Youth team development

Bold Tone

I would like to start by stating that i am not an expert on the youth teams although i always maintain a keen interest in the players.
Is it "one eyed syndrome" on my part that makes me think we have too many players who look like diamonds (JET anyone?) at 17 yet never cross the divide?
I am still infected with it as i think the Z-man is special yet the vibes i am getting seem to suggest that players i rate such as Eisfeld and Olsen are not all that. Worrying that Eisfeld hardly played this tour and those that remained got battered 1-3 at Underhill!
I have half-mentioned it previously but is it our training?
Is our reputation for developing young players overstated?
Before anyone says "mentality" and "lack of discipline", i would have thought this is what "development" is all about.

speedy

You can't change anyone that doesn't want to change. All you can do is provide encouragement and education. Some kids just don't want to listen, they think they know everything already.

Segway

Our youth team development is one of the best the world. We don't have a talent pool like Barcelona who can pick and choose among the best talent in the whole of Catalonia as we're one of 4-5 London based PL clubs so we have to recruit talents on an international scale. Even still we have Wilshere and Gibbs in our first XI and that is testament to the quality of our academy.

Iloveyouarsenewenger

I think, you're getting caught up with he hype machine. No top level club can realistically expect three or four players of one particular youth set up to step up to the first team. Take one look at our (or that of any top team's) squad and you'll find that majority of players in it are bought post the age of 18 and were options for the first team from the moment they were bought.

Every year there is a hype about three or four players. It is probably because games played by these players are accessible to many of us and our proximity to these players (and lack of knowledge about others of the same age group) makes us feel they are better than what they are. It is the lottery ticket buyer's syndrome. Since, the positive scenario of winning the lottery goes through one's mind, a lottery ticket buyer will always over-estimate the probability of him/her winning the lottery. (If he doesn't he won't buy the ticket)

Personally, I never expected JET or Eisfeld or Olsson to realistically step up. Look at the players who have made it successfully at Arsenal in the past few years from the youth set up - Cesc, Song, Jack, Gibbs, Ramsey, Ox. Cesc, Jack, Ramsey and Ox were special talents who could actually make a difference in the first team right from the age of 17 - something none of our failed players did. The only two exceptions here are Song and Gibbs. However, they have turned into seemingly successful players from a wide bunch who were all promising (Denilson, Djourou, Bendtner, JET, Lansbury, Bartley, Vela, Coquelin etc etc), so, that tells you the probability of success of players who are not clearly special, but, have shown enough to prove that they might have a Premier League or Championship level career.

Basically, if a player is only Olsson, Bellerin or Eisfeld good, you count him out. Afobe and Aneke were hyped up a year or two ago and both seem to have ended up at nought. I'd put Akpom, Ryp and Gnabry at an advanced level where they seem set to make it at one of the top divisions, but, may not be clear-cut Arsenal players. It'd be good if one of the aforementioned five makes it at Arsenal, but, I certainly wouldn't be betting my money on any of them.

Zelalem, touch wood, seems to be the only one in the Cesc/Jack/Ox/Ramsey level. But, we'll get to know more about him at the Capital One Cup, this year.

est

Bold Tone wrote:
Is it "one eyed syndrome" on my part that makes me think we have too many players who look like diamonds (JET anyone?) at 17 yet never cross the divide?

There have always been players that dominate at academy level, yet never make it as pros.

Easier access to youth/reserve games has led to people getting carried away with rating young players. You start hearing about players when they're 14-15 years old and when the rave reviews keep coming in, naturally, the hype builds. When those players eventually fail, there's always someone who starts throwing blame around, ignoring the fact that that's just how football works.

Regarding the youth development at Arsenal, I say we've done brilliantly in the last 5 years. Szczesny, Gibbs and Wilshere are the testament to that. As long as we keep producing a few players for the first team in every couple of years, there should be no complaints.

Iloveyouarsenewenger

You can add Walcott to the Cesc/Ox/Jack/Ramsey group. He wasn't technically as good , but, was in the England team at 17, so, there was clearly something explosive about him and he looked like he'd fail a couple of seasons ago.

Biggus

Your frontal lobe (the bit of your brain thats responsible for accessing risk and for making decisions) is the last to develop sometimes in the early 20's.
If you watch U17 and even U20 World cups many of the players never make it, thats why theres a transfer industry- The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Bold Tone

Good point as Denilson was Brazil's U-? captain. As to your last sentence, i want them fed the pudding Dortmund feed theirs!

Iloveyouarsenewenger wrote:
I think, you're getting caught up with he hype machine.

Guilty as charged

yuv

Zelalem, touch wood, seems to be the only one in the Cesc/Jack/Ox/Ramsey level.

Crowly seems to be of the same level. Apart from these, I only really think Gnabry is a big talent. Outside chance for Akpom, and Bellerin could also make it.

