Academies in England

Some interesting questions and thoughts from UK article on academies in England.  Below are excerpts from the article.

'One of the problems with the academy system is that its ethos, basically, is to throw enough **** against the wall and hope that some of it sticks. They take in 30 or 40 kids at eight, knowing full well that the chances of any of them becoming footballers is pretty unlikely. The trouble is, those kids who come in at eight think they already are footballers.’

Across its 16 pitches, wannabe Ronaldos and Beckhams are doing quick-fire sprints, dashing, darting, all fired up by a competitive relish. 'It’s like a puppy farm,’ squeals one of the mums. 'We describe it as the factory,’ corrects Richard Allen, the chief scout for the Tottenham academy.

The key advantage to being in an academy is you get to play as much football as possible (a minimum of three hours’ training a week at age eight; five hours for 12-16 years olds – time spent passing, moving, finishing, over and over again, so the skill becomes ingrained in the muscles). Experts say this is the right sort of training, and the wrong sort can lead to 'damaged goods’: players who are injury-prone (such as Tottenham’s captain, Ledley King: 'over-trained and not properly managed as a boy,’ Allen says).


So what are you looking for, I ask Allen, who says he has 'the eye’ – the ability to spot potential. (His 24-year footballing career straddles the extremes of running the Crown and Manor, a boys’ club in the East End, and looking after visiting elite international teams.) Technical skill, he says. 'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. Good movers, very smooth in the way they run. Plus they have to be willowy and athletic-looking. You don’t get many stocky players.’ But what about Maradona? Gazza? Rooney? There are always exceptions, he says. 'Scouting is not an exact science.’ Particularly with the wild card of puberty.

At academies, boys are signed from age eight to 16. Signing seals mutual commitment: the boys agree to good behaviour and morals and to turn up to training; the club agrees to provide elite coaches, tournaments, physiotherapists.

Now, of course, academies are under attack. People argue boys are brought in too young; that clubs do too little for the schools and amateur clubs from which boys are taken, and that, ultimately, the pressure on boys and families simply isn’t worth it because there are too few places at the end of it all, and those that do make it aren’t good enough anyway.

But then, football has changed. Fifty years ago the game was community-based; the players and those who paid to watch them came from the same areas and the same social backgrounds

McDermott, a former FA national coach, takes a Darwinist line. 'My belief is that talent will get you through. Cream will rise to the top.’ But not necessarily the very top. 'If God has given you the ability to play in the second division and you achieve that, then that is a success. (Jim White told me that non-league football, which used to be filled with butchers, bakers and lorry drivers, is now full of kids who have gone through the academy system, but haven’t quite made it.)

The academy product is flawed,’ says Mark Warburton, assistant academy manager and the architect of the new model, based on one at Ajax in Holland. 'It involves hours and hours of driving, hours of standing outside watching the boys with the rain lashing down, getting home at half nine or 10, eating meals in the car, being behind on homework, and always being generally tired, because that is what it takes to be a pro footballer – it’s always been that way. But it’s not that way in Holland, or France. So if it works there and we’re buying their players, doesn’t that tell you that we’ve got to change the way we do things?’

Back at the Tottenham academy, John McDermott talks me through options for boys who are 'released’: lower league club; university (both here and in the States) to study something like sports science; club abroad; other apprenticeships; one Spurs reject recently went into the City. He says it’s never easy: boys cry, parents cry. One father expressed his heartbreak by pinning Allen against the wall with his hands around his neck. But, 'Tottenham will look great on their cv,’ he says. 'They’re super-fit, disciplined, have travelled the world playing football, had a go at achieving their dream.’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/4938593/Football-academies-kicking-and-screaming.html

Thanks for posting this! The full article is an interesting read, just wondering how you found it?

The reality of making a professional football player is filled with uncertainty and I am glad that we have a paid academy system at Andromeda and other locations in the USA that allow a BB to develop all the way through high school.

