Jump to content

The Barclays Premier League Thread 2014/2015


brenchill

Recommended Posts

But, by doing that, wouldn't teams be forced to try and improve their youth coaching? Buying a 17-year-old foreign ''wonderkid'' is a gamble already but buying a 14-year-old isn't really worth the risk, I think.

article-2260694-16DFECA5000005DC-206_634

Defintely not worth the punt on 13 year old wonderkids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, by doing that, wouldn't teams be forced to try and improve their youth coaching? Buying a 17-year-old foreign ''wonderkid'' is a gamble already but buying a 14-year-old isn't really worth the risk, I think.

article-2260694-16DFECA5000005DC-206_634

Defintely not worth the punt on 13 year old wonderkids.

For every Messi, there are plenty of Freddy Adu's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddy Adu was never really rated. The only reason he got any attention was due to playing in the MLS at 14. Who knows where he might be now had he been brought to a top European Club with world class facilities, been brought through the youth system and made his debut when he was ready. The kids signing for these clubs will want for nothing and be exposed to world class coaching. Adu was dumped into playing against men in a then terrible MLS before he completed puberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, by doing that, wouldn't teams be forced to try and improve their youth coaching? Buying a 17-year-old foreign ''wonderkid'' is a gamble already but buying a 14-year-old isn't really worth the risk, I think.

article-2260694-16DFECA5000005DC-206_634

Defintely not worth the punt on 13 year old wonderkids.

A broken clock is right twice a day. And let's not forget that Messi is a once in a lifetime talent, from a technical standpoint he'll have been something no one would have ever seen for his age. As a general rule, it's pretty much useless investing any significant money in a player before they finish puberty. That's why Chelsea sign "all of the 16 year olds" because even then, there are very few that you *know* will be good enough, the rest you're taking a 1 in 10 chance they'll be an Eden Hazard and not a Gael Kakuta... But it's still cheaper to sign 10 kids, find the superstar and let the other 9 go or sell them for the odd million than it is to sign Eden Hazard at 22 years old when he's coming into his prime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, at £35m, Andy Caroll paid for Newcastle's youth setup for the next 35,000,000,000,000 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only teams who'd drastically be fucked by this would be Chelsea and City anyway. I can't remember the last British kid to come through at Man.City who has had some sort of longevity apart from Micah Richards. Same with Chelsea seen as though half of them end up playing in the Championship or for Viteese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I think the clubs worst affected would be in the lower half of the Premier League. The biggest clubs will either pay All The Necessary Money to get any semi-decent English player to sit on their bench (hello Scott Sinclair) or set about the Sign All The 14 Year Olds route - again, possible thanks to the considerable resources already at their disposal. What with FFP being the joke that it is, this shouldn't be a problem.

(Of course it will make their squads a bit weaker so that they'll suck in European competition...but that's happening anyway.)

Lesser PL teams will have their best English talent snared from them by the Top 6 or Top 8 and will be weakened as a result. It's not as though Burnley etc. are going to suddenly become infinitely more attractive to foreign players either.

AKA increasing the demand means the assets (in this case, Good English Players) wind up with those most able to pay, to the detriment of everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only teams who'd drastically be fucked by this would be Chelsea and City anyway. I can't remember the last British kid to come through at Man.City who has had some sort of longevity apart from Micah Richards. Same with Chelsea seen as though half of them end up playing in the Championship or for Viteese

British =/= home grown. Tim Krul is 'home grown'.

I believe quite the opposite, only the team's rich enough to have conservatively 30-40 players (and the accompanying setup) at every youth level would benefit in the long term.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

5e6e64f614452ac3688ee0a4f2f3f7fb

" data-width="466">

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of the whole squad quota talk.

It's bollocks.

If you're good enough, you will make it regardless of nationality. A lot of English players don't show the desire to succeed that foreigners of the same age would. As people have already pointed out, this will only go to make the league weaker and in turn, still not be able to compete in Europe whilst the national team will still be competely

and utterly shit.

People say giving these young English players a chance will do them good, yes, it will give them first team experience but it won't magically make these mediocre youngsters world class. Problem is within the grassroots levels and coaching. Simple as that.

I believe around 10 years ago Germany competely overhauled their whole youth system and ten years later they won a World Cup. Get 10 years olds off playing on a full sized pitch for starters and be done with the old English tradition of "just hoof it!!".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy