Alan Pardew's comments re Arsenal

[Streathamite]

I'd have said 'ammers were in the majority round there, speshly saaf 'ackney

 

[iROBOT]

Chelsea 1 (Terry)
Manchester United 6 (Scholes, Neville, Brown, Giggs, Richardson, Bardsley)
Liverpool 3 + 1 (Carragher, Gerrard, Warnock and Fowler who had left previously)
Tottenham 1 (King)
Arsenal 2 (Cole, Gilbert)
Blackburn 1 (Jansen)

So apart from Manchester United, Arsenal are not exactly lagging behind when it comes to developing and retaining English players.

That's quite interesting reading. Although The Arsenal havent had a history of developing players from ground up, I think the change in the style of play since the arrival of Wenger has also got to do with the fact that maybe the youth that was being explored at the time he arrived didnt match his requirenments in terms of the style of play they were initially signed up for. Therefore maybe in the next few years we'll see more English youth. The under 15 year old squad at Arsenal seems to be packed with English boys.

Just a thought.

 

[Maltin]

Erm, no. That's quite a simplistic assessment. The idea is that a team with a strong youth policy spends a lot of time and money identifying talent, bringing that talent on (which involves pastoral care), managing their early career and bringing them into the team to suit their development, not the team's. Your comment suggests that you simply take them to training and the job's done. Not true, not true at all

I didn't mean to infer that they don't need to train them. All I was trying to suggest was that the coaches don't necessarily make a skillful player, the player's natural ability is quite an important factor. Clearly it is better to be able to train these players from a young age to instil new ideas and develop their skills. However, this does not stop when a player reaches 16 or 18 and therefore to suggest that if a club buys a player at this age, they have bought proven players or don't have to put effort into developing them is incorrect.

did you know West Ham employ a couple who run a house in which youth players live when they first turn professional?

No, but its not unique to West Ham. Lots of clubs do this (or at least they used to).

Nonsense? Really? No-one at West Ham knew Joe Cole, Michael Carrick, Frnak Lampard and Rio Ferdinand would paly for England? Sorry, that's flat-out wrong...

Knew before they played - no. Thought that they stood a very good chance - probably. Are you suggesting that the people who run West Ham's Academy have a crystal ball? Several people bet on their children playing for the full England team. Very few win.

I doubt anyone at West Ham predicted that four years after he left, Lampard would be named the second best player in the world.

That's quite interesting. I think we can exclude Chelsea, simply by nature of the money, but Tottenham and Blackburn surprised me. Still, I feel that's quite a selective section you've taken.

On reading what I wrote, my statistics may have been a bit misleading, as I did not stipulate that these were English players that these teams had developed since an early age and used in the Premiership this season (rather than how many players they have had as trainees who have played in the Premiership this season).

I don't think I was selective, i just chose the top 6 to make it easier for me to check.

However, here is the list for the full Premiership (with Blackburn amended):

Chelsea 1
Manchester United 6
Liverpool 3+1
Tottenham 1
Arsenal 2
Blackburn 0
Bolton 1 (Nicky Hunt)
Wigan 1 (Leighton Baines)
West Ham 2+1 (Anton Ferdinand and Mark Noble plus Paul Konchesky who had left previously)
Manchester City 3 (Joey Barton, Stephen Jordan, Lee Croft)
Everton 2 (Tony Hibbert, Leon Osman)
Newcastle 4+2 (Peter Ramage, Steven Taylor, Michael Chopra and Shola Ameobi (even though he was born in Nigeria) plus Lee Clark and Robbie Elliot who had left and re-signed)
Charlton 1 (Jonathan Fortune)
Aston Villa 3 (Luke Moore, Lee Hendrie, Craig Gardner)
Middlesbrough 7 (Stuart Parnaby, James Morrison, Matthew Bates, Stewart Downing, Lee Cattermole, Adam Johnson, Andrew Taylor)
Fulham 2 (Dean Leacock and Zeshan Rehman who has chosen to play for Pakistan)
West Brom 0
Birmingham 1 (Marcos Painter although he has played for Ireland)
Portsmouth 1 (Gary O'Neil)
Sunderland 3 (Ben Alnwick, Grant Leadbetter, Chris Brown)

I have not spent a great deal of time checking every player's history so this may not be 100% accurate, however, it again does not suggest that Arsenal are any different from most other Premiership teams when it comes to playing English players that they have had since they were trainees.

I should also perhaps point out my position, as I feel in your post you haven't quite got it - Pardew is not racist for suggesting that Arsenal do not fly the English flag, and buying established young players is not equivalent to bringing them to professional status yourself. What I am not arguing is that Arsenal have done anything wrong. They can buy in players if they wish, that's their prerogative, and it's been successful for them. Just don't equate it with developing youth players.

