Alejandro Gomes Rodriguez

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

That's not doubtless at all, you've completely made it up. He's got 'proper money' here, these kids aren't living off food banks. If you think it's a no brainer to to kiss goodbye to first team football a week after your 17th birthday, that's up to you. I disagree.

You're making no sense. What makes you think he'd have got regular minutes here this season? SAA, Dibling and Meghoma suggest that he wouldn't. He'll find his level whether he stayed here or went there, he'll get better loan opportunities there, and make more money there. I'm not sure how anyone can credibly argue against that. 

[FarehamSaintJames]

Someone on the last page said these youth players have been “pushed to the side” - hardly. If they’re good enough they’ll get game time. Simple as.

Someone else said the likes of Meghoma and SAA are on £10K a week, you’re telling me that these kids are on half a million a year? Despite never kicking a football in a professional match? I find that doubtful.

I’d be pretty mortified if that was the case.

[LGTL]

As Chez has alluded to, the money that JJM is earning has already set the lad up for life. Saints could have paid to keep him but chose not to. 

Rodriguez will go the same way, these lads aren’t happy earning £5k a week. Think what you want, but nobody here would do anything different. 

[LGTL]

35 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Someone on the last page said these youth players have been “pushed to the side” - hardly. If they’re good enough they’ll get game time. Simple as.

Someone else said the likes of Meghoma and SAA are on £10K a week, you’re telling me that these kids are on half a million a year? Despite never kicking a football in a professional match? I find that doubtful.

I’d be pretty mortified if that was the case.

Absolutely they are. The figures even the kids earn you wouldn’t believe. 

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, egg said:

Yep. We wouldn't give him what other kids were getting, and Chelsea gave him what he wanted. Can't blame the kid for going, and he'll probably feel vindicated seeing how SAA, Dibling and Meghoma have been pushed to the sidelines. 

If we dont go up they'll be playing a lot more next year you'd think.

[egg]

44 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Someone on the last page said these youth players have been “pushed to the side” - hardly. If they’re good enough they’ll get game time. Simple as.

Someone else said the likes of Meghoma and SAA are on £10K a week, you’re telling me that these kids are on half a million a year? Despite never kicking a football in a professional match? I find that doubtful.

I’d be pretty mortified if that was the case.

If they're earning the wages of a championship starter, it'll be more than £10k pw. I'm in little doubt that JJM is on much more than that at Chelsea. I'd hazard a guess it's no less than double that. The money on football is absolute madness - £3k+ pw in non league is not unusual. 

[egg]

Just now, Turkish said:

If we dont go up they'll be playing a lot more next year you'd think.

Yep, without a doubt. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

If they're earning the wages of a championship starter, it'll be more than £10k pw. I'm in little doubt that JJM is on much more than that at Chelsea. I'd hazard a guess it's no less than double that. The money on football is absolute madness - £3k+ pw in non league is not unusual. 

remember when Salford City, then in the conference, were able to pay more for a player than Aberdeen in the scottish premier league. Insane, i know they were a bit of an one off due to their backing but like you say, £3k a week at conference level isnt big money these days. Heard there are some youth players at Chelsea on £30k a week, mental money.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

remember when Salford City, then in the conference, were able to pay more for a player than Aberdeen in the scottish premier league. Insane, i know they were a bit of an one off due to their backing but like you say, £3k a week at conference level isnt big money these days. Heard there are some youth players at Chelsea on £30k a week, mental money.

For context, when we signed Aaron Martin from Eastleigh, he soon got £6k pw, rising to £8k depending on appearances. We were in league 1 then. We'll now be paying kids much more than that. I'd heard that we're paying Jake Vokins £25k. Chelsea paying £30k+ pw to kids is inevitable, and JJM is likely at the top end of their pay scale. 

[verlaine1979]

1 hour ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Someone on the last page said these youth players have been “pushed to the side” - hardly. If they’re good enough they’ll get game time. Simple as.

Has this really been the case? I thought Dibling looked dangerous in his few cameos over xmas, but as the season got tighter our willingness to give minutes to youth players vanished completely. Likewise, when Manning was dogshit and Bree was still injured, you'd have thought Meghoma's good showings in the cups would've been worth an experimental start against weaker opposition, but again, nothing. SAA got a couple of games at the start of the season, but after that didn't get a look-in.

This season we haven't been a club that puts any faith in youth - cups and a few minutes here and there is the bare minimum.

[Dusic]

47 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

Has this really been the case? I thought Dibling looked dangerous in his few cameos over xmas, but as the season got tighter our willingness to give minutes to youth players vanished completely. Likewise, when Manning was dogshit and Bree was still injured, you'd have thought Meghoma's good showings in the cups would've been worth an experimental start against weaker opposition, but again, nothing. SAA got a couple of games at the start of the season, but after that didn't get a look-in.

This season we haven't been a club that puts any faith in youth - cups and a few minutes here and there is the bare minimum.

