50-50 is generous! i'd give it a 1 in 10 chance for most clubs to get a youngster through to the first team, never mind actually get them to the standard required to lead their club to Champions League glory.

It's going back to the whole nature vs nurture debate though, obviously someone like Iniesta was talented and odds are he'd have a career at the highest level regardless of where he went but the selling point of La Masia is that their youth players are supposed to be indoctrinated into the first team tactics by the time they turn 18. Ultimately making it easier for them to become vital cogs in the machine. Similarly, Messi would be the best players in the world wherever he went but that multiplier effect you saw with him, Xavi and Iniesta would probably not have materialised if they didn't go through the same academy.

Clubs don't play the odds based on one individual player; I would argue it's significantly lower than 50% or even 1 in 10 given the low number that even make it through to the first professional contract. Clubs hedge their bets in that way; kids are scouted, released, and signed all the time. So whilst the percentage that one kid makes it through to the first team might be very low, it doesn't matter; one or two from hundreds is all that is needed for the whole effort to have been worthwhile from both a sporting and economic perspective.

In Messi's case, he was no doubt phenomenal at 13. He could have gone to any club with good coaching, facilities and, in his particular case, resources for medical  treatment, and developed into a superstar. Jadon Sancho was signed by Man City when he was 14, for example. Obviously, lots can go wrong and development can stall, but it was obvious he was an elite talent even then. Hence City paying big bucks for him. AMN, Willock and Nelson all displayed enough ability relative to their peers to be signed to our academy at 7 or 8 years old.

I also don't think it'a a question of nature vs nurture; I just don't think it's appreciated quite how much of your technical development is achieved by the age of, for example, 13. I would argue even younger than that.

Well, yeah - technical development is one part of it but there's the tactical and mental aspects that need guidance when your in your teens. It's also selective sampling to pick Messi, Iniesta etc - you need to widen it across all levels and talent to factor in the role of the club to help players become the best that they can be. Eg. Iwobi who by all accounts was never the most talented player in his group. Until he was.

Dries Mertens, aged 20, was languishing at AGOVV Apeldoorn (most people would have to google that) and had only got to FC Utrecht by 24.

Luca Toni's career started when he was like 26. Ian Wright was a bricklayer until he was 22 and then you have mercurial talents like Ashley Barnes who are plumbers by trade

I think it's more about opportunity in those cases; I think getting a chance at the right time, in the right team, with the right manager is important for some young players. In Wrighty's case though, do you think he significantly improved his technical ability or tactical ability in prison, or whilst cleaning toilets or laying bricks? It's more likely he was a skinny, weak kid (I know he has said he was told he was too small after many a trial) and had other mental issues which he grew out of, and when he finally got his chance to impress on trial at Palace, everything came together for him and he smashed it.

Mirth wrote:

Well, yeah - technical development is one part of it but there's the tactical and mental aspects that need guidance when your in your teens. It's also selective sampling to pick Messi, Iniesta etc - you need to widen it across all levels and talent to factor in the role of the club to help players become the best that they can be. Eg. Iwobi who by all accounts was never the most talented player in his group. Until he was.

In Iwobi's case, I'd argue physical development played the biggest part in his rise from academy also ran to first teamer; he was a late bloomer, and although he's not overly quick, he's over 6 foot, strong and stocky. A different proposition to the kid that didn't tear up any trees in the U18s/23s. And whilst I don't disagree that a young player's ability to cope with the mental and tactical side of professional football is decisive in their development, I think, generally, that which scouts are looking for; superior technical skill and athleticism, are well developed in most cases by 13 or 14 years old.

jones wrote:

Messi is obviously an outlier but do you really think the likes of Xavi Busquets or Iniesta just happened to be in roughly the same area and would've become the players they are if they had been signed by Espanyol?

Obviously recruitment plays a major role but big clubs rarely have that as the major issue even if you can always improve your scouting at that level. Bigger influence however is what you teach them kids from that point on - and clubs like Barcelona have historically always had a strong coaching staff core, e.g. see how Pique or Ter Stegen became world class even though they weren't before at their old clubs.

I think all of Ter Stegen, Pique, Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta would have become top class players at other clubs, provided they were afforded the same first team opportunities and, in a few cases, played in a team that suited their game. All but Busquets were elite talents and played all the way through the age groups of their national teams.

I think too much credit is given to the role of a coach in the improvement of young players generally. In my view of how development works, in order to stand out as exceptional when these kids are signed at 7 years old or 13 years old, they had to put in lots and lots of hard work (although at that age it might not feel like work, it amounts to exactly the same as practice); it's not the effortless unfurling of god-given ability. It's time with a ball, intelligence and hard work.

And the kids that have worked the most at 10 years old, are very likely to work harder than their peers as they progress through an academy, and then the most motivated, intelligent and hard working are the ones that can sepaerate themselves from their peers in top level professional football. Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, did not need Alex Ferguson to tell him what to improve at 18 years old. He watched, learned and worked, worked, worked. And fortunately for him, he also grew into one of the best athletes in football (even if, to his credit, he maxed that natural advantage out with hard work). And physical development is a variable that a young player can't control and is absolutely a limiting factor in how far they can go, even with all the hard work and intelligence in the world.

Ricky1985 wrote:

jones wrote:

Messi is obviously an outlier but do you really think the likes of Xavi Busquets or Iniesta just happened to be in roughly the same area and would've become the players they are if they had been signed by Espanyol?