European systems that are free have to send you away as soon as a coach decides you are not going to make it and unfortunately some BB's get sent away that should be kept and some like Christiano Ronaldo get rejected straight away.

I wish it wasn't as subjective as it seems, but just like any business, poor decisions are always possible and opportunities slip through the cracks now and again.

I would rather have my BB go through a Residency Academy to the age of 18 and then make the final assessment based on showcases and tryouts.

Enjoy life now! wrote:Thanks for posting this!  The full article is an interesting read, just wondering how you found it?

Not knowing anything about how the three parent organizations (USSF -DA, US Club Soccer -PA, USYS -ODP/Classic) work to make a national team pool, I began to look for info on this. Go99 said that ODP had their own national team and I'd never heard of two national teams, so began to look in earnest and came across the article on English academies and found it interesting in comparison to what little I know about the academy system here in the US.

And based on this article, it looks like England is dealing with the upside down pyramid just like US.

"I look at Number 5, cheated of his dream by heavy legs. Summer-borns are similarly outcast. Far more Premiership footballers are born in October and November than in June and July. 'They are bigger and make more of an impact on the pitch,’ White says, 'then, of course, they get selected, better coached and leave the other guys behind.’ What else do you need? Parents with cars and the kinds of jobs where they can drive to training twice a week for 5pm. 'When I went to Manchester United Academy what struck me was the car-park full of smart cars,’ White says. 'The academy is in the middle of nowhere. There is no way you can get there unless you’ve got a car. No way you can get there three or four times a week unless your parents take you. What that is doing is middle-classing the game. The whole system precludes kids from the rougher end of town, because how the hell do you get there?’ Take Theo Walcott, the England starlet, who came through the academy system at Southampton. His father served in the RAF, his mother is a midwife; his grand­father was an RAF Warrant Officer and one of the first black Conservative councillors in Britain. "

Lessons to be learned here. The first of which is...the British don't have it figured out.

The second is, talent has to be nurtured. How many world class, creative attacking players have come out of England's academy system? A literal handful at best.

In fact, it can be argued that England's greatest players came out of the old system of "schools football". (Before the advent of academies. Up until 16, these guys played basically 'rec' soccer for the neighborhood clubs and their school teams.

Mcmanaman, Gascoigne, Gary Linekar...etc.

Maybe there's something to be said for "guided discovery" after all.

Sorry, but creating more and more elite leagues/competitions aren't going to produce better players. Not on a large scale.

It's going to take a lot of things. But the talent in this country has far exceeded the level of coaching currently in place.

If anything, there needs to be less structure in youth soccer. At a certain age, yeah talent needs to be identified and put into a different environment. But it ain't 11! Not even 14.

Guys like Platini, George Best played in the streets and with local teams until they were 16. And Platini was rejected by his first pro opportunity.

I just can't get my head around how or why a family would spend upwards of 3 grand a year to a club. For what? "Professional coaching"? Classic League prestige?

Classic League is the problem. Not the solution.

Guess people have more money than common sense.

Laimport wrote:Lessons to be learned here. The first of which is...the British don't have it figured out.

The second is, talent has to be nurtured. How many world class, creative attacking players have come out of England's academy system? A literal handful at best.

In fact, it can be argued that England's greatest players came out of the old system of "schools football". (Before the advent of academies. Up until 16, these guys played basically 'rec' soccer for the neighborhood clubs and their school teams.

Mcmanaman, Gascoigne, Gary Linekar...etc.

Maybe there's something to be said for "guided discovery" after all.

Sorry, but creating more and more elite leagues/competitions aren't going to produce better players. Not on a large scale.

It's going to take a lot of things. But the talent in this country has far exceeded the level of coaching currently in place.

If anything, there needs to be less structure in youth soccer. At a certain age, yeah talent needs to be identified and put into a different environment. But it ain't 11! Not even 14.

Guys like Platini, George Best played in the streets and with local teams until they were 16. And Platini was rejected by his first pro opportunity.

I just can't get my head around how or why a family would spend upwards of 3 grand a year to a club. For what? "Professional coaching"? Classic League prestige?