Hard to disagree but the reality for a club like Saints is that unless the player is exceptional (Shaw Saints level) then the only time they would really be trusted to play regularly is either a.) If we are comfortably midtable in the PL or b.) Financially struggling in the EFL or with no serious prospect of promotion.

There are also countless examples of players who have been hyped in the Academy, getting good reviews in the U21s with a clamour here/on social media for them to play more and yet who now are miles down the pyramid and often outside of the EFL/a decent level at all. See: Hesketh, Seager, Jankowitz, Olaigbe, Vokins, Ramsay, Small etc.

Stating the obvious but its really hard to make the jump from U21s to first team in a consistent way. SAA looked great in a couple of cameos and then was poor when he got a start (think vs QPR perhaps?). Would be a brave manager to keep starting him and potentially leaving out someone like Fraser, Edozie, Brooks, Sulemana from the matchday squad.

I suspect and would hope that next season if we don't go up then SAA, Dibling, Meghoma, Ballard and probably Lawrence will feature more.

[verlaine1979]

1 hour ago, Dusic said:

Hard to disagree but the reality for a club like Saints is that unless the player is exceptional (Shaw Saints level) then the only time they would really be trusted to play regularly is either a.) If we are comfortably midtable in the PL or b.) Financially struggling in the EFL or with no serious prospect of promotion.

There are also countless examples of players who have been hyped in the Academy, getting good reviews in the U21s with a clamour here/on social media for them to play more and yet who now are miles down the pyramid and often outside of the EFL/a decent level at all. See: Hesketh, Seager, Jankowitz, Olaigbe, Vokins, Ramsay, Small etc.

Stating the obvious but its really hard to make the jump from U21s to first team in a consistent way. SAA looked great in a couple of cameos and then was poor when he got a start (think vs QPR perhaps?). Would be a brave manager to keep starting him and potentially leaving out someone like Fraser, Edozie, Brooks, Sulemana from the matchday squad.

I suspect and would hope that next season if we don't go up then SAA, Dibling, Meghoma, Ballard and probably Lawrence will feature more.

Sure, I get the managerial logic. It's just at odds with the economic strategy of developing to sell.

Archie Gray and Jobe Bellingham are both within a couple of months of Dibling in age, and both played the best part of 40 league games for Leeds and Sunderland. Dibling played a total of 2 minutes for us in the league. Maybe they're just vastly better players, but it seems unlikely given Dibling's international performances and the general air of expectation around him.

The club get a lot of credit for playing Shaw young, but in reality we only did so because we were forced by injuries to give him a decent stretch in the team, after which he became irreplaceable. I take the point about previous generations of Under 21s clearly proving themselves not good enough, but isn't it widely accepted that our youth teams spent a good decade or more in the wilderness after the 2005, from which we've really only just recovered?

[Fabrice29]

14 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

No, I say I'll stay here and get far more opportunities at first team football, and if I'm any good I'll earn plenty of lucrative contracts further down the line, either at Saints or elsewhere. He wasn't exactly earning 'buttons' either, when I was his age I was working in a little Chef for £4.50 an hour. For a 17 year old to say I'll take the quick easy money now, ahead of their own career development is just tragic IMO. Let's not insult ourselves by pretending this is about injuries or failure. It's about short term greed and get rich quick.

Well obviously there are. Chelsea hoover up all the decent talent by offering them big juicy contracts, like the did with JJM. There's nothing 'rose tinted' about my glasses, I'd be saying exactly the same about a Norwich City or even Pompey youngster.

Again, there’s a very valid argument that being at Chelsea is better for your development and opportunities for first team football in the long run.

[S-Clarke]

39 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Again, there’s a very valid argument that being at Chelsea is better for your development and opportunities for first team football in the long run.

What's the argument? Chelsea have been the graveyard for young talent for many years, maybe it's changing now a bit? but their history is not about youth. They don't give players time, they want the ready made options.

Lukaku, De Bruyne were two young players Chelsea poached, Matic was one from their academy - didn't allow them to develop or play games, so they moved to become the players they are today. I can think of others like Van Ginkel, Marko Marin, Iaan Mattsen, Chalobah, Ugochukwu, Casadei, Chukuwembka, Malang Sarr, Broja - those are all young players that have either come through, or they've signed in recent years that cannot get a look in.

Sure, they become pro players at other clubs because they're good players - but it's hard not to say that they've wasted years of their careers rotting at Chelsea to get to that point.

Now those are young players they've spent big money on in the main, even as academy players - so if they struggle to get a look in I struggle to see any football for JMM or this Rodriquez guy in many years, he'll be out on loan more before he gets a look in.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

What's the argument? Chelsea have been the graveyard for young talent for many years, maybe it's changing now a bit? but their history is not about youth. They don't give players time, they want the ready made options.

Lukaku, De Bruyne were two young players Chelsea poached, Matic was one from their academy - didn't allow them to develop or play games, so they moved to become the players they are today. I can think of others like Van Ginkel, Marko Marin, Iaan Mattsen, Chalobah, Ugochukwu, Casadei, Chukuwembka, Malang Sarr, Broja - those are all young players that have either come through, or they've signed in recent years that cannot get a look in.

Sure, they become pro players at other clubs because they're good players - but it's hard not to say that they've wasted years of their careers rotting at Chelsea to get to that point.

Now those are young players they've spent big money on in the main, even as academy players - so if they struggle to get a look in I struggle to see any football for JMM or this Rodriquez guy in many years, he'll be out on loan more before he gets a look in.

When you say Chelsea are a graveyard, then they have players who came through their academy all over Europe.....It could be argued going to Chelsea increases both opportunity to play at a high/highest level and the bank balance

[suewhistle]

I suspect they won't get an opportunity at Vitesse Arnhem in the future..

[S-Clarke]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When you say Chelsea are a graveyard, then they have players who came through their academy all over Europe.....It could be argued going to Chelsea increases both opportunity to play at a high/highest level and the bank balance

I don't really see that as Chelsea though, they've been given their opportunity by club x or y as Chelsea weren't interested or patient enough to develop them, so they palm them off elsewhere for someone to do the hard yards. Then they just want the $$$ that they can bring in for them with no real interest in their development.

But they're also dumb enough to do the above, sell Lukaku for e.g for big money (and Matic), then re-sign them for double that a few years later as they think they're the ready made player now. It's such a lazy way of developing players and I'm glad it fell flat on it's arse with Lukaku.

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

What's the argument? Chelsea have been the graveyard for young talent for many years, maybe it's changing now a bit? but their history is not about youth. They don't give players time, they want the ready made options.

Lukaku, De Bruyne were two young players Chelsea poached, Matic was one from their academy - didn't allow them to develop or play games, so they moved to become the players they are today. I can think of others like Van Ginkel, Marko Marin, Iaan Mattsen, Chalobah, Ugochukwu, Casadei, Chukuwembka, Malang Sarr, Broja - those are all young players that have either come through, or they've signed in recent years that cannot get a look in.

Sure, they become pro players at other clubs because they're good players - but it's hard not to say that they've wasted years of their careers rotting at Chelsea to get to that point.

Now those are young players they've spent big money on in the main, even as academy players - so if they struggle to get a look in I struggle to see any football for JMM or this Rodriquez guy in many years, he'll be out on loan more before he gets a look in.

At no point have I said Chelsea academy is the place to be if you want to play for Chelsea. Chelsea is consistently one of the best academies and consistently churns out top level footballers however and if I/my child wanted a top career in football, it’s one of the top places I’d be looking to get a place in. Miles ahead of us. 

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

I don't really see that as Chelsea though, they've been given their opportunity by club x or y as Chelsea weren't interested or patient enough to develop them, so they palm them off elsewhere for someone to do the hard yards. Then they just want the $$$ that they can bring in for them with no real interest in their development.

But they're also dumb enough to do the above, sell Lukaku for e.g for big money (and Matic), then re-sign them for double that a few years later as they think they're the ready made player now. It's such a lazy way of developing players and I'm glad it fell flat on it's arse with Lukaku.

You don't sign for Chelsea academy to necessarily play for Chelsea first team (or even Saints academy from a lower level to play for Saints).

The proof is out there in football, that playing for Chelsea (and Man City), your trajectory changes, in most cases.

Chelsea and City sell academy players for big money (just look how much we have thrown at City on Keepers alone), that enables them to balance FFP (as it is/was)

[suewhistle]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

.. if I/my child wanted a top career in football, it’s one of the top places I’d be looking to get a place in. Miles ahead of us. 

To be looked at, certainly, but not necessarily the right place for everyone, as the Dibling example shows.

[Lighthouse]

5 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

At no point have I said Chelsea academy is the place to be if you want to play for Chelsea. Chelsea is consistently one of the best academies and consistently churns out top level footballers however and if I/my child wanted a top career in football, it’s one of the top places I’d be looking to get a place in. Miles ahead of us. 

No, Chelsea hoover up all the top talent in the country, then spit almost all of it out a few years later. If we had the money to chuck at all the best academy products in the country, so that they all came to us, then we'd have the same record for churning out top level footballers. There is no reason at all to suggest that any one individual player will do better at Chelsea's academy than ours, or anyone else in the country.

[Wade Garrett]

I’ve heard the precious little fuckers have counsellors on hand if they get a bollocking.  This is from an ex-pro.

 

[Saint_clark]

2 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

I’ve heard the precious little fuckers have counsellors on hand if they get a bollocking.  This is from an ex-pro.

 

When I look at how sensitive younger generations are now it does make me wonder how football is going to look after the next 5-10 years when all the players are petrified of the smallest bit of criticism from the crowd. 

