Youth Player discussion

[CSAD]

You can absolutely expect all bananas to ripen. Expecting the same of footballers is foolhardy stuff.

Not all footballers but the example is some are taking longer to develop than others but that doesn’t mean they won’t be top players, it means they are just taking longer to get there and until they hit their prime no one knows where they will end up.

[pineapple stu]

as almost all the big nations have got a grip with their youth development in recent years.

I think this is a key issue and one I keep leaning towards.

I don't think it's really that big nations (or indeed medium ones) have gotten a grip on their youth development - we beat Germany and Italy in those two Euro finals, and lost to Argentina in the WC semis - but rather that we've fallen far behind. I think our model of shipping players to England when they're 16 is woefully outdated (and indeed harder now with Brexit). Most other countries (a) have proper youth development plans in place which the SFAI seem to think are below them and (b) have a professional domestic environment for players to start into before moving abroad. This latter has the dual benefit of giving players more first-team football (including European football, potentially) at a younger age and of generating funds to reinvest into the domestic game.

For me, that's the single biggest issue facing us at the moment. I know things are changing in the past while, but I'm not sure they've changed enough to give too much confidence for the future yet.

[sadloserkid]

Not all footballers but the example is some are taking longer to develop than others but that doesn’t mean they won’t be top players, it means they are just taking longer to get there and until they hit their prime no one knows where they will end up.

I agree. This is why I think stuff like the post above (not yours) suggesting that we have 70 or so players likely to break through to Championship level football by the end of next season is fanciful stuff.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think our model of shipping players to England when they're 16 is woefully outdated

And is probably a part explanation for why so few of Kerr's kids made it as professionals.

[SkStu]

Did he play under Kenny for Bohs?

No, Kenny left Bohs in 2005 and Carey played for us a lot later than that.

[CSAD]

I think this is a key issue and one I keep leaning towards.

I don't think it's really that big nations (or indeed medium ones) have gotten a grip on their youth development - we beat Germany and Italy in those two Euro finals, and lost to Argentina in the WC semis - but rather that we've fallen far behind. I think our model of shipping players to England when they're 16 is woefully outdated (and indeed harder now with Brexit). Most other countries (a) have proper youth development plans in place which the SFAI seem to think are below them and (b) have a professional domestic environment for players to start into before moving abroad. This latter has the dual benefit of giving players more first-team football (including European football, potentially) at a younger age and of generating funds to reinvest into the domestic game.

For me, that's the single biggest issue facing us at the moment. I know things are changing in the past while, but I'm not sure they've changed enough to give too much confidence for the future yet.

I don’t agree because look at Portugal,England,France,Italy in recent years compared to 10-15 years ago.

I think getting the top prospects abroad is the right idea as if you look at other nations who wouldn’t be considered top nations, most of their players go abroad when they are 16-17 years old, what’s key is they open their horizon and go to a place where they will develop.

[CSAD]

I agree. This is why I think stuff like the post above (not yours) suggesting that we have 70 or so players likely to break through to Championship level football by the end of next season is fanciful stuff.

I’d replace likely with potentially, some might be ready and some might need more time because no one has a clue when they will be ready, like for all we know Evan Ferguson might become a superstar next season for Brighton and all of a sudden is consider the next wonder kid of world football, in reality nobody knows what will happen so making predictions of where a player will be in the future is crazy at this moment.

[SkStu]

I agree. This is why I think stuff like the post above (not yours) suggesting that we have 70 or so players likely to break through to Championship level football by the end of next season is fanciful stuff.

I didnt interpret that original post to be making as bold a claim as that. Just that there is "cause for optimism" is how i remember it being phrased. I dont think that statement is fanciful if you take a look at the players current profiles and the sheer number involved in the 70 that are starting already for teams in Champ or L1 or having been loaned out by parent Prem clubs as promising players.

I think generally Stu is also right in that we can still expect the net benefit to the national team to be relatively low overall (although id venture we'd be looking to at least 10 or 11 of those names to become MNT regulars - in addition to those already in there) and the ceiling not quite as high as compared to previous crops.

[Olé Olé]

I agree. This is why I think stuff like the post above (not yours) suggesting that we have 70 or so players likely to break through to Championship level football by the end of next season is fanciful stuff.

Did the poster actually say or imply that? I took from it that the poster was implying that surely there's a decent return on the 70 players i.e. a portion could break through to Championship level football.

Shows the perils of posting anything remotely optimistic- always open to hype merchant accusations.

