Academy and development squads' poor starts

I notice that while the first team are beating all-comers, our youngsters have not had a great start to the season. Is there a reason for this and should we be concerned? Is this a consequence of the shake-up in staff at the end of last season or is this a consequence of poor coaching last season and thus justification for that shake-up? Or is this a consequence of promoting players to a higher level, so that players are being asked to step up? Or is there some other explanation? Maybe there is no explanation and it is just one of those things? I don't want to raise alarm bells unnecessarily, I am just curious!

The results for one of the groups was pretty poor last season, from memory.

But as they like to tell us - the game time is more important than the result.

I don't remember us having won any honours of note at youth level this century, apart from narrowly losing the FA youth cup final featuring Walcott, Dyer, Bale, Best and McGoldrick. But I doubt the average Ipswich supporter wonders 'what might have been' had they held on to the core of their golden generation (ahem) that year.

Clearly results don't mean very much at that stage. Unless we go three years or so without any talent coming through, I don't think there's any cause for concern.

If we get end up in the bottom two (or three?) we will get relegated to Division two though, so I hope our results will pick up!

I have noticed this as well.

The U21s results have never been great for a few seasons but the U18s would appear to have gone backward. Hope the production line aint dried up

I wouldn't read too much into this. We have a great academy, but not always great academy teams. Youth players are all at different stages of development. Compare a 16 year old Theo Walcott to a 16 year Adam Lallana. They were world's apart, but both ended up as senior players at one stage or other. While it would of course be great to bring through a 'Class of '92' type group all at once, that rarely actually happens anywhere. The academy's role is to develop each player at their own pace, and bring through as many into the first-team as possible.

A goodly number of our players are playing one or even two years up. A huge difference at that age.

I'd also noted that, but thought it was a bit early season to comment / criticise (I know the OP wasn't that, but you begin to wonder), what has gone wrong?

a quick look back 7 or 8 years ago shows a Youth squad which got to a FA Youth Cup final one year, with unknown names like Theo Walcott and Gareth Bale....and that lad who had the heart problem..what's 'is name ..Adam somebody.... but a bigger surprise are the other names in those squads ..who would raise a chorus of..... WHO ?......from lots of people. Whatever happened to them ?

Times have changed in the 50+ years I've been a fan. When Ted Bates periodically " experimented " by giving a promising 21 year old a debut game, people wondered if it was too daring a move, but nowadays a 21 y.o. who hasn't debuted is probably going out of the door by the end of season.

The truth is that we have a larger proportion of Academy graduates who make a first team debut than most other Prem.sides, after which .....anything can happen to their career.

Some just don't make it past the U18 stage, even those others who stay on an extra year may still not get any game time, and are on the move. Our Academy has produced a long string of good footballers, many of whom have made a good career start - even though it isn't at Prem.level -but we may soon see one or two names of " late-developers " who eventually come through and " make it to the top " .

When that happens...some will shout ..why ever did we let him go? ...when in fact decisions have to be made, and sometimes we get them wrong.

Despite his success with introducing young players, Lawrie Mac made one or two embarrassing decisions like that, as well as many of those managers who came after him.

What's the betting that one or two of the lads in those .. presently losing Youth squads ...won't one day play for England? We just hope it's when they are still with Saints.

The bottom line is; " a good team is a balance of youth and experience " quote from the late Ted Bates, and we can still only field 11 players out at a time.

I wouldn't read too much into this. We have a great academy, but not always great academy teams. Youth players are all at different stages of development.

Compare a 16 year old Theo Walcott to a 16 year Adam Lallana. They were world's apart, but both ended up as senior players at one stage or other. While it would of course be great to bring through a 'Class of '92' type group all at once, that rarely actually happens anywhere. The academy's role is to develop each player at their own pace, and bring through as many into the first-team as possible.

a good observation Andoru ....which many people seem to have missed.

In the summer, we signed (amongst others) a 17 y.o Arsenal Academy " reject " named Harley Willard....who has already been " fast-tracked " into a recent U21 squad. Young players develop at different rates.

A goodly number of our players are playing one or even two years up. A huge difference at that age.

Yep including our next star. Have been lucky enough to watch a few games there is nothing to worry about. Some very good talent. Whilst we have Hunter we will be fine.

We have a "dearth of talent between 16 and 18" according to the powers at be. All a hangover from the admin era and recruiting of young talent apparently.

Josh Sims is said to be shining light but not much else in that age group to get excited by.

Did the club ever announce who replaced Dodd and Williams?

We have a "dearth of talent between 16 and 18" according to the powers at be. All a hangover from the admin era and recruiting of young talent apparently.

 

Josh Sims is said to be shining light but not much else in that age group to get excited by.

Makes sense, and just shows the time invested in producing a decent crop of youngsters. I thought Jake Hesketh, Josh Debayo and Jake Flannigan were all meant to be decent though, as well as Sims? I've also seen reports of Arsenal sniffing around Calum Slattery, but have never seen anything of the kid.

Did the club ever announce who replaced Dodd and Williams?

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/25072014-anthony-limbrick-under-18-coach-1782407.aspx

I 've always said that getting promoted from the Championship is much more tham simply replacing last season's 18, 19 and 20. It's light years away for some.

..... so just think how good a teenage lad must be, who steps up from the Academy for his first team debut? A tough call, but the really good ones can make it.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/25072014-anthony-limbrick-under-18-coach-1782407.aspx

maybe a good choice, if he can " follow " his U16's to the higher level and continue to improve them.

If you think about it though, our U21 squad no longer has the odd over 21 (Tadanari Lee, Lee Barnard, Guly, etc.) and as players have been moved on (Shaw, Chambers), the players that have stepped up to the 1st team (Targett etc) are now training with the 1st team and then we've got other out on loan.

So actually our U21s is fairly depleted and is probably full of kids? I don't think it's important to win, but it is to get the lads playing as team - in a "tougher" age group is a good idea!

It's certainly true that results don't tell the full picture. A fair number of strong, physical players break through to full teams at a young age only to never truly make the step up. I vaguely remember hearing that clubs are working to combat the 'September baby' effect that a traditional academic year creates.

Surely there'll always be a knock-on effect caused by creaming off the best players from academies anyway? Bit mad to think that Shaw, Chambers, Ward-Prowse et al would all still be eligible for the Development squad if they hadn't been promoted so early. I don't have stats to hand, but it seems reasonable to suggest that we give youth more of a chance to integrate with our first team than the more 'elite' clubs (if sometimes through necessity rather than design).

If you think about it though, our U21 squad no longer has the odd over 21 (Tadanari Lee, Lee Barnard, Guly, etc.) and as players have been moved on (Shaw, Chambers), the players that have stepped up to the 1st team (Targett etc) are now training with the 1st team and then we've got other out on loan.

 

So actually our U21s is fairly depleted and is probably full of kids? I don't think it's important to win, but it is to get the lads playing as team - in a "tougher" age group is a good idea!

yes, quite a few of the names in the U21 squad were U18 last season .. and a bit younger than that, too.

As noted, it's because many of the kids are playing at a level higher than their age groups to expedite their development, presumably by challenging them more than having them win every game by 4 goals in a team full of "flat track bullies".

yes, quite a few of the names in the U21 squad were U18 last season .. and a bit younger than that, too.

I'm glad you managed to decipher my extremely poorly written post (in a rush between meetings)

At senior level the best TEAM does better, the team with the better individuals flounders.

At youth level however it reverses. It doesn't matter about having a team that clicks together perfectly, it just matters that you have the best individuals to come through to the first team.

I'm not worried.