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

No, Chelsea hoover up all the top talent in the country, then spit almost all of it out a few years later. If we had the money to chuck at all the best academy products in the country, so that they all came to us, then we'd have the same record for churning out top level footballers. There is no reason at all to suggest that any one individual player will do better at Chelsea's academy than ours, or anyone else in the country.

This just isn't reflective at all of what an academy does. I know you think it's just hoovering up talent and churning them out but Chelsea can point to a lot of examples of developing young talented players from a very early age into top players. It's their record for this that allows them to be in a position to then pick up talents from other academies at various age groups. Anyway, I'm leaving it because it's boring and even more boring when just discussing it with someone who wants to make it as simple as "they throw money at it and therefore get all the best players blah blah blah".

[Fabrice29]

31 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

When I look at how sensitive younger generations are now it does make me wonder how football is going to look after the next 5-10 years when all the players are petrified of the smallest bit of criticism from the crowd. 

Just like society, it'll be more open, more reflective and more discussion around how we treat people and in this instance young footballers. So it'll be better, but almost certainly will continue not to be enough. 

The idea that "can't take a bollocking so must be shit and soft" will thankfully be even more laughable but again, there'll still be far too many saying it. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Since Chelsea pretty much have an industry around ...  tries to avoid phrases like children farming...  recruiting and developing young footballers into successful careers, there's clearly advantages of being there than anywhere else.

Their budget, resources and category status provide a lot of structure for young careers, to get a solid technical grounding. The competitiveness of the peer environment will help many.

It's not for everyone. Players develop differently, physically and emotionally. Some will find the peer pressure or environment toxic. Others get more game time developing in other clubs, and thrive on those pathways.

Chelsea would be great to have as part of development, but knowing you'd want to move into first team football rather than stall there, or get loaned out where it might not suit.

I can't see anything wrong with having emotional support for young players, in the form of councillors. At a difficult time of life, in a pressurised environment, it's good to have a way of dealing with that, and also for the club to teach players to eliminate negative behaviours. Coaches who...  tries to avoid phrases like bollock youngsters... shout or rant at young players, should not be in those positions, not at that level. The world has moved past such things, and there's far better ways to get successful outcomes than resorting to that.

[david in sweden]

On 11/05/2024 at 12:16, Fabrice29 said:

At no point have I said Chelsea academy is the place to be if you want to play for Chelsea. Chelsea is consistently one of the best academies and consistently churns out top level footballers however and if I/my child wanted a top career in football, it’s one of the top places I’d be looking to get a place in. Miles ahead of us. 

.Sort of ...yes ? ....provided that they don't actually expect to play for Chelsea.    Many good youngsters have come through their Academy, 

and they do it by numbers.  A few years back, I reckoned they had 35 players out on loan. They may make a career but end up playing elsewhere. 

It may have been true in the past, but when the ownership spends hundreds of millions every year, very few kids make it to be " permanent fixtures ". 

[Barsiem]

If he's offered significantly more money elsewhere he's going to go.  It's a no brainer.  I get some will argue it's better to be at a team that will give them first team opportunities but 1) that ain't saints currently and 2) most young players will believe they can make it anywhere and want to be rich.   

I'll be very interested to see how he develops.  The few clips I've watched he's much bigger than everyone else on the pitch, and that isn't going to continue.  Doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a great player, but does make me a bit sceptical 

 

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Barsiem said:

If he's offered significantly more money elsewhere he's going to go.  It's a no brainer.  I get some will argue it's better to be at a team that will give them first team opportunities but 1) that ain't saints currently and 2) most young players will believe they can make it anywhere and want to be rich.   

I'll be very interested to see how he develops.  The few clips I've watched he's much bigger than everyone else on the pitch, and that isn't going to continue.  Doesn't necessarily mean he won't be a great player, but does make me a bit sceptical 

 

Apart from Lavia, Livramento, Edozie, Charles, Bazunu, THB and Larios, all in the last three years?

[Barsiem]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Apart from Lavia, Livramento, Edozie, Charles, Bazunu, THB and Larios, all in the last three years?

How many of them were from the Saints academy? Precisely zero... 

[Lighthouse]

31 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

How many of them were from the Saints academy? Precisely zero... 

You said it was a no brainer to go to Chelsea and that young players wouldn’t be given opportunities at Saints. That’s clearly not true, plenty of players have had an opportunity here who’d never have had one at a big PL team. Whether they came through our academy or someone else’s is irrelevant, we clearly offer a better opportunity for first team football.

[Chez]

On 10/05/2024 at 21:50, egg said:

Chelsea paying £30k+ pw to kids is inevitable, and JJM is likely at the top end of their pay scale. 

As I have said, he was offered a contract that you, me, every Saints fan and even MLT would all have said "where the fuck do I sign?"

The big clubs have everything sewn up. They buy the best players from abroad, the best players from the Prem and the best youngsters. What chance do the rest have?