[sadloserkid]

I’d replace likely with potentially, some might be ready and some might need more time because no one has a clue when they will be ready, like for all we know Evan Ferguson might become a superstar next season for Brighton and all of a sudden is consider the next wonder kid of world football, in reality nobody knows what will happen so making predictions of where a player will be in the future is crazy at this moment.

Evan Ferguson might also get injured, or stall badly. In short he's as likely to be the next Richie Partridge as he is the next Damien Duff. I hope it's the latter obviously but I just think it's stretching optimism to breaking point to think that we can predict with any sense of authority which pathway he eventually takes. And even if he escapes the Partridge route and becomes the next Anthony Stokes I don't think that necessarily improves us either. We're in agreement though that making predictions of where a player will be in the future is, while fun, somewhat of an exercise in imagination.

I didnt interpret that original post to be making as bold a claim as that. Just that there is "cause for optimism" is how i remember it being phrased. I dont think that statement is fanciful if you take a look at the players current profiles and the sheer number involved in the 70 that are starting already for teams in Champ or L1 or having been loaned out by parent Prem clubs as promising players.

I went back to check because, to be fair, I was very much paraphrasing. So the original post said the following:

"a list of players who I would consider realistic young candidates to be playing at a high enough level in a year and a half to be considered for the national team. I based it on a number of loose and probably imperfect criteria: Under 25; Playing for, or being included in, first-team squads at League One or above in England, SPL in Scotland or a top European league (plus young players in lower divisions on loan from bigger clubs); Playing U23 but having made a quick jump recently from U18s or having skipped that level altogether."

and

" I know a lot of these lads will not become Premier League stars in the next 18 months, but hopefully a significant number of them will establish themselves in the top two tiers in England, or equivalent, allowing us to have a significantly stronger squad by then."

Now I'm not naturally the most optimistic of individuals and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I've somewhat overstated the scope of the original claim in my previous post but I can't see a situation where even half of that list are established in the top two tiers in England or at a similar standard (and even if they are that leaves us in more or less the same boat that we're in at the moment anyway). Or course there's every reason to believe that some of them will. And even numbers alone suggest that you're right in thinking that a dozen or so will become regular members of the international squad. I don't doubt that a handful or so will become really good players. And I'm not aiming to be the ghost at the feast either, I just feel that there's a bit of people assuming that just because we're sitting in a restaurant and we know it has a kitchen that the food is going to be delicious.

[pineapple stu]

I don’t agree because look at Portugal,England,France,Italy in recent years compared to 10-15 years ago.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here?

I think getting the top prospects abroad is the right idea as if you look at other nations who wouldn’t be considered top nations, most of their players go abroad when they are 16-17 years old, what’s key is they open their horizon and go to a place where they will develop.

I don't think this is correct. Take the countries at Euro 2016 - we were significantly behind every other country (except NI) in terms of players who made their senior debut in their domestic league. I think every one of the Iceland squad started off in their league for example. Most countries had 16+ of their 23-man squad start domestically (and some of the others were foreign-born of course). So I don't think it's correct at all to say that most European nations (let's say, as it's what we're particularly focused on) have their young players go abroad at young age. The evidence doesn't seem to back that up.

[CSAD]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here?


I don't think this is correct. Take the countries at Euro 2016 - we were significantly behind every other country (except NI) in terms of players who made their senior debut in their domestic league. I think every one of the Iceland squad started off in their league for example. Most countries had 16+ of their 23-man squad start domestically (and some of the others were foreign-born of course). So I don't think it's correct at all to say that most European nations (let's say, as it's what we're particularly focused on) have their young players go abroad at young age. The evidence doesn't seem to back that up.

What I’m getting at is looking at the
Major nations they definitely have improved their youth development even just looking at the countries mentioned.


If you look at for example Denmark who I think have put together a pretty good team over the past 4-5 years let’s look at their top players such as Schmichael, Christiansen,J.Andersen,Eriksen,Hojbjerg,Dolberg, these players all left Denmark between 14-18 years old and only Dolberg has played in Denmark (only 3 games when he was a teenager). I always think that our top players should be encouraged to go abroad as they will gain valuable experience playing a big football culture country, however the be all and end all shouldn’t be England it should be anywhere that helps the player so even look at mainland Europe and see if that helps.

