's simply because the club don't have any that are good enough, or the manager is too scared to play them.

 

[theonesmith]

Look at the most successful team in the country over the past two or three decades. Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Butt, Neville and countless others. In fact, look at any of the top players in any country, and find any who weren't playing first team football way before the age of 21.

If players aren't playing football at that age, it's simply because the club don't have any that are good enough, or the manager is too scared to play them.

Not true. You're missing out a host of variables, namely;

Level of playing vs level of ability at point (a)

Period of development

Level of playing vs level of ability at point (b)

ad infinitum

Now. Your argument is that top clubs should play their youth, and if they do not then the players are not good enough - or the manager is too scared to play them. You've thrown up Messi & Ronaldo, as well as the golden boys of Manchester United's yesteryear as your examples. Let me demonstrate my point of view.

Marco Reus is currently being heralded as one of the best up and coming players in the world. He is 24 years of age currently. Most people see Borussia Dortmund and go, "Oh what a fabulous club, they develop and bring their youth players through." They told him he wasn't good enough when he was 17, and he left and played in the third division of German football. He developed a lot, particularly mentally but also physically, and Borussia Dortmund brought him back last year for 17m euros. My point, in summary, is that it is only at the age of 22-24 that he has become a top flight player - that playing him at a high level at a young age may have interrupted his development.

There are plenty of cases where players could not cut it at a young age, physically and mentally, at a particular level - but drop down, develop and come back as one of the better players in a league.

 

[Questions]

If players aren't playing football at that age, it's simply because the club don't have any that are good enough, or the manager is too scared to play them.

The first reason may be the case with JFK. It seems everyone thinks he should be getting game time with us but the top of the Championship is a high quality place to be plying your trade nowadays.

 

[Stat Brother]

Still nobody has been able to convince me why the training facility will suddenly produce Premier League quality young footballers, from Sussex.

A building and pitches don't make the player.

All Monk's Farm will do is make us more attractive to foreign juniors, wishing to make it really big, really quick.

 

[VHA on NSC]

Not true. You're missing out a host of variables, namely;

Level of playing vs level of ability at point (a)

Period of development

Level of playing vs level of ability at point (b)

ad infinitum

Now. Your argument is that top clubs should play their youth, and if they do not then the players are not good enough - or the manager is too scared to play them. You've thrown up Messi & Ronaldo, as well as the golden boys of Manchester United's yesteryear as your examples. Let me demonstrate my point of view.

Marco Reus is currently being heralded as one of the best up and coming players in the world. He is 24 years of age currently. Most people see Borussia Dortmund and go, "Oh what a fabulous club, they develop and bring their youth players through." They told him he wasn't good enough when he was 17, and he left and played in the third division of German football. He developed a lot, particularly mentally but also physically, and Borussia Dortmund brought him back last year for 17m euros. My point, in summary, is that it is only at the age of 22-24 that he has become a top flight player - that playing him at a high level at a young age may have interrupted his development.

There are plenty of cases where players could not cut it at a young age, physically and mentally, at a particular level - but drop down, develop and come back as one of the better players in a league.

I accept your points, but none of this proves Gus's theory that British players are blooded at too young an age, or excuses his or his club's failure to produce young talent.

The player you describe DID play first team football at a young age, and what's more, did very well at it. Who's to say he wouldn't be worth €17m now if they'd have given him more of a chance at Dortmund? I'm not trying to say that every player is capable of being thrown in at the deep end - more that a blanket statement asserting the opposite - as supposedly made by Poyet - is patently nonsense.

 

[BigGully]

Still nobody has been able to convince me why the training facility will suddenly produce Premier League quality young footballers, from Sussex.

A building and pitches don't make the player.

All Monk's Farm will do is make us more attractive to foreign juniors, wishing to make it really big, really quick.

Is correct.

I guess it is a reflection on a clubs resources and it should reflect that clubs quality of staff, but it is no guarantee.