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Chez said:

As I have said, he was offered a contract that you, me, every Saints fan and even MLT would all have said "where the fuck do I sign?"

The big clubs have everything sewn up. They buy the best players from abroad, the best players from the Prem and the best youngsters. What chance do the rest have?

Indeed. I'm staggered by the criticism of the lad for taking the money. No youngster will turn that down, and Chelsea will want a return on their investment so will use their loan system to give him exposure and experience. 

[Barsiem]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

You said it was a no brainer to go to Chelsea and that young players wouldn’t be given opportunities at Saints. That’s clearly not true, plenty of players have had an opportunity here who’d never have had one at a big PL team. Whether they came through our academy or someone else’s is irrelevant, we clearly offer a better opportunity for first team football.

Irrelevant?  Who was the last player to establish themselves as a first teamer from our academy?  Genuine question as I can't remember!  Shaw?  Could say Harrison Reed but he was never a regular.  Even Tella, who came from the Arse's academy, could only properly establish himself elsewhere.

Every player we've given a pathway to in recent years has been a big money move from a big teams academy.  This season we have given Samuel Edoize multiple opportunities and Tyler-Dibling an odd cup run out.  Only young player who's played this season is Charles (bought from a big clubs academy), who cost us £10m, and even then he's mostly been on the bench.  For saints, if you're paying that sort of money for a player, it's to be a regular starter.  Only other player who has had a sniff was Amo-Ameyaw, who played a few games in August and was promptly ditched, again to get the odd cup game.  Another player who didn't come from the Saints academy 

So in summary, the best path for a youth player to play for Saints is to sign for a big clubs academy and do ok there, whilst earning more than saints would pay to be in their academy.  Then get a big money move, without even playing a senior game for that team, to Saints and be instantly in the match day squad! 

Anyone who thinks there's a pathway to the first team for our academy hasn't been watching us the last several years

Edited May 13 by Barsiem

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

Irrelevant?  Who was the last player to establish themselves as a first teamer from our academy?  Genuine question as I can't remember!  Shaw?  Could say Harrison Reed but he was never a regular.  Even Tella, who came from the Arse's academy, could only properly establish himself elsewhere.

Every player we've given a pathway to in recent years has been a big money move from a big teams academy.  This season we have given Samuel Edoize multiple opportunities and Tyler-Dibling an odd cup run out.  Only young player who's played this season is Charles (bought from a big clubs academy), who cost us £10m, and even then he's mostly been on the bench.  For saints, if you're paying that sort of money for a player, it's to be a regular starter.  Only other player who has had a sniff was Amo-Ameyaw, who played a few games in August and was promptly ditched, again to get the odd cup game.  Another player who didn't come from the Saints academy 

So in summary, the best path for a youth player to play for Saints is to sign for a big clubs academy and do ok there, whilst earning more than saints would pay to be in their academy.  Then get a big money move, without even playing a senior game for that team, to Saints and be instantly in the match day squad! 

Anyone who thinks there's a pathway to the first team for our academy hasn't been watching us the last several years

You can’t remember James Ward Prowse?
 

However you want to dress it up, all those players have been given opportunities to play first team football at Southampton. Whether they were good enough to establish themselves as regulars is mainly down to their talent and application. Yes, you can say SAA was ‘ditched’ in August but you can’t say he wasn’t given an opportunity. If he’d looked ready he’d still be starting games now. You couldn’t have said that if he’d been at one of the big PL clubs.

A question for you; who was the last player to play regular PL football who was ‘blocked’ at Saints? The best example I can think of is Reed, who’s done alright at Fulham but never really as good as the likes of Morgan or Romeu for us.

[trousers]

Meanwhile, back on topic...

 

 

[Chez]

10 hours ago, Barsiem said:

Irrelevant?  Who was the last player to establish themselves as a first teamer from our academy?  Genuine question as I can't remember!  Shaw?  

Smallbone, but only because we were relegated. 

[david in sweden]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

Smallbone, but only because we were relegated. 

 

1 hour ago, Chez said:

Smallbone, but only because we were relegated. 

last established Academy graduate to get first team recognition? ....(better late than never) ..but  Jack Stephens came in after the departure of 

Fonte and van Dijk and although he wasn't a regular first choice at that time, he must be past 100 apps. by now..

Others?.  well that Ward-Prowse fellow came through the Academy and got a few starts - didn't he ? 

[Saint86]

On 13/05/2024 at 20:22, Barsiem said:

Irrelevant?  Who was the last player to establish themselves as a first teamer from our academy?  Genuine question as I can't remember!  Shaw?  Could say Harrison Reed but he was never a regular.  Even Tella, who came from the Arse's academy, could only properly establish himself elsewhere.