Staying at home will be beneficial for players who don’t stand out as much at the moment as here they can progress at their own pace and don’t have to spend time catching up in an environment that they are just not ready for like in England for example. Whereas if you are Ferguson,Zefi,Nzingo etc where you are clearly a big talent from a young age and if they are mentally ready (as that can very from person to person) you should take the opportunity like Ferguson at Brighton’s u23s already, Zefi supposedly moving to Inter when he turns 16 and Nzingo who reportedly is signing for United.

For example in Denmark’s case it might help us discover a Thomas Delaney who really was a late bloomer, only moving to a top 5 league at the age of 26 and 2 years later signs for Dortmund!

[CSAD]

Evan Ferguson might also get injured, or stall badly. In short he's as likely to be the next Richie Partridge as he is the next Damien Duff. I hope it's the latter obviously but I just think it's stretching optimism to breaking point to think that we can predict with any sense of authority which pathway he eventually takes. And even if he escapes the Partridge route and becomes the next Anthony Stokes I don't think that necessarily improves us either. We're in agreement though that making predictions of where a player will be in the future is, while fun, somewhat of an exercise in imagination.



I went back to check because, to be fair, I was very much paraphrasing. So the original post said the following:

"a list of players who I would consider realistic young candidates to be playing at a high enough level in a year and a half to be considered for the national team. I based it on a number of loose and probably imperfect criteria: Under 25; Playing for, or being included in, first-team squads at League One or above in England, SPL in Scotland or a top European league (plus young players in lower divisions on loan from bigger clubs); Playing U23 but having made a quick jump recently from U18s or having skipped that level altogether."

and

" I know a lot of these lads will not become Premier League stars in the next 18 months, but hopefully a significant number of them will establish themselves in the top two tiers in England, or equivalent, allowing us to have a significantly stronger squad by then."

Now I'm not naturally the most optimistic of individuals and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I've somewhat overstated the scope of the original claim in my previous post but I can't see a situation where even half of that list are established in the top two tiers in England or at a similar standard (and even if they are that leaves us in more or less the same boat that we're in at the moment anyway). Or course there's every reason to believe that some of them will. And even numbers alone suggest that you're right in thinking that a dozen or so will become regular members of the international squad. I don't doubt that a handful or so will become really good players. And I'm not aiming to be the ghost at the feast either, I just feel that there's a bit of people assuming that just because we're sitting in a restaurant and we know it has a kitchen that the food is going to be delicious.

Exactly, he might although touch wood let’s hope not! Anyone who tries to predict anything is a spoofer really because even the player doesn’t know where he’ll be in a years time and if he doesn’t then we sure as hell don’t know. If they have talent and a good attitude then all we can do is just sit back and watch the show and whatever will be will be.

[SkStu]

I went back to check because, to be fair, I was very much paraphrasing. So the original post said the following:

"a list of players who I would consider realistic young candidates to be playing at a high enough level in a year and a half to be considered for the national team. I based it on a number of loose and probably imperfect criteria: Under 25; Playing for, or being included in, first-team squads at League One or above in England, SPL in Scotland or a top European league (plus young players in lower divisions on loan from bigger clubs); Playing U23 but having made a quick jump recently from U18s or having skipped that level altogether."

and

" I know a lot of these lads will not become Premier League stars in the next 18 months, but hopefully a significant number of them will establish themselves in the top two tiers in England, or equivalent, allowing us to have a significantly stronger squad by then."

Now I'm not naturally the most optimistic of individuals and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I've somewhat overstated the scope of the original claim in my previous post but I can't see a situation where even half of that list are established in the top two tiers in England or at a similar standard (and even if they are that leaves us in more or less the same boat that we're in at the moment anyway). Or course there's every reason to believe that some of them will. And even numbers alone suggest that you're right in thinking that a dozen or so will become regular members of the international squad. I don't doubt that a handful or so will become really good players. And I'm not aiming to be the ghost at the feast either, I just feel that there's a bit of people assuming that just because we're sitting in a restaurant and we know it has a kitchen that the food is going to be delicious.

Yeah, fair enough, i didnt look back until now either but had more focused in on this being the main thrust of the post which, again, i think is pretty reasonable (I dont think it constitutes the giddiness that some get unfairly accused of round here):

But looking at that list of over 70 players, I think there is still reason to be optimistic about the future of the National Team, even if the present kind of sucks.

With that being said, i do agree that it would be an absolute anomaly if anything close to half of that list were playing and performing in the top two tiers. It would be more on par with previous experience if the region of 10 - 20 came through over the next 5 years to be fully established performers at those levels. The ceiling looks to be lower too (hard to pick a Duff or a pair of Keanes from that list - Ferguson perhaps). That is the dash of realism that applies to the fact that the list is larger than usual and a good chunk of the 70ish names are considered legitimate prospects by their current or parent clubs.