Classic League is the problem. Not the solution.

Guess people have more money than common sense.

so what do you say about the classic league "girls" side? the women's US national side? do they suffer the same poor coaching and other systimatic problems? why do they match up so well? hmmmm... the Qatar has the answer and they are buying the best athletes in the world to prove it.     
http://www.aspire.qa/Sports/MultiSkillDevelopment/Pages/MultiSkillDevelopment.aspx

i must add yes england SUCKS!!!!!!!!

"I just can't get my head around how or why a family would spend upwards of 3 grand a year to a club. For what? "Professional coaching"? Classic League prestige?"
The development of sports in the US is a two tiered system that segregates the haves from the have nots and many times the have nots end up moving up the ladder beyond the haves because of talent not because of a check book. The system at large keeps children of wealthier families in the sports business longer (and the clubs love it!) because they ditch out the $$$. In families that cannot afford the $$$ either the kid has the talent or nobody is going to look at him or her for a team. Next time you take your son to a coach and really want to find out whether he thinks your kid has talent, ask him if he is willing to take the kid for free. You will then find out what the coach really thinks about your son. Having said that, the scouting ability of most coaches in NTX is poor to non existent.
And yes England has fallen behind since 1966....

Any team will sponsor a solid to good player!!!

As long as the coach thinks that the player is solid and will have a significant impact on the team then yes.

Real Barcelona wrote:As long as the coach thinks that the player is solid and will have a significant impact on the team then yes.

and if that coach didn't recognize one's son/daughter talents you wouldn't want to have him coach them anyway. some boys/girls are better off not to being in a system and developing on their own. especially if all they do is turn and pass

Laimport wrote:I just can't get my head around how or why a family would spend upwards of 3 grand a year to a club. For what? "Professional coaching"? Classic League prestige

Because for a lot of people, its just not that much money.

soccerdadrandy wrote:

Laimport wrote:Lessons to be learned here. The first of which is...the British don't have it figured out.

The second is, talent has to be nurtured. How many world class, creative attacking players have come out of England's academy system? A literal handful at best.

In fact, it can be argued that England's greatest players came out of the old system of "schools football". (Before the advent of academies. Up until 16, these guys played basically 'rec' soccer for the neighborhood clubs and their school teams.

Mcmanaman, Gascoigne, Gary Linekar...etc.

Maybe there's something to be said for "guided discovery" after all.

Sorry, but creating more and more elite leagues/competitions aren't going to produce better players. Not on a large scale.

It's going to take a lot of things. But the talent in this country has far exceeded the level of coaching currently in place.

If anything, there needs to be less structure in youth soccer. At a certain age, yeah talent needs to be identified and put into a different environment. But it ain't 11! Not even 14.

Guys like Platini, George Best played in the streets and with local teams until they were 16. And Platini was rejected by his first pro opportunity.

I just can't get my head around how or why a family would spend upwards of 3 grand a year to a club. For what? "Professional coaching"? Classic League prestige?

Classic League is the problem. Not the solution.

Guess people have more money than common sense.

so what do you say about the classic league "girls" side? the women's US national side? do they suffer the same poor coaching and other systimatic problems? why do they match up so well? hmmmm... the Qatar has the answer and they are buying the best athletes in the world to prove it.     
http://www.aspire.qa/Sports/MultiSkillDevelopment/Pages/MultiSkillDevelopment.aspx

I'm glad you bring the girls up. The answer is simple. The women's game in the US is way ahead of the rest of the world. Title IX and other variables make the difference. The USA women have dominated. But now the rest of the world is starting to catch up. (Japan and Brazil.)

More money and infrastructure is in place here (for females) than exists elsewhere.

But the women will no longer dominate by having bfs players and 'athletes' alone. For much longer.