Every player we've given a pathway to in recent years has been a big money move from a big teams academy.  This season we have given Samuel Edoize multiple opportunities and Tyler-Dibling an odd cup run out.  Only young player who's played this season is Charles (bought from a big clubs academy), who cost us £10m, and even then he's mostly been on the bench.  For saints, if you're paying that sort of money for a player, it's to be a regular starter.  Only other player who has had a sniff was Amo-Ameyaw, who played a few games in August and was promptly ditched, again to get the odd cup game.  Another player who didn't come from the Saints academy 

So in summary, the best path for a youth player to play for Saints is to sign for a big clubs academy and do ok there, whilst earning more than saints would pay to be in their academy.  Then get a big money move, without even playing a senior game for that team, to Saints and be instantly in the match day squad! 

Anyone who thinks there's a pathway to the first team for our academy hasn't been watching us the last several years

Really?

And shaw is the last one you remember? Not, i don't know.... 

😛

As shocking as this is for some of our fans to understand (and not even aimed at you specifically), it feels like it needs to be repeatedly stated - Saints went down to the championship in 04/05, then suffered years of financial issues, and coaching talent drain - particularly in the academy (Fulham being one club that took advantage and then turned out players like Sessegon and Carvalho). On top of that, we struggled to then recruit the best academy players or pay them competitive salaries... because, you know... we were a 2nd / 3rd tier side in dire financial straights that almost went out of business...

Academy kids join the club from about the age of 8 or 9 upwards. We made it back to the prem season ending 2013? So those first post prem batches have only just turned 18/19...

Or put another way, the much maligned Cortese started to pump a lot of money back into the academy, training facilities, coaching etc. once we'd made it back to the prem... Fast forward 10years, the first 18/19 years olds are rolling off the production line. And we know that the age group just below this is pretty impressive (they finished runners up to City's u18 all stars and a few have been poached...) But for those 18year olds to have straight away been first team quality, that would mean we would have had to immediatley step our game back up to being one of the best academies in the country... Forget the brain and talent drain or needing to build our academy, forget also that other clubs poured money into their own academies during the time we were down.... But No No... Our fans have spoken, and they want to know why our academy kids aren't once again (and basically immediatley in youth player development terms) some of the defacto best in Europe.

Unsurprisingly, we've offset the absence of top quality youngsters coming through by signing some - lower wages, different mentality, and higher profit potential. Its bizarre to me that you've also stated we don't give youngsters a chance, because as lighthouse pointed out - we very clearly do (Lavia and Tino being two very prominent examples). Also, Bazunu basically goes under the radar in this discussion... but he has the 5th most minutes for players under 21 in the champ, and that is limited basically because he is injured. Similarly, THB has the 9th most minutes under the age of 21...

But if we're discounting them (not from our own academy), then i assume we're also discounting SAA and Meghoma as they also aren't our academy players? You also mention Tella above, another good example of the infill players we've purchased. and i think he also highlights something else - players rarely break through at the ages of 17/18 these days. Smallbone's breakthrough season was last year (aged 23), Tella's is the same (23). Harry Kane's breakthrough season was in 2014-15 managed when he was 21 / 22 and managed 2500minutes. The season before that he managed 500minutes, and the season before that he managed 530minutes for Leicester in the championship (aged 19/20...) and Kane is a world class player - I am not sure any of our curren 19-20year olds have world class ceilings... 😄

So to come full circle, what I think you're basically complaining about, is that we haven't put the just turned 18 years old Dibbling or Ballard (who has a few months first team footy in league 1) front and centre in this most critical of seasons - at the same time as the coaching staff and manager not thinking they're good enough? They're the best of the first really promising age group coming through, sure, but is it really realistic for them to have been getting loads of minutes this season, at such a young age? Not sure it is. And outside of that, the club very clearly puts a lot of focus on having a lot of young developing players maturing into the side - but doing that successfully takes years.

 

Edited May 15 by Saint86

[suewhistle]

Good analysis. 

Back to the U18 goal by Rodriguez which I saw in the game's video highlights on the OS was both the athleticism and skill involved. His moustache may be the most advanced in that age group but he's got some skill too!

[LeBizzier69]

Has anyone actually seen this lad play in person? I mean, he looks big and strong enough to be involved in senior football given the sizes of SAA and TD. 

[Barsiem]

10 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Really?

And shaw is the last one you remember? Not, i don't know.... 

😛

As shocking as this is for some of our fans to understand (and not even aimed at you specifically), it feels like it needs to be repeatedly stated - Saints went down to the championship in 04/05, then suffered years of financial issues, and coaching talent drain - particularly in the academy (Fulham being one club that took advantage and then turned out players like Sessegon and Carvalho). On top of that, we struggled to then recruit the best academy players or pay them competitive salaries... because, you know... we were a 2nd / 3rd tier side in dire financial straights that almost went out of business...

Academy kids join the club from about the age of 8 or 9 upwards. We made it back to the prem season ending 2013? So those first post prem batches have only just turned 18/19...