In any event, it will be fun to bookmark this thread (and that list) and check against it in a few years.

[pineapple stu]

What I’m getting at is looking at the
Major nations they definitely have improved their youth development even just looking at the countries mentioned.


If you look at for example Denmark who I think have put together a pretty good team over the past 4-5 years let’s look at their top players such as Schmichael, Christiansen,J.Andersen,Eriksen,Hojbjerg,Dolberg, these players all left Denmark between 14-18 years old and only Dolberg has played in Denmark (only 3 games when he was a teenager).

But you could flip that and say that Erling Haaland, Martin Odegaard, Alexander Sorloth and Jens Petter Hauge all started their senior careers in Norway, and are now at some of the top clubs in Europe.

It's why I'd prefer to look at a larger data sample and see the trends there - hence 86% of the 552 players at Euro 2016 started their senior careers in the country they were raised in. That rises to 89% once you take out Ireland and Northern Ireland, the two lowest-percentage nations.

Of course, that was five years ago, and with a then 35-year-old, that stat looks back 20 years now. It'd be interesting to re-run the data for Euro 2021. Still, I don't think it can stack up that you absolutely have to leave Ireland at 16 in order to make it as a top pro, or even that it should be actively encouraged. (And that's before you consider those who leave at 16 and get released at 19 - what happens them; are their education options hamstrung? Have they a life Plan B?)

Of course, the LoI doesn't offer a great alternative to going to England at 16, and that's a big problem.

[EalingGreen]

I don't think this is correct. Take the countries at Euro 2016 - we were significantly behind every other country (except NI) in terms of players who made their senior debut in their domestic league. I think every one of the Iceland squad started off in their league for example.

You could turn that round, by arguing that NI (esp) and ROI overperformed in getting to the Euro's, despite having low-ranked domestic leagues/populations.

For which the explanation could be that we both make up for that by having early and ready access for our best kids to professional clubs across a range of standards in England and Scotland.

Meanwhile, the waters may be muddied further by the fact that the oldest squad in 2016 was ROI, just ahead of NI. In other words, having a settled squad of tried and tested internationals (a Golden Generation?) probably contributed as much to our qualification as how we develop our youth generally.

Which may also explain why we've both slipped back somewhat in the 5 years since i.e. we don't have the same quality of 20-somethings following through to replace the 30-somethings who subsequently retired, rather than having poor quality teenagers further down the line. (Though that latter may count against us in future years).

Finally, we shouldn't necessarily draw direct comparisons with Iceland, notwithstanding that they're obviously getting a lot of things right in what they do.

For it may be that not being in the EU means that their 16 and 17 y.o.'s cannot be signed in Europe (unsure), meaning that more have to wait until they're 18, meaning that more play in their domestic league in the meantime.

Also, it would be interesting to know at what age they break through at home. With a smaller overall talent pool to select from, it may be that the top kids get to play for their local league clubs at an even lower age (15? 16? 17?) than in ROI/NI, by which time our kids are already on the boat across the water, where they will be playing Academy football?

[Finally, if I may deviate off topic a bit to one other comparison which often gets drawn on this forum. People often relate Stephen Kenny's start in the job to Michael O'Neill's with NI. I think it bears pointing out that for all Michael's early struggles in the job, nonetheless the performances were generally MUCH better than the results. Which is a major reason why we stuck with him - that and the fact we could hardly afford to sack him!
Therefore if SK's performances are ok, then the FAI might follow the IFA's example and stick. But if/when it should become apparent that the performances simply aren't coming, then that may be the time to twist.
I'm in no position to offer an opinion on that one.]

[CSAD]

But you could flip that and say that Erling Haaland, Martin Odegaard, Alexander Sorloth and Jens Petter Hauge all started their senior careers in Norway, and are now at some of the top clubs in Europe.

It's why I'd prefer to look at a larger data sample and see the trends there - hence 86% of the 552 players at Euro 2016 started their senior careers in the country they were raised in. That rises to 89% once you take out Ireland and Northern Ireland, the two lowest-percentage nations.

Of course, that was five years ago, and with a then 35-year-old, that stat looks back 20 years now. It'd be interesting to re-run the data for Euro 2021. Still, I don't think it can stack up that you absolutely have to leave Ireland at 16 in order to make it as a top pro, or even that it should be actively encouraged. (And that's before you consider those who leave at 16 and get released at 19 - what happens them; are their education options hamstrung? Have they a life Plan B?)

