Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Our Academy

We always seem to turn out tidy players who are a little bit lightweight. At the risk of generalising, is it a coincidence that very few are black, who tend to be natural athletes and possibly more mature physically and able to break through to 1st team earlier. We've had Shittu and Mambo as defenders, who are big rather than athletic, nobody else since the Rufus era. Sam is quite little, Jamie Martin lacked the application, who else is there? It seems Palace & Millwall seem to get black kids who are hungry, big and powerful, but not us despite our catchment area. Are we too nice? Do we scare kids off with too much discipline? Anyone got an insiders view on our academy?
«1

Comments

  • If this is more than a casual enquiry you could of course get along to Sparrow Lane and see for yourself.
  • We did have James Walker and Miles Weston.
    And Jaimal Ryce-Pudding or whartever his name is.

    And Nathan Ashton.
    And ..... sure, I get your point.
  • Darren Randolph!

    (or does he not count?)
  • Interesting point. If you look at the lads who are breaking through, primarily Waggstaff, Solly and (maybe) Tuna – they all seem quite skillfull and quick but very, very lightweight.

    Maybe Robbie ate all the food down at the Academy ?
  • Jordon Cousins.
  • i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice whereas the reverse may be true with Millwall and Palace. Not saying all good players are nasty little buggers but it certainly helps sometimes - can't remember the last centre forward hardcase who came through our academy? (sure i've probably forgot someone) Gordon watson wasn't a nasty hard case but he did have a ruthless selfish streak and wasn't soft - probably the last striker i can remember who really made it.
  • [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]Gordon watson wasn't a nasty hard case but he did have a ruthless selfish streak and wasn't soft

    He wasn't known as Psycho for nothing .......(!)
  • I see Basey has been turned down by Gillingham!
  • Tosan popo and Yado Mambo???
  • [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice whereas the reverse may be true with Millwall and Palace. Not saying all good players are nasty little buggers but it certainly helps sometimes - can't remember the last centre forward hardcase who came through our academy? (sure i've probably forgot someone) Gordon watson wasn't a nasty hard case but he did have a ruthless selfish streak and wasn't soft - probably the last striker i can remember who really made it.
    Sheku Kamara was in our academy, went to Watford after we let him go and is now in prison. Does that count?
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice

    and your evidence for that statement is what precisely?
  • I think it's self perpetuating. We are a nice club with good strong values and a strong community influence. This helps us to produce well-rounded young men.

    However, why this is perceived to be a bad thing is weird.

    Oh and I would add that Bowyer certainly had a nasty streak to him and everyone remembers the "McDonald's indecent" whilst he was at the club.
  • [cite]Posted By: Harveys Trainer[/cite]Jordon Cousins.


    He looked lightweight at AFC Wimbledon - about 3 stone light. Not Mambo though !
  • Yep that's the way to go. Just look at Djimi Traore or Amdy Faye. I mean Kinsella, Konchesky or Parker wouldn't stand a chance. And as football has gone that way look at Gardner or Zayette.

    Barring Rufus, when you consider that Webster, Balmer, Todd and Perry were all better than the above athletic 4 African/English.

    I think unfortunately it more reflects on the idiotic foreign coaches influence on the English game. Sure Vierra and Stam may have symbolised the best of foreign athleticism, but there are plenty of British players a hella of a lot better than super-dross than Traore etc.

    I can't tell if Solly will make it, and was highly doubtful of Wagstaff in 2008-2009. But Solly from the start and Wagstaff from last season have shown more desire than 95% of the dross at this club in the last four-five seasons.
  • Hmmm....can you tell me the last 5 black players Millwall progressed through their academy to be a regular first teamer?

    Off the top of my head, Fuseini has made quite a few appearances but was released.

    Marvin Williams started promisingly, released.

    Er, starting to struggle now. Must be one or two more. But can't recall many who have made it.
  • [cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]Hmmm....can you tell me the last 5 black players Millwall progressed through their academy to be a regular first teamer?

    Off the top of my head, Fuseini has made quite a few appearances but was released.

    Marvin Williams started promisingly, released.