Or put another way, the much maligned Cortese started to pump a lot of money back into the academy, training facilities, coaching etc. once we'd made it back to the prem... Fast forward 10years, the first 18/19 years olds are rolling off the production line. And we know that the age group just below this is pretty impressive (they finished runners up to City's u18 all stars and a few have been poached...) But for those 18year olds to have straight away been first team quality, that would mean we would have had to immediatley step our game back up to being one of the best academies in the country... Forget the brain and talent drain or needing to build our academy, forget also that other clubs poured money into their own academies during the time we were down.... But No No... Our fans have spoken, and they want to know why our academy kids aren't once again (and basically immediatley in youth player development terms) some of the defacto best in Europe.

Unsurprisingly, we've offset the absence of top quality youngsters coming through by signing some - lower wages, different mentality, and higher profit potential. Its bizarre to me that you've also stated we don't give youngsters a chance, because as lighthouse pointed out - we very clearly do (Lavia and Tino being two very prominent examples). Also, Bazunu basically goes under the radar in this discussion... but he has the 5th most minutes for players under 21 in the champ, and that is limited basically because he is injured. Similarly, THB has the 9th most minutes under the age of 21...

But if we're discounting them (not from our own academy), then i assume we're also discounting SAA and Meghoma as they also aren't our academy players? You also mention Tella above, another good example of the infill players we've purchased. and i think he also highlights something else - players rarely break through at the ages of 17/18 these days. Smallbone's breakthrough season was last year (aged 23), Tella's is the same (23). Harry Kane's breakthrough season was in 2014-15 managed when he was 21 / 22 and managed 2500minutes. The season before that he managed 500minutes, and the season before that he managed 530minutes for Leicester in the championship (aged 19/20...) and Kane is a world class player - I am not sure any of our curren 19-20year olds have world class ceilings... 😄

So to come full circle, what I think you're basically complaining about, is that we haven't put the just turned 18 years old Dibbling or Ballard (who has a few months first team footy in league 1) front and centre in this most critical of seasons - at the same time as when the coaching staff and manager don't think they're good enough year? They're the best of the first really promising age group coming through, sure, but is it really realistic for them to have been getting loads of minutes this season, at such a young age? Not sure it is. And outside of that, the club very clearly puts a lot of focus on having a lot of young developing players maturing into the side - but doing that successfully takes years.

 

I'm not going to argue it to death but I will point out that I never stated we don't give youngsters a chance... That would clearly be ridiculous.  I stated ( although I admit looking back at my original post, not explicitly) we don't give our academy players a chance.  I don't think our current academy players will be loving the fact that lots of young players are being signed from bigger academies and being played over them.  The message that sends to me is your better off in a big name academy if you want a team like Southampton to play you.  More money, likely better coaches, better standard of players to play with, more opportunities for decent loan moves or transfers.

We also do not have a manager currently who is actively looking to give opportunities to these players.  We had some dead games at the end of the season where none of the academy players were even on the bench.  Adkins started JWP on our first game back to the PL in 2012 away to Man City, Shaw broke through a few months later - when we were fighting relegation.  Poch continued this with Chambers & Reed, but since then, with a slight exception of Ralph on occasions, we haven't had a manager who has been prepared to give these players a serious chance.  You could argue it was the standard of player that we have currently, but if this group is so great some of them should be getting first team minutes by now.  Particularly given we're in the Championship rather than the Prem.

But all of this detracts from my main point, which is that if another club is going to pay substantially more wages for you to be in their youth team over Southampton's 99% of players are going to take it, and IMO would be fools not to.  

[Chez]

12 hours ago, david in sweden said:

 

last established Academy graduate to get first team recognition? ....(better late than never) ..but  Jack Stephens came in after the departure of 

Fonte and van Dijk and although he wasn't a regular first choice at that time, he must be past 100 apps. by now..

Others?.  well that Ward-Prowse fellow came through the Academy and got a few starts - didn't he ? 

I am not sure Stephens can be considered as a Saints academy graduate. OK, he was only 17 when we signed him from Plymouth, was initially put in the development squad, but after only about 6 months he was in our first team squad, not to mention the fact he'd played first team games for Plymouth.

I guess it doesn't really matter. Who cares how and when young players come to us, if they eventually shine in the first team.

[Saint86]

16 hours ago, Chez said:

I am not sure Stephens can be considered as a Saints academy graduate. OK, he was only 17 when we signed him from Plymouth, was initially put in the development squad, but after only about 6 months he was in our first team squad, not to mention the fact he'd played first team games for Plymouth.

I guess it doesn't really matter. Who cares how and when young players come to us, if they eventually shine in the first team.

I personally agree with you. But I think the point that was being raised, is that for some, it does matter. And that they would rather see us playing our own (longstanding) academy products rather than signing kids a bit older to fill quality gaps from our academy graduates.

Don't get me wrong, i am disappointed we haven't seen more of Dibbling and Ballard etc. But equally they have only just turned 18this year. I would imagine we'll see more of them over the next couple of seasons - particularly if we don't win 2 matches before the end of may!!

