Debate - Future of Youth Development in Irish Football

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

So comparable nations in population who achieve on levels we can these days only dream of are being better served by most of their lads being home schooled until at an age they're ready to leave, is that fair ?

Same as most of us weren't ready to leave Ireland at 16 but by 22 a lot of us had chosen to, emphasis on chosen there & the importance of both options being credible and available.

CSAD, there isn't a definitive conclusion to be drawn here, evidence doesn't support it. In fact the numbers lean heavily against your argument.

---

Um no because the stats I showed clearly indicated the pretty much the entire spine of the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euros was with players that left when they were 16/17. Which is proven when you look at the side Denmark selected for their matches at Euro 2021.

No the evidence actually leans heavily towards my argument, what posters like Pineapple are trying to do is pull the wool over you're eyes and twist reality in an efforts to suit their narrative.

I've already listed the key players in the spine of that Danish side and the ages which they left Denmark and its proven by simply looking at their wikipedia pages, if you want to believe that because they had a bunch of squad players that stayed in Denmark until after they were in their 20s and that's the way to go then you can choose to believe that but the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Well you have the Danish stats above. For Uruguay, of their 2018 World Cup squad (which lost to France in the quarters) -

1 left at 16 (Lucas Torreira, the only player not to play domestically first)
2 at 18
4 at 19
7 at 20
5 at 21
1 at 23
1 at 25
1 at 26
1 at 28

So very similar again.


The fact that Croatia team still reached the World Cup final (and the 2022 semis) kinda blows out of the water your suggestion that Denmark suffered from "a lot of journeymen who stayed beyond these ages [16/17] but their progress probably show's that maybe that wasn't the right decision."

---

It doesnt blow any argument out of the water, you're comparing two completely different nations!

FWIW I looked at our current extended squad, the guys who would basically generally be in a squad when fit and excluded the 9 lads who grew up in England or Scotland.

15 (2) Collins, Parrott
16 (13) everyone else
17 (1) Travers
18 (3) Doherty, Manning, Browne
19 (1) O’Brien
20 (2) Ogbene, Coleman
23 (2) Scales, McGrath

Everyone else: Bazunu, Kelleher, O'Shea, Omobamidele, Duffy, Egan, Brady, Hendrick, Molumby, Knight, Ebosele, Ferguson, Idah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

No the evidence actually leans heavily towards my argument, what posters like Pineapple are trying to do is pull the wool over you're eyes and twist reality in an efforts to suit their narrative.

---

In fact I knew Pineappler wouldn't be able to resist Googling the relevant number I'd only half remembered & was too lazy to do it myself. But wool over my eyes ... very good. Carry on.

Lesser aspects of your personality starting to come through in your use of vocabulary there, when challenged also.

You've proven nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elatedscum

Because Ruud Dokter was actually pretty competent and did good work - and in some respects we've developed beyond what we should have given the resources at our disposal. Stuff like the emerging talent program, the national underage leagues - they're a huge improvement on what was there for kids coming from a decade previous to it, but it's still working with a fraction of the resources that we should have and players have a fraction of the number of hours training that kids in similar age groups have. also players just sometimes come through despite everything in front of them, sometimes they're just born to play football.

---

The issue is when you starting saying things like "[COLOR=#333333]in some respects we've developed beyond what we should have given the resources at our disposal" you start delving into the world of subjectivity as you start to create a scenario where you can never be wrong. The fact of the matter is the end result suggests things arent as bad as being made out which would indicate that clearly something is being done right that we are underestimating or maybe the theory we use for what lead to success at underage level is wrong.

The simple fact is all the talk of contact hours and resources etc, whatever way we look at it if things were as terrible as you'd suggest we'd be at the bottom of European football and yet we arent, in fact we are in the top 10 in Europe at u17 & u19 level and in pot 2 at u21 level (which in itself is impressive given we lose more u21s to our senior team than most nations, in fact in the last u21 campaign the only nation that lost more than us was Luxembourg) so either we are doing something right in both regards in some way, or maybe neither regard is as crucial as we make it out to be. Either way simply saying things like "we are doing better than we should" doesnt really fly with me when its on a consistent basis that we are doing well at underage level, the table I mentioned is over 3-4 campaigns so not just a flukey one off table, so clearly something is being done right behind the scene's in both regards or its just not as crucial as made out, which one is it?[/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Well you have the Danish stats above. For Uruguay, of their 2018 World Cup squad (which lost to France in the quarters) -

1 left at 16 (Lucas Torreira, the only player not to play domestically first)
2 at 18
4 at 19
7 at 20
5 at 21
1 at 23
1 at 25
1 at 26
1 at 28

So very similar again.