Of course, the LoI doesn't offer a great alternative to going to England at 16, and that's a big problem.

But how many of them went straight into big teams? Only Hauge really and even he was just a gamble as he impressed AC Milan when he played against them in the EL when he played for Bode/Glimt At the end of the day there is no direct evidence that a players game time in their own country made them into a top player and this proves it as almost all these players went to a big team that developed them into the player they are today. Most players have to leave their country to be a top pro, if you want to be a good player and have a good career then maybe if we can create a system in Ireland like even a top 25 league it could be an option but in reality we will still be in the same position bar having some nice numbers in regards to home based players. What’s best is we prepare the players as best we can so they leave at 18 years old prepared.

What your example and mine does show is there is more than one way to skin a cat, you can go down the Norway route or the Denmark route and either one can work.

The LOI can provide some good alternatives at an early stage of a players career as it can offer players a chance to play senior football in their own country hell it certainly didn’t harm Coleman, it may not be the same standard as the Norwegian league but ultimately it’s in the same boat as in it just won’t prepare you for football at the highest level. What Norway does show is our players should go to places where they will develop rather then what looks good and I do think that’s happening as a lot of players go to places like Norwich,Brighton,Derby,Southampton where they are better at bringing through youngsters But it would be nice if they looked at Europe aswell.

[CSAD]

Yeah, fair enough, i didnt look back until now either but had more focused in on this being the main thrust of the post which, again, i think is pretty reasonable (I dont think it constitutes the giddiness that some get unfairly accused of round here):



With that being said, i do agree that it would be an absolute anomaly if anything close to half of that list were playing and performing in the top two tiers. It would be more on par with previous experience if the region of 10 - 20 came through over the next 5 years to be fully established performers at those levels. The ceiling looks to be lower too (hard to pick a Duff or a pair of Keanes from that list - Ferguson perhaps). That is the dash of realism that applies to the fact that the list is larger than usual and a good chunk of the 70ish names are considered legitimate prospects by their current or parent clubs.

In any event, it will be fun to bookmark this thread (and that list) and check against it in a few years.

The only dash of realism there is is that you really don’t know where the players will end up and already picking out a star at 16-19 is pointless, not every kid is going to be like Keane and Duff and ready kill it in the PL at 17, a lot more goes into football than just ability it’s things like maturity and attitude for example.

[pineapple stu]

But how many of them went straight into big teams?

You're going to have very very few 18-year-olds going straight into big teams regardless. I don't think that's too relevant. But they're all young enough still (25 tops) and starting at top clubs.

At the end of the day there is no direct evidence that a players game time in their own country made them into a top player and this proves it as almost all these players went to a big team that developed them into the player they are today.

I don't think your proof stacks up. Of course Dortmund have helped Haaland get to where he's at now. But the point is did playing for Molde in a professional senior league benefit him more than playing for Dortmund's U21s in empty stadia? I think it has to have.

The LOI can provide some good alternatives at an early stage of a players career as it can offer players a chance to play senior football in their own country hell it certainly didn’t harm Coleman

I think you're missing an important point here. The LoI right now is struggling to provide a good alternative. The players who came through - Coleman, McClean, Long, Murphy, etc, etc - by and large came through when the top flight was mostly professional. That's not been the case for ten years though, and the players have dried up. You need a professional environment - at home or abroad - at the age of, say, 18-21, and the LoI is a big failing in that regard; it can't really offer that.

Bottom line - we can't keep relying on other countries to develop our players. It's a busted flush and it's not the route other countries are going down. Yes, some top top players will still leave at 16, but it can't be our Plan A. Partly because we're just hamstringing ourselves, and also, again, because of the negative impact it can have on those who are out of the system by 19/20

[pineapple stu]

You could turn that round, by arguing that NI (esp) and ROI overperformed in getting to the Euro's, despite having low-ranked domestic leagues/populations.

For which the explanation could be that we both make up for that by having early and ready access for our best kids to professional clubs across a range of standards in England and Scotland.

But we know that Irish players are going across to England in record low numbers. So that route is being closed to us. We can't just sit there and say "Ah sure it's still the best way" while almost every other country is using its domestic league to bring players through.

I think there's an argument that old - settled - national team helped us in Euro 2016 alright, but that's a very short-term view. Ultimately it was a symptom of the really poor youth options coming through, and that's now coming home to roost with us. I don't think there's anything to be gained from trying to look for the silver lining as a consolation.