Edited May 15 by Saint86

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

I personally agree with you. But I think the point that was being raised, is that for some, it does matter. And that they would rather see us playing our own (longstanding) academy products rather than signing kids a bit older to fill quality gaps from our academy graduates.

Don't get me wrong, i am disappointed we haven't seen more of Dibbling and Ballard etc. But equally they have only just turned 18this year. I would imagine we'll see more of them over the next couple of seasons - particularly if we don't win 2 matches before the end of may!!

I think there's a balance between "putting them front and centre" and giving them opportunities off the bench. I would have liked to have seen Amo Ameyew and Dibling given more opportunities such as off the bench or fifteen minutes here and there to show what they can do. I understand the importance of the season but I think you can shield young players from over exposure whilst also giving them enough game time to signal to the rest of the group that they can get opportunities if they are good enough. Some of the performances of Rothwell and Brooks have been such that it has felt like they have blocked opportunities for younger players and Rothwell in particular has largely stunk the place out bar a couple of games. 

 

Edited May 15 by hypochondriac

[Saint86]

18 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I think there's a balance between "putting them front and centre" and giving them opportunities off the bench. I would have liked to have seen Amo Ameyew and Dibling given more opportunities such as off the bench or fifteen minutes here and there to show what they can do. I understand the importance of the season but I think you can shield young players from over exposure whilst also giving them enough game time to signal to the rest of the group that they can get opportunities if they are good enough. Some of the performances of Rothwell and Brooks have been such that it has felt like they have blocked opportunities for younger players and Rothwell in particular has largely stunk the place out bar a couple of games. 

 

I don't disagree - fluffing up the cup game at the start of the season also didn't help get them some early games. And on Rothwell - that was just a weird signing. Alcaraz is 3 times the player he is at least, and he is our own player - a young one we can develop, and one that made a point of staying over the summer. Maybe it was all about money and the loan fee, but its bitterly disappointing not to have kept him at the club and used him - particularly in Stu's absence.

[trousers]

19 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I think there's a balance between "putting them front and centre" and giving them opportunities off the bench. I would have liked to have seen Amo Ameyew and Dibling given more opportunities such as off the bench or fifteen minutes here and there to show what they can do.

Yep, this. 

I can recall several games where the likes of Dibling and Amo-Ameyaw were on the bench and we were cruising to a win with 10-15 minutes to go and we bring on the likes of Mara or Sulemana for a pointless cameo when we could've given the youngsters a bit of game time. 

 

 

Edited May 16 by trousers

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yep, this. 

I can recall several games where the likes of Dibling and Amo-Ameyaw were on the bench and we were cruising to a win with 10-15 minutes to go and we bring on the likes of Mara or Sulemana for a pointless cameo when we could've given the youngsters a bit of game time. 

 

 

It's one of the things that made Poch such a notable coach. His willingness to be brave and give our youngsters a chance. Some of them must think if they aren't getting a look in at this level then is it really worth being in an academy at a relatively small club. One of the few things we can give young players that bigger clubs can't is the ability to be involved in games. You would hope that changes next year, particularly if we are in this division again. 

[Lighthouse]

47 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

I don't disagree - fluffing up the cup game at the start of the season also didn't help get them some early games. And on Rothwell - that was just a weird signing. Alcaraz is 3 times the player he is at least, and he is our own player - a young one we can develop, and one that made a point of staying over the summer. Maybe it was all about money and the loan fee, but its bitterly disappointing not to have kept him at the club and used him - particularly in Stu's absence.

I don't understand how anyone who's watched Alcaraz this season can say that. He's been largely substandard since an initial flurry of goals in the firsrt month he signed. He isn't three times the player Rothwell is either, if anything the latter is marginally better. Going back to the general point about younger players getting game time; they'll get it when they're good enough to at least look better than the liked of Sully and Mara. If they aren't doing that then they aren't ready yet and for many of them it's likely they never will be.

[S-Clarke]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I don't understand how anyone who's watched Alcaraz this season can say that. He's been largely substandard since an initial flurry of goals in the firsrt month he signed. He isn't three times the player Rothwell is either, if anything the latter is marginally better. Going back to the general point about younger players getting game time; they'll get it when they're good enough to at least look better than the liked of Sully and Mara. If they aren't doing that then they aren't ready yet and for many of them it's likely they never will be.

I'd argue that both Dibling and SAA have looked better than Mara in their cameos this year. SAA got quite a bit of game time during August and I was quite excited by him, but he's dropped straight back into the U21's and I don't remember him doing anything particularly bad that warranted that. Yet Mara continues to stroll around like a pub player and is ahead of them.

I don't see what Mara or Sulemana have given us that SAA couldn't have in the same cameos. I can understand why some fans are saying Martin doesn't' trust them, they won't improve if they don't play - and SAA looked cracking at the start of the year.