It's apples and oranges...

soccerdadrandy wrote:

Real Barcelona wrote:As long as the coach thinks that the player is solid and will have a significant impact on the team then yes.

and if that coach didn't recognize one's son/daughter talents you wouldn't want to have him coach them anyway. some boys/girls are better off not to being in a system and developing on their own. especially if all they do is turn and pass

"Turn and pass"? Can you elaborate?

This is part of the problem. You can't have a team of dribblitos.

'Technique' is not all about dribbling. First and foremost it is about controlling and passing the ball.

I am excluding the younger ones. I'm referring to older kids playing 11v11 and age appropriate tactical instruction.

So you are saying that the same coaches are screwing these girls up just like they are the boys but because they're bigger faster stronger they're able to win on the world stage?

soccerdadrandy wrote:So you are saying that the same coaches are screwing these girls up just like they are the boys but because they're bigger faster stronger they're able to win on the world stage?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that the infrastructure that exists in the states (college) doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. The womens game is more advanced here. Not because of coaching per se. Just that there are more opportunities for women in the states than elsewhere.

frankly, the US 'cares' more about female athletes than the rest of the world.

There are two to three times more college scholarships available to females than there are for males in this country.

But other countries are starting to focus more on technique and later, tactical awareness than the traditional American approach to the (female) game.

The men's game globally is much more advanced than the womens' game.

Even in a sport that the US dominates the 'pay to play system' (AAU) is taking over.

"Now? Now the courts are empty, the nets dangling by a thread. The crowds that used to stand four deep are gone, and so are the players. Once players asked "Who's got next?" Now the question is "Anyone want to play?" And the answer seems to be no, at least not here, not outside.
What Happened?

Basketball was made for the playground. Yet the game is disappearing, leaving a hole -- in the playgrounds and in our hearts.

Playground basketball, at least as we knew it, is dying.

Kids still want to play basketball. They still do play basketball, but not outside, not at playgrounds, not like they used to."

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11216972/playground-basketball-dying

Basketball was the shining example that Klinsmann thought US soccer should follow. Basketball had the pyramid correct as the best players from the poorer demographics made it to the top. That still happens, but now it is organized and handled by AAU clubs. Basketball just like soccer has pay to play in the suburbs and in the cities. Just in the cities, the pay to play is subsidized by the shoe companies. It is still a meritocratic system, however the loss of playground basketball will take its toll in other forms, but since this forum is about soccer I'll leave that discussion behind.

Since there is no shoe subsidy for soccer where do we go from here?

earbucket wrote:Even in a sport that the US dominates the 'pay to play system' (AAU) is taking over.

"Now? Now the courts are empty, the nets dangling by a thread. The crowds that used to stand four deep are gone, and so are the players. Once players asked "Who's got next?" Now the question is "Anyone want to play?" And the answer seems to be no, at least not here, not outside.
What Happened?

Basketball was made for the playground. Yet the game is disappearing, leaving a hole -- in the playgrounds and in our hearts.

Playground basketball, at least as we knew it, is dying.

Kids still want to play basketball. They still do play basketball, but not outside, not at playgrounds, not like they used to."

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11216972/playground-basketball-dying

Basketball was the shining example that Klinsmann thought US soccer should follow.  Basketball had the pyramid correct as the best players from the poorer demographics made it to the top.  That still happens, but now it is organized and handled by AAU clubs.  Basketball just like soccer has pay to play in the suburbs and in the cities.  Just in the cities, the pay to play is subsidized by the shoe companies.   It is still a meritocratic system, however the loss of playground basketball will take its toll in other forms, but since this forum is about soccer I'll leave that discussion behind.

Since there is no shoe subsidy for soccer where do we go from here?  

Thanks for sharing

I think we just stay the course and continue to push for results. We have much more power by paying for services than getting them subsidized and I think we need to add an additional ranking system based on development to balance our current League ranking systems that are based solely on game results.

We pay enough now that we should expect clubs to film games and practice sessions and to offer a SPARC type of weekly training that gives tangible results and can be easily documented. Youth academy should focus on ball mastery and teams should be formed based on attained skill levels. Clubs need to use proven metrics that clearly show where a BB is in terms of skill so the parents cannot argue that their BB isn't getting a fair evaluation.