    Er, starting to struggle now. Must be one or two more. But can't recall many who have made it.

    Phil Walker
  • Preston Edwards was going to be next big thing but went off the rails (from memory he is black, correct me if i am wrong)

    Also Moses Ashikodi?
  • [cite]Posted By: cafcdan18[/cite]Preston Edwards was going to be next big thing but went off the rails (from memory he is black, correct me if i am wrong)

    Also Moses Ashikodi?

    2 more players that never made it. (& Preston isn't black, he was "super race" as my mate calls himself)

    Phil Walker was 30+ years ago!

    The original post was implying we regularly turn out big, strong, athletic players who are black. We haven't!
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice

    and your evidence for that statement is what precisely?

    My basis (rather than evidence) is knowing a fair few people who have either been in or in control of large parts of our youth set up. Not going to name names, don't want any glory for it, and if you don't believe me, fine, but that is the basis of my statement.
  • Marvin Elliot was pretty good wasn't he Sparrow?
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: thewolfboy[/cite]Marvin Elliot was pretty good wasn't he Sparrow?

    Yep, that's a good one, forgot about him.

    Still doesn't really provide enough evidence that "It seems Palace & Millwall seem to get black kids who are hungry, big and powerful" who make it to the 1st team is a true statement.

    Elliot probably fits that description well however.
    Williams was a small tricky winger/striker who didn't have the hunger.
    Fuseini is a short, stocky player that's been released.
    Odunsi was hungry for food. (I thought he looked very promising, but didn't work out, now a security guard last I heard)

    The above are over an 8-10 year or so period.
  • [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice

    and your evidence for that statement is what precisely?

    My basis (rather than evidence) is knowing a fair few people who have either been in or in control of large parts of our youth set up. Not going to name names, don't want any glory for it, and if you don't believe me, fine, but that is the basis of my statement.

    What I would say is that when I used to be over at your Academy, you had the reputation for trying to play football. That meant you generally had players who were good on the ball, tricky, neat, tidy, speedy and lithe - black & white.

    A few games you played against Millwall threw up stark contrasts. Millwall were dominated with big, burly, athletic players, black & white. Long ball merchants, little skill, plenty of physicality.

    Mentioned this to a mate of mine who played for Millwall. He confirmed my worst fears. The coaching staff at the time concentrated on getting the biggest & most athletic lads playing. Invariably without the technical skill, none of these made it. But, in the short term, there were results.

    Charlton seemed to be the opposite. Rather concentrate on developing skill, tactics etc and results were second. The way it should be really. I believe Millwall have now gone back to a better selection criteria as well, at least I hope so!

    With regards to players making it....it seems both clubs are complaining about a lack of youngsters coming through. Whether that's down to scouting, coaching, facilities, I don't know. I think that nowadays it's more down to the alternative lifestyles that are available to kids in our catchment areas. Kids are generally exposed to much more at a much younger age. The temptation of drink, drugs and sex is available much younger throughout South London and north Kent. Kids nowadays have to be much more disciplined and dedicated to make it and so that's why I think less kids turn into the professionals their ability merits.
  • I'm not a fan of the academy system even though my 9 year old son is in one for a premiership club. He is a keeper which is a bit different as it isn't easy getting specialised coaching. I think they generally play a numbers game and not enough focus on the core skills. My son attends Brazillian soccer schools which really look to develop skills at an early age and are agianst kids joining academies too early. They take on all kids - you have to pay £5 a session and I reccomend if there is a local one to you.

    Do you know that the last player from Chelsea's academy to play in their first team was John Terry who is nearly 30!!! I think about 1% of kids actually go on to represent the first team which is a frightening figure. My theory is work on them skills - don't worry about competetive games until they are 12 or 13. The skills are the hardest things to learn and the earlier you teach them the better.
  • [cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]I'm not a fan of the academy system even though my 9 year old son is in one for a premiership club. He is a keeper which is a bit different as it isn't easy getting specialised coaching. I think they generally play a numbers game and not enough focus on the core skills. My son attends Brazillian soccer schools which really look to develop skills at an early age and are agianst kids joining academies too early. They take on all kids - you have to pay £5 a session and I reccomend if there is a local one to you.