The fact that Croatia team still reached the World Cup final (and the 2022 semis) kinda blows out of the water your suggestion that Denmark suffered from "a lot of journeymen who stayed beyond these ages [16/17] but their progress probably show's that maybe that wasn't the right decision."

---

Just an FYI - Uruguayan players can only leave at the age of 18. Torreira was an exception cause he was a Spanish citizen, so was entitled to play anywhere in the EU from 16. Just worth factoring in. Basically their clock of availability starts in the first transfer window after their 18th birthday.

I remember hearing a Danish journalist on the radio, probably just over a decade ago. He said they basically had a two tier approach. The truly elite kids, he used Eriksen as his example, who was at Ajax at the time. He said to maximise his potential, he needed to go to leave Denmark, but the second tier of players were better served staying in Denmark till later. The numbers re Denmark's players basically show that's what happened

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

In fact I knew Pineappler wouldn't be able to resist Googling the relevant number I'd only half remembered & was too lazy to do it myself. But wool over my eyes ... very good. Carry on.

Lesser aspects of your personality starting to come through in your use of vocabulary there, when challenged also.

You've proven nothing.

---

Crafty, you can stoop to personal insults all you want, I've already shown you the numbers that prove I'm right. Pineappler has a history of twisting reality to suit his narrative and if you choose to believe him go right ahead but the facts clearly show I'm right on this occasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

you're comparing two completely different nations!

---

Wasn't a problem when you were comparing Denmark to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Wasn't a problem when you were comparing Denmark to us.

---

Because Ireland and Denmark are in the EU and can move to another EU nation at 16, Croatia before 2013 was not EU so most of their players couldn't move until they were 18...same applies for Uruguay as elated stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elatedscum

Just an FYI - Uruguayan players can only leave at the age of 18.

---

That's fine, as is the idea of a truly elite player moving early. But the point being made was

Quote:

---

For example at Euro 2020 the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euro's the vast majority of those players left Denmark at 16/17 years old, obviously the odd exception will exist but the majority left at an age most Irish players leave.

---

That's clearly nowhere near being true. And Croatia and Uruguay have clearly not suffered from having their players stay until 18-22 sort of age.

And it was in response to Stutts' point bemoaning our lack of academy coaches here -

Quote:

---

And in what universe is celebrating 16 year olds going to Germany to learn a trade a good thing

---

Finn Sherlock is not a truly elite player for example. I'd classify your "truly elite player" as CSAD's "odd exception"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

That's fine, as is the idea of a truly elite player moving early. But the point being made was



That's clearly nowhere near being true

And it was in response to Stutts' point bemoaning our lack of academy coaches here -



Cathal Heffernan is not a truly elite player for example. I'd classify your "truly elite player" as CSAD's "odd exception"

---

If that's the case then the person interviewed wasnt completely accurate as the only Danish player that left that could be classified as potentially a "truly elite" prospect was Eriksen & Christiansen and possibly Dolberg (worth noting he was seen as a similar category to Eriksen when he was young but sadly never fulfilled his potential). So what about the other players that left at that age?

What I said was clearly true, you just tried to twist my words to suit you're agenda as always.

In fairness CSAD, you stated that the vast majority of the Denmark squad left at 16/17 and named the 6 players who did, 6 players in a squad of 23 is not a 'vast majority'.

I think we can all agree that the best players will always leave younger, and others benefit from staying home longer and that our grassroots and youth football is doing something right, it is not where it needs to be for sustainable success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WexCar.

In fairness CSAD, you stated that the vast majority of the Denmark squad left at 16/17 and named the 6 players who did, 6 players in a squad of 23 is not a 'vast majority'.

I think we can all agree that the best players will always leave younger, and others benefit from staying home longer and that our grassroots and youth football is doing something right, it is not where it needs to be for sustainable success.

---

He knows very well what I meant, he chose to bring us down this rabbit hole by twisting my words to suit his agenda. The reality is the defining factor for a nations success will be how well the best players who are aged 16/17 develop when the move abroad. The other key area for success for our youth players will be the career decision they make, that for me has been the biggest concern of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elatedscum

FWIW I looked at our current extended squad, the guys who would basically generally be in a squad when fit and excluded the 9 lads who grew up in England or Scotland.

15 (2) Collins, Parrott
16 (13) everyone else
17 (1) Travers
18 (3) Doherty, Manning, Browne
19 (1) O’Brien
20 (2) Ogbene, Coleman
23 (2) Scales, McGrath

Everyone else: Bazunu, Kelleher, O'Shea, Omobamidele, Duffy, Egan, Brady, Hendrick, Molumby, Knight, Ebosele, Ferguson, Idah

---

Thats an ugly looking bell curve... you'd ideally want that spike spread out more in the 19, 20 and 21 groupings.

edit: similar to the Uruguay post actually. That looks pretty reasonable.