I haven't commented on your (or anyone else's) position on Pardew. I didn't read his or Wenger's supposed quotes as I think it is a nothing story.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I'd have said 'ammers were in the majority round there, speshly saaf 'ackney

Yeah, where I'm from (Clapton) up to Stoke Newington seems more Arsenal/Spuds, and Hackney Wick etc more 'ammers...

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I should add that the 'Ackney Gazump, the local rag, only covers Arsenal and Spurs, plus Leyton Orient, suggesting there aren't quite as many Hammers as other supporters...

 

[chieftain]

when I lived in Stoke Newington I found it to be more Gooner territory than Spurs....

All the rest of the way down the A10 from Stamford hill to Hertfordshire is pretty much Spurs.

In my experience support from suburbia and outside of London to the north worked on train lines to some extent

train lines from Liverpool St = Spurs/Hammers

train lines from Kings X = Arsenal/Spurs

 

[hammerntongues]

Fenchurch St. is Hammers all the way to Southend.

 

[mattie]

I didn't mean to infer that they don't need to train them. All I was trying to suggest was that the coaches don't necessarily make a skillful player, the player's natural ability is quite an important factor. Clearly it is better to be able to train these players from a young age to instil new ideas and develop their skills. However, this does not stop when a player reaches 16 or 18 and therefore to suggest that if a club buys a player at this age, they have bought proven players or don't have to put effort into developing them is incorrect.

Of course the player's inate skill and dedication are key, but it can only be harnessed by appropriate development. And, again, of course development doesn't stop when the players reach a given age. What is key (and what you don't seem to accept) is that someone has to identify the potential at an early stage, which at that point is entirely untested, completely raw, and will offer no tangible benefit or reward for many, many years and turn potential into ability. Taking someone on at 18 years of age who has already representing England U-21 is not an equivalent process. Call Chelsea's role as one of refinement if you wish, but please see the distinction.

Knew before they played - no. Thought that they stood a very good chance - probably. Are you suggesting that the people who run West Ham's Academy have a crystal ball? Several people bet on their children playing for the full England team. Very few win.

They had developed to the stage where only serious injury was going to prevent them respresenting England - no crystal ball needed, they were developed to a stage where continual refinement of skills was all that was necessary. All were England U-21 internationals, Joe Cole already West Ham club captain. Note that nobody made such grand claims about Glen Johnson, someone who (at face value) shares many similarities as Joe Cole and Frank Lampard.

Whilst your comment about betting on children is disingenuous - we're refering to 18+ year olds who have already demonstrated their ability - it goes some way to illustrating my point. What is riskier, taking a young schoolboy who has demonstrated some aptitude and then turning them into an England U-21 international, or buying an England U-21 international? Who would deserve greatest credit for their development?

 

[Maltin]

Of course the player's inate skill and dedication are key, but it can only be harnessed by appropriate development. And, again, of course development doesn't stop when the players reach a given age. What is key (and what you don't seem to accept) is that someone has to identify the potential at an early stage, which at that point is entirely untested, completely raw, and will offer no tangible benefit or reward for many, many years and turn potential into ability. Taking someone on at 18 years of age who has already representing England U-21 is not an equivalent process. Call Chelsea's role as one of refinement if you wish, but please see the distinction.
...
They had developed to the stage where only serious injury was going to prevent them respresenting England - no crystal ball needed, they were developed to a stage where continual refinement of skills was all that was necessary. All were England U-21 internationals, Joe Cole already West Ham club captain. Note that nobody made such grand claims about Glen Johnson, someone who (at face value) shares many similarities as Joe Cole and Frank Lampard.

Whilst your comment about betting on children is disingenuous - we're refering to 18+ year olds who have already demonstrated their ability - it goes some way to illustrating my point. What is riskier, taking a young schoolboy who has demonstrated some aptitude and then turning them into an England U-21 international, or buying an England U-21 international? Who would deserve greatest credit for their development?

Again, you incorrectly interpret my lack of comment on certain subjects that you have raised to mean that I either disagree with you or do not understand what you mean.

I haven't commented on risk. Clearly, training a player from an early age is likely to involve greater cost and time and more likely to end in no return than training a player who has already gone through this process and therefore is riskier.

All I have tried to do on this thread is to state the facts that:

a) When a player reaches 16-18, his development and training does not cease;
b) A player of this age is not necessarily proven at the highest level;
c) Most clubs, including Arsenal, develop young players;
d) Arsenal develop English players; and
e) Very few players who are trained at one club and become professional footballers remain at that club.

With regard to the ex-West Ham players you refer to, it depends what date you take the assumption that they would play for England. If you are talking about after they had played for the under-21s, fair enough, but I doubt that anyone could have predicted it with 100% certainty when they first joined.

And with your final point, although the risk may be greater, I think we'll need to agree to disagree that one can necessarily say that the trainers of the younger players deserve more credit than the trainers of the older players.