Obviously recruitment plays a major role but big clubs rarely have that as the major issue even if you can always improve your scouting at that level. Bigger influence however is what you teach them kids from that point on - and clubs like Barcelona have historically always had a strong coaching staff core, e.g. see how Pique or Ter Stegen became world class even though they weren't before at their old clubs.

I think all of Ter Stegen, Pique, Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta would have become top class players at other clubs, provided they were afforded the same first team opportunities and, in a few cases, played in a team that suited their game. All but Busquets were elite talents and played all the way through the age groups of their national teams.

I think too much credit is given to the role of a coach in the improvement of young players generally. In my view of how development works, in order to stand out as exceptional when these kids are signed at 7 years old or 13 years old, they had to put in lots and lots of hard work (although at that age it might not feel like work, it amounts to exactly the same as practice); it's not the effortless unfurling of god-given ability. It's time with a ball, intelligence and hard work.

And the kids that have worked the most at 10 years old, are very likely to work harder than their peers as they progress through an academy, and then the most motivated, intelligent and hard working are the ones that can sepaerate themselves from their peers in top level professional football. Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, did not need Alex Ferguson to tell him what to improve at 18 years old. He watched, learned and worked, worked, worked. And fortunately for him, he also grew into one of the best athletes in football (even if, to his credit, he maxed that natural advantage out with hard work). And physical development is a variable that a young player can't control and is absolutely a limiting factor in how far they can go, even with all the hard work and intelligence in the world.

I don't think I can agree with this. Ter Stegen was a big talent in Germany already, sure, but he wasn't remotely as good as he is now and it absolutely wasn't a linear development. He was known as a formidable ball player but his ball stopping wasn't top of the line and now maybe Oblak is better than him at it, that's it in world football. No one who saw him at Gladbach would've told you that bar his parents. Similar to Leno who was a decent ball stopper but was generally touted as the "last of the Schumacher old school of goalies" ie keepers with no ability on the ball. He moves to Arsenal - which weren't exactly known for good goalie coaching before Peyton fucked off anyway - and not only do his overall performances go up significantly but he starts distributing the ball like no one's business.

Similar with Xavi, everybody could tell he was a gifted midfielder but it wasn't until he turned 27ish that he started dominating games visibly, then he had his breakthrough as one of the game's best in Austria 2008 and then had the best season any midfielder ever had the season after. Without Guardiola shifting the focus of the team from the top heavy Rijkaard days to the midfield juggernaut of 09-13 that wouldn't have happened either.

Point being active coaching plays a vital role. You're not teaching a donkey how to trap a ball at 29 but with a reasonably talented player a good coach will be able to work more than an average coach will be able to do with a good talent. That's what my experience from watching and playing in youth setups of professional clubs taught me at least, and obviously that what trumps all else by far is still sheer dumb luck.

Of course, education and coaching improves players, but it's relatively insignificant compared to talent. Is this even debatable?

1000 kids go into La Masia, and only 4 come out. The other 996 received the exact same education but they failed. Same coaches, same education. What did the 4 that make it have, that the others did not? No prizes to be won here.

There haven't even been 500 kids in La Masia since its inception in the 70s, let alone 1000 plus there are more than four kids to come out of La Masia. Even more than four just in the current Barcelona squad let alone the rest of La Liga. There's a starter at Bayern from the Barcelona academy one at Chelsea and you might recall there's a starter at Arsenal too.

Obviously there's a chance there's something in the water near Barcelona that keeps churning out world class players but chances are it's linked to the education they receive. That there are more kids who don't make it than those who do has nothing to do with the training they receive but with the nature of a limited pool of top players.

Any number of variables really. People literally write doctorates on this stuff.

Remember reading about oxlade chambos development at Southampton - really interesting stuff. Apparently they actually dropped him down and age group because he wasn't big enough and they wanted to develop his ability on the ball rather than just having him getting twatted every week by the bigger, stronger lads. Came back up when he was physically ready and killed it.

That's good coaching.

It's also not just about coaching or talent as such, but about opportunity. Top academies give you access to people, and they to you. The way the game is run means this is crucially important. Perhaps more so than the rest, in a roundabout way.

jones wrote:

There haven't even been 500 kids in La Masia since its inception in the 70s, let alone 1000 plus there are more than four kids to come out of La Masia. Even more than four just in the current Barcelona squad let alone the rest of La Liga. There's a starter at Bayern from the Barcelona academy one at Chelsea and you might recall there's a starter at Arsenal too.

Obviously there's a chance there's something in the water near Barcelona that keeps churning out world class players but chances are it's linked to the education they receive. That there are more kids who don't make it than those who do has nothing to do with the training they receive but with the nature of a limited pool of top players.

Lmao. The numbers were obviously arbitrary, but I think you already knew that.

Nothing to do with the water. Acquiring the limited pool of top players/prospects is exactly what gives them that edge. Education helps. So does opportunity as others have mentioned. You could say talent + education + opportunity equals success, but you won't be in Oxford or La Masia if you didn't have the talent to be scouted in the first place.

You can probably go to Oxford without talent, to be fair.

Yeah they're in like what, League One

Barcelona having a fun start to the season...

Griezmann totally not suited to Barca's play. So slow and too many touches.

Fekir and Canales very impressive for Betis.