Of course, none of these posts account for the 99% of youth and club players that go over and dont make the national squad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

He knows very well what I meant, he chose to bring us down this rabbit hole by twisting my words to suit his agenda. The reality is the defining factor for a nations success will be how well the best players who are aged 16/17 develop when the move abroad. The other key area for success for our youth players will be the career decision they make, that for me has been the biggest concern of all.

---

No twisting. I just disproved your point is all. You then changed what you claimed to have said, and even then it wasn't correct. It's clear their best players not moving abroad at 16/17 hasn't hindered Croatia or Uruguay for example. That they weren't able to is irrelevant.

Stutts' point was correct, and was not refuted by your incorrect assertion that "For example at Euro 2020 the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euro's the vast majority of those players left Denmark at 16/17 years old, obviously the odd exception will exist but the majority left at an age most Irish players leave", or any vague interpretations of that you want to assume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

He knows very well what I meant, he chose to bring us down this rabbit hole by twisting my words to suit his agenda.

---

Yes, he does that, a kernel of fact surrounded by opinion & then split hairs ongoing till the conversation is hopelessly side tracked & pointless. Its very annoying, its regular and I'm well aware of it.

Thing is he hasn't done it on this subject. Not today.
You argument didn't stand any scrutiny and that's nobody's fault.

The sweet spot is clearly both options, tailored to the individual needs of the young people involved who mature at different rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No twisting. I just disproved your point is all. You then changed what you claimed to have said, and even then it wasn't correct. It's clear their best players not moving abroad at 16/17 hasn't hindered Croatia or Uruguay for example. That they weren't able to is irrelevant.

Stutts' point was correct, and was not refuted by your incorrect assertion that "For example at Euro 2020 the Danish side that got to the SF of the Euro's the vast majority of those players left Denmark at 16/17 years old, obviously the odd exception will exist but the majority left at an age most Irish players leave", or any vague interpretations of that you want to assume.

---

No you just switched the focus from Denmark to Croatia/Uruguay because you know very welly point about Denmark was correct. And the fact they "weren't able to" isn't "irrelevant".

The point wasn't correct, and my assertion was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

Yes, he does that, a kernel of fact surrounded by opinion & then split hairs ongoing till the conversation is hopelessly side tracked & pointless. Its very annoying, its regular and I'm well aware of it.

Thing is he hasn't done it on this subject. Not today.
You argument didn't stand any scrutiny and that's nobody's fault.

The sweet spot is clearly both options, tailored to the individual needs of the young people involved who mature at different rates.

---

He has done it today though, I'm very used to it now to the point ive decided not to provide his attempts any oxygen.

My argument does stand to scrutiny, just check wikipedia and it'll back me up. Just because you dont like the answer it will provide doesnt mean it doesnt "stand up to scrutiny" Crafty.

Lads, I know there's been some calls for lighter touch moderation, but the argument about the argument is off topic and frankly stupid. Back on topic or take it to PMs.

This is great craic altogether!

CSAD, in all fairness, offering stats to support a counter-argument isn’t twisting truth, it’s just supporting an argument with data. You’re making it sound like Pineappler and our collective media have an agenda to actually improve conditions in Irish football just for the sheer disruptive contrarian heck of it, or are spurred on by some mystical sinister force (George Soros maybe?) determined to undermine John Delaney’s golden legacy.

I think we all agree and enjoy that the underage teams are doing well and that is proof that some things are done right. And the counter-factual - might it be better? - can’t be proven but would appear to be likely based on comparable countries’ experience. We have a deep on-the-ground football culture in this country so you’d expect a certain level of achievement but ultimately it’s a numbers game: the more kids that are well coached and that get the hours required the higher the potential standard of the system in general. I’d say that’s necessary but not sufficient. You need to add infrastructure, pathways, a functional national governance structure and all that too.

I think it’s a red herring that Croatia or Uruguay players faced legal impediments to moving abroad until 18. The point is that they didn’t all move abroad and it seems that benefitted them. Causation and correlation and all that notwithstanding.

And there’s nothing new in the observation that any small/mid-sized nation needs a core of good players peppered with some exceptional players to challenge at the very top.

I’d add an slightly ethereal factor at play too: culture. Much was made of Spain’s culture at the Euros, the shared national appreciation of how to play football, support teammates, find space etc. Spain’s culture was superior to England’s. Now obviously England has lots of coaches and academies and rarely export players abroad but I’d argue that it’s hard to create a culture without retaining players at home for longer and having lots of coaches teaching to a common philosophy. Denmark, Croatia and Uruguay are all countries with an identifiable and durable football culture.