Looking at that list, and in context of "we don't have all the land to choose from" and "other teams buy them at 18-19 ready to make an impact", interesting to see how we seem to be trying what we can manage: Not all are Jack or Gibbs (and we can't have a La Massia), but if we do try to get them here between 14-16, and focus on getting the very best there, we could actually have a very good group of our own (though they're not originally ours), and by the 18-19 years we already have an advantage (if all works properly). Gnabry, Bellerin (and Toral), Zelalem and Crowly are examples of that.

If you look at what the numbers look like when you include them (and maybe Ramsey and Ox to a lesser extent, Theo somewhere in between), you still see a significant number of quality players making the heart of the squad. With that in mind, hard to see why one would want to complain.

goon

Bold Tone wrote:
Good point as Denilson was Brazil's U-? captain. As to your last sentence, i want them fed the pudding Dortmund feed theirs!

Who exactly have Dortmund produced from 16 onwards? The only noticeable player in the team was Gotze and he's gone.

Our youth development is fine, you'd have to live in a fantasy land to expect even 1/2 of the bright talents to make it, especially at this level.

Bold Tone

Dortmund has been producing good players over the past 5 years and a Gotze-less Dortmund just spanked the European Champions, 4-2.

As i said, i am no expert and i hope Ricky, Capi, Youngunner, Klaus, etc and maybe one of the new guys fill in the gaps by answering some of the questions posed.
As to your point, i think it it fair that we are judged at a higher level (fantasyland, if you like) than others as we are regarded as one of the best clubs for nurturing youth talent.

goon

They've not 'produced' any of them, unless you choose to count buying 19-20yr olds as development.

It's not 'fair' to expect something that will never happen, regardless of the quality of your youth setup.

goon

And by the way, "Ricky, Capi, Youngunner, Klaus"? :mad:

Bold Tone

No need to call you as you are already here! :angel:
Also isn't 19-20 the particular age group we are failing?

y va marquer

From an interview that Wenger gave to John Cross during the Asia tour, giving an insight into what attitude he looks for in his young players.

One of our strengths is young people know we will give them a chance. But what we look for is their motivation to be successful.
But what is motivation? How can you tell if somebody is motivated? How can you remain motivated?
Well, for me, motivation is person who has the capability to recruit the resources he needs to achieve a goal.
For example, earlier today I went for a jog in Saitama, but I couldn't find my way back. I was motivated to come back to the hotel, but I couldn't find my way. So, I was highly motivated and slowly I found my way back.
But what does that show? It shows that motivation is essential but not enough. You also need consistency in your motivation and that is what we try to test in players as well.For me that is a very underrated quality.
I could have said: 'Right, I can't find my way back to the hotel, so let's see if I can find a taxi.'
But because I'm a sportsman, I decided not to get a taxi and that I would find my way back, no matter how long it would take me, so I continued to run.
That's what I mean in the consistency of your motivation. The stamina of your motivation.When you look at people who are successful, you will find that they aren't the people who are motivated, but have consistency in their motivation.
You have many people who start diets on the January 1. Some of them last until mid-January, some give up mid-June and some of them last. We are interested in the ones that last because that makes a successful sportsman.That doesn't necessarily mean successful sportsmen are happy people, but it means they are determined and they are ready to hurt themselves to be successful, and that's the type we are looking for - the people that are very demanding with themselves, and each other for a long time.That consistent motivation is applicable to football, business, anything you do in life

Classic Wenger story thrown in for good measure.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/arsenals-arsene-wenger-q-management-2099396?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

y va marquer

Actually I don't agree that if a player is only Bellerin, Eisfeld or Olsson good that they will not be amongst the players who "make it here".

Maybe none are standout talents like Zelalem but from what I've seen of Eisfeld in particular there is something that is worth pursuing (technically good, space finder / creater, clever passer, good finisher)
and he himself seems to have that personality, that consistency of motivation that Wenger speaks of.

goon

Bold Tone wrote:
No need to call you as you are already here! :angel:
Also isn't 19-20 the particular age group we are failing?

How many have we brought in at that age? It's one thing 'developing' players who you've identified at 18-20 as being good enough and bringing them in and another thing entirely on developing players from the age of 16-17 or younger. The younger you go the more hit and miss you get. We're not failing any age group, if they're not good enough they're not good enough.

Bold Tone

Maybe we should start doing that as well because we seem to be brilliant between 17 and 19 but certainly not "best in category" from 19 onwards.

Clrnc

otfgoon wrote:
Bold Tone wrote:
Good point as Denilson was Brazil's U-? captain. As to your last sentence, i want them fed the pudding Dortmund feed theirs!

Who exactly have Dortmund produced from 16 onwards? The only noticeable player in the team was Gotze and he's gone.

Our youth development is fine, you'd have to live in a fantasy land to expect even 1/2 of the bright talents to make it, especially at this level.

Reus.

marv3llous

I wonder if our 'youth project' days taught our scouting system a good lesson on how to pick youngsters? The likes of Eastmond, Denilson, JET, Bendtner, Vela and many others failed mainly because of their mentality. Our current crop look much more mature - Eisfeld and Ryo especially come across as very good kids to have and i havent heard a single bad thing about Gnabry and Akpom yet also.