    Do you know that the last player from Chelsea's academy to play in their first team was John Terry who is nearly 30!!! I think about 1% of kids actually go on to represent the first team which is a frightening figure. My theory is work on them skills - don't worry about competetive games until they are 12 or 13. The skills are the hardest things to learn and the earlier you teach them the better.

    It's not just Chelsea. If you take the "traditional" top four (Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool & Arsenal) the youngest "established" player produced by those Clubs is probably Steven Gerard (although Wiltshire looks like bucking the trend).

    Compare that to the days of Fowler/Owen/McManaman/Carragher/Gerard and G. Neville/P.Neville/Beckham/Scholes/Butt/Giggs/Sharp et al who all appeared within a few years of each other and it isn't difficult to see how times have changed.
  • Yes,Chelsea was merely an example. The point is that a lot of academies try to sign up as many good players as possible and don't do enough to make them great players. They compete against other academies and it's just a numbers game to them. The coaching is often unimaginative and is mostly matches. There is a place for that but drills need to focus on skills.
  • [cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Bexley Dan[/cite]i think if we have a choice between a nice lad and a nasty bit of work we always seem to go nice

    and your evidence for that statement is what precisely?

    My basis (rather than evidence) is knowing a fair few people who have either been in or in control of large parts of our youth set up. Not going to name names, don't want any glory for it, and if you don't believe me, fine, but that is the basis of my statement.

    What I would say is that when I used to be over at your Academy, you had the reputation for trying to play football. That meant you generally had players who were good on the ball, tricky, neat, tidy, speedy and lithe - black & white.

    A few games you played against Millwall threw up stark contrasts. Millwall were dominated with big, burly, athletic players, black & white. Long ball merchants, little skill, plenty of physicality.

    Mentioned this to a mate of mine who played for Millwall. He confirmed my worst fears. The coaching staff at the time concentrated on getting the biggest & most athletic lads playing. Invariably without the technical skill, none of these made it. But, in the short term, there were results.

    Charlton seemed to be the opposite. Rather concentrate on developing skill, tactics etc and results were second. The way it should be really. I believe Millwall have now gone back to a better selection criteria as well, at least I hope so!

    Could be a case of horses for courses....you found yourself in the lower leagues when the game is a lot less technical and airy fairy and more hit and hoof whereas up to a few years ago we were probably hoping to uncover the next Joe Cole to set the prem alight with trickery.

    Possibly now we do need a few lumps for the league we are in. Or even parker/ bowyer type players who have great technical ability but also can mix it up....although they are rarer than virgins at The Venue unfortunately.
  • From the fans perspective- we don't really want to produce a superstar at Charlton as some premier league club will nick them off us as they do other potentials stars that are uncovered. We need to produce players good enough for the level we are playing in.

    Obviously the accountants might disagree.
  • [cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]From the fans perspective- we don't really want to produce a superstar at Charlton as some premier league club will nick them off us as they do other potentials stars that are uncovered. We need to produce players good enough for the level we are playing in.

    Obviously the accountants might disagree.
    We want to produce the best players we possibly can. Having a superstar won't make them aware of other potential stars - scouts and clubs are usually aware who the better players are.
  • I dont take anyones point here...

    I dont think you'll get a more varied looking group of footballers (physique wise) than Mambo, Waggy, Cousins and McGinty, or from the previous generation, Bowyer, Fortune, Lisbie and Turner.

    I dont see what being Black or White has got to do with anything, most of the lads comeing out are, average sized and white with good ball skills, but that's probably the average demographic in a SE7 school with the addition of some good ball skills.

    Or am I missing something?
  • I wasn't being totally serious, but was making the point that when we do produce a good player who has the potential to be well above our level, we lose him before we even see the best of them - e.g. Shelvey. If we want to see players come through to the first team, the Mambo's snd Solleys are the sort we should be producing. Don't get me wrong, they can be very good but they aint Messi or Rooney.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!