If it was possible to run a regression analysis on the factors that contribute to a successful system I’d say the independent factors that some of us are citing would have high coefficients. Some of us are saying we’re doing OK despite obvious failings, whereas you seem to be saying relax, we’re doing fine, changes are only required at the margins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Lads, I know there's been some calls for lighter touch moderation, but the argument about the argument is off topic and frankly stupid. Back on topic or take it to PMs.

---

Sorry John, I was preparing my post before I saw yours.

No worries. I appreciate the calm and reasoned response all the same. I don't really want to shut off the discussion as it pertains to what factors are important in terms of youth development here. I'd just like to take the heat out of it. It's turned a little personal and circular, which drives out potentially good contributions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Lads, I know there's been some calls for lighter touch moderation, but the argument about the argument is off topic and frankly stupid. Back on topic or take it to PMs.

---

So what if it's off topic a bit. There's fcuk all else happening on the Ireland section of the forum. Lads are engaging in debate and here comes the shut down again.
Let them talk ffs. No one is being abusive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Lads, I know there's been some calls for lighter touch moderation, but the argument about the argument is off topic and frankly stupid. Back on topic or take it to PMs.

---

You can thank Pinnapple for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

This is great craic altogether!

CSAD, in all fairness, offering stats to support a counter-argument isn’t twisting truth, it’s just supporting an argument with data. You’re making it sound like Pineappler and our collective media have an agenda to actually improve conditions in Irish football just for the sheer disruptive contrarian heck of it, or are spurred on by some mystical sinister force (George Soros maybe?) determined to undermine John Delaney’s golden legacy.

I think we all agree and enjoy that the underage teams are doing well and that is proof that some things are done right. And the counter-factual - might it be better? - can’t be proven but would appear to be likely based on comparable countries’ experience. We have a deep on-the-ground football culture in this country so you’d expect a certain level of achievement but ultimately it’s a numbers game: the more kids that are well coached and that get the hours required the higher the potential standard of the system in general. I’d say that’s necessary but not sufficient. You need to add infrastructure, pathways, a functional national governance structure and all that too.

I think it’s a red herring that Croatia or Uruguay players faced legal impediments to moving abroad until 18. The point is that they didn’t all move abroad and it seems that benefitted them. Causation and correlation and all that notwithstanding.

And there’s nothing new in the observation that any small/mid-sized nation needs a core of good players peppered with some exceptional players to challenge at the very top.

I’d add an slightly ethereal factor at play too: culture. Much was made of Spain’s culture at the Euros, the shared national appreciation of how to play football, support teammates, find space etc. Spain’s culture was superior to England’s. Now obviously England has lots of coaches and academies and rarely export players abroad but I’d argue that it’s hard to create a culture without retaining players at home for longer and having lots of coaches teaching to a common philosophy. Denmark, Croatia and Uruguay are all countries with an identifiable and durable football culture.

If it was possible to run a regression analysis on the factors that contribute to a successful system I’d say the independent factors that some of us are citing would have high coefficients. Some of us are saying we’re doing OK despite obvious failings, whereas you seem to be saying relax, we’re doing fine, changes are only required at the margins.

---

I'm not giving Pinnapple's argument anymore oxygen, all its doing is trying to derail the discussion.

But is anything good being done because I look at all these media reports and I see little to nothing of it mentioned, all I know is if things were truly as bad as the media paints why are Ireland not at the bottom of European football at youth level? The issue I have is the underage teams results seem to indicate that something is done being right and yet I have to do digging on the internet to find out what this is which is an issue as surely its the media's job to present a balanced discussion...which is what they ARENT doing.

I do get what you're saying about culture but I don't think keeping players at home necessarily creates that, it might help it to a certain extent but the extent you suggest is overblown. If you look at the stars in most countries you've mentioned. I would accept Croatia mostly as a country where this is achieved but countries like Denmark & Uruguay less so, if you go to these countries like Denmark for instance you'll find the most supported players are players that left when they were teens without actually playing much of a game for their club sides. They are obviously doing something right but I dont really see how culture is the reason for it.

That's the point, if we were only doing "OK" then considering how bad things are according to media outlets then why are we as high as we are at underage level consistently...obviously we must be doing better than OK...or maybe things arent as bad as made out and the media is just sensationalising things like they've a tendency to do?