These are club specific issues and parents need to select clubs that offer this level of service and parents should be more vocal to the clubs until they make the changes.

All clubs should be required to publicly post their player development success and show the number of players who have gone to college or national teams or pro teams that should also include the number of years a BB attended that club, the coaches they had, the fixtures they played and the results obtained.

We will never get the real story until the "stat geeks" get access to the information and any club worth its ranking should be constantly collecting and analyzing this data to prove that their system is working and worth joining.

PLF
Which club/s remotely mimick this beauty?

Speaking of stats, while I don't see anything like "Castrol Index" Or "Whoscored" systems being put in place for the youth game, I think some objective metrics need to be used for individual player performance in games.

Things like passing/turnover%. Successful dribbling runs, key passes, 50/50 balls won, etc.

On the defensive side, clearances, 50/50 balls won, interceptions and successful tackles.

Yeah, it would require a lot of manual work. Which is why it is very hard to track individual players.

That said, anything is an improvement over blind prejudices and speculation that exists now. Player quality and hence player evaluation is totally subjective now.

All eyes tend to be focused on only the ball. The players that have the ball at their feet the most and of course, the goals and saves by keepers.

If a player age 15/16 is consistently giving the ball away or is consistently being beaten via poor positional play, one great dribbling run, great goal, a diving save...does that qualify them as an 'elite player"? I say no.

All too often though, players are identified via purely subjective means.

Technical quality is one thing. But what about the tactical side? The awareness? The decision making?

Do they know when to slow the game down? Does their first touch land 10 yards away? Can they hold the ball up under pressure?

Do they know how to exploit space? Or do they automatically turn and dribble every time...even when the situation calls for a quick pass to a teammate...who IS in a better position?

"All too often though, players are identified via purely subjective means."
And this is why coaches fail miserably in detecting the solid player from the crowds.
On a brighter side I assisted at an ID camp and the coaches (4) ran a combine where they looked at the main components (ie first touch, positioning on the field, decision making, accurate passing, dribbling, shots, 50/50 balls and how succesful, slide tackles, poise, communication, behavior while the team was loosing or winning, transition from defense to attack and viceversa, following instructions from the sidelines, managing the tempo of the game etc) and evaluated the players independently and then compared notes. This was done using drills, small sided games and games on the full field with 11 v 11. I wish it would happen more often for the benefit of the developing player. It would help a lot.

Last season a number of folks on BBs team decided to buy a HD camera system to record games.  Of course, when the dust settled one parent got stuck with 2/3s of the bill for the thing, but he is kind of dumb that way.  But whatever, we got a camera and video'd 9 full games in the 2nd half of the season.

Distributed the videos to parents to watch or whatever.  I was bored so I started tracking what BB was doing.  Which led to quantifying things, cause..well..nerd.  Good/bad touches, passing %, turnovers dribbling, beating guys on dribble, tackles, defensive lapses, minutes played, etc.  Which led to rewatching videos and quantifying other peoples things.  There is a little bit of guesswork/subjectivity, but not a whole lot.

This is what I figured out:

(1)   Don't let a guy with a kid playing in the game work the video camera
(2)  It takes a long frigging time to watch the videos in great detail
(3)  Over 9 games, if you are into numbers, you can see a lot of interesting trends
(4)   Nobody will really believe or care what any of this is showing unless it fits their paradigm of what happened.
(5)   Pass the ball to the kid who will complete 82% of his passes and not the one who will complete 44%.  

Thats about it.  I need to save up for some GPS monitors for heat maps and work rate calcs this year.  

I could care less about the US's failure/success at creating world class players, its got nothing to do with any end-game that I envision, but it seems shocking if at older ages (amongst the serious players...say DA, or even HS, etc) they are not videoing games and keeping track of metrics.

And did your son learn anything by watching the videos?
Or did he just walk away to play FIFA.