I havent said relax or any of the words you suggest I said, In fact all ive done is ask simple logical questions which would be easy to answer if things were truly as bad as made out. I've yet to actually get a reply on some of these questions which makes me think some of these media people are just having a whinge rather than doing their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

So what if it's off topic a bit. There's fcuk all else happening on the Ireland section of the forum. Lads are engaging in debate and here comes the shut down again.
Let them talk ffs. No one is being abusive

---

Ah in fairness, it was wandering a bit into circular stuff. I think it's reasonable for a mod to avoid the discussion circling the drain like that. CSAD's immediate reply is a good example of the sort of stuff I think John was trying to avoid, while encouraging it back to Stutts' post, which was well thought-out.

That seems to me to be a core role of a mod tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSAD

But is anything good being done because I look at all these media reports and I see little to nothing of it mentioned, all I know is if things were truly as bad as the media paints why are Ireland not at the bottom of European football at youth level? The issue I have is the underage teams results seem to indicate that something is done being right and yet I have to do digging on the internet to find out what this is which is an issue as surely its the media's job to present a balanced discussion...which is what they ARENT doing.

---

There's a lot to reply to in your full post, but I think elatedscum was right to refer to the Dokter-era legacy which was policy-driven and has been showing results.

In terms of the media giving a balanced picture of the underage situation. I think we have media who have a genuine interest in what is happening, care and want it to improve, so point out what needs to be done, and then we have a large swathe of Irish football media who do not care what's happening and are more or less solely interested in football abroad and the international team. It mirrors the fanbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

There's a lot to reply to in your full post, but I think elatedscum was right to refer to the Dokter-era legacy which was policy-driven and has been showing results.

---

I mean that is 100% true. But it has to be said, what Dokter implemented wasnt rocket science and I dont that ALONE is the reason for Ireland improving at underage level. When I ask why are we performing well at underage level when everything is a disaster at grassroots level according to the media I'm not doing so in a patronising way, I'm legitimately asking why because the media wont cover it from a balanced perspective. It's actually quite irresponsible of the media to do this tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

In terms of the media giving a balanced picture of the underage situation. I think we have media who have a genuine interest in what is happening, care and want it to improve, so point out what needs to be done, and then we have a large swathe of Irish football media who do not care what's happening and are more or less solely interested in football abroad and the international team. It mirrors the fanbase.

---

I mean they obviously care but there's a difference between highlighting what needs to be done and just having a whinge, and most media outlets fall into the latter camp.

Which media individuals/orgs do you consider are doing that out of interest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

Which media individuals/orgs do you consider are doing that out of interest?

---

To be honest, way too many to list but the worst that comes to mind is Gavin Cooney...the term "attention wh0re" comes to mind.

I don't understand how you'd draw such a conclusion tbh, but I'm not sure I have the energy for the 17 page argument that would ensue :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acornvilla

I don't understand how you'd draw such a conclusion tbh, but I'm not sure I have the energy for the 17 page argument that would ensue :D

---

17 pages isnt required, I mean every one of them is different but usually one thing they all have in common is a sensationalised title that is clearly been written to grab attention and get clicks but is also nonsense at the same time. Gavin Cooney is the worst to the point ive just blocked his social media so I don't have it clogging up my feed.

I did find Paul Fennessy to be a good writer though and I find his articles nice and refreshing compared to the garbage Cooney writes.

This might be interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

This might be interesting

---

Now that is really interesting and something an Irish fan could get behind.
Conjures up images of thousands of Irish fans investing in LOI clubs and changing the dynamic for the owners.

Tough week for the senior team but at least all is going well behind the scenes. Cuts left, right and centre alongside almost certainly a nice pay rise for Canham.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soc...ent-programme/

The youth development has to be through the LoI academies. The FAI can increase the political pressure for investment by bringing in the three tier academy structure. If say 19 of the 20 clubs are only at tier 3, it highlights the clear need for investment and where the investment has to go.
The main political pressure is on an increase to the betting tax to fund the investment in the academy structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by legendz

The youth development has to be through the LoI academies. The FAI can increase the political pressure for investment by bringing in the three tier academy structure. If say 19 of the 20 clubs are only at tier 3, it highlights the clear need for investment and where the investment has to go.
The main political pressure is on an increase to the betting tax to fund the investment in the academy structure.

---

At the same time though that's gonna take years to achieve so the FAI should be doing more not less to fill that gap until the LOI academies start improving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR89

At the same time though that's gonna take years to achieve so the FAI should be doing more not less to fill that gap until the LOI academies start improving.

---

That's the thing. How do they bridge the gap? Are all the best talent for each age group encouraged to join the top one or two academies? If young lads from Munster have to relocate to Dublin for a Tier 1 academy, expenses covered for them possibly.