Young Player Model

[LordBump]

I've been thinking this for a while and I'd like to know others views.....

In the last 10 years it seems we've become more dependant on younger players, and I'm including the whole league.

I understand that we have been bringing in more experienced players but I think we need to relook at our model.

My view is that apart from special talents (eg fabregas, Wilshere) we should be loaning out everyone at a young age and bringing them back at around 23 if there good enough.
It makes us less reliant on in experienced guys, gives the player more football time. It's like a win win. 23 is still so young.
I look at so many players over the years that have come through as bright lights but then plateau or regress from not playing. Ox and Gibbs as examples.

Training with first team each day may be great but it doesn't beat actual playing time and the different playing styles other teams play.

 

[SA Gunner]

Was looking for a place to put this article, I think it adds to your post here @LordBump

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/training/how-catch-wengers-eye#:r20DwI9YgmoKGQ

Interesting read I found.

TRAINING TIPS FOR:
GOALKEEPERS
DEFENDERS
MIDFIELDERS
STRIKERS
HOME
SKILLS
TRAINING
NUTRITION
TACTICS
GEAR
GUIDES
SEARCH
image: http://images.cdn.fourfourtwo.com/s...ce/how-to-catch-wengers-eye.jpg?itok=-wqgA14T


TRAININGARSENAL
How to catch Wenger's eye
Having unearthed countless teenage gems throughout fours decades as a manager, few in football can match the Professor when it comes to spotting a star. He tells FFT exactly what he's looking for
image: http://images.cdn.fourfourtwo.com/s...tures/picture-81-1441893019.png?itok=6jHn8mUm

Ben Welch's picture
Ben Welch
@BenWelchFFT
Arsenal have been known for spotting talent under your stewardship. Is there such a thing has having an eye for a player? If so, do you have it?
There is such thing as an eye for a player, yes. Some people are just more sensitive to it and enjoy looking for particular criteria. It would be pretentious of me to say that I have it but I have worked on it for a long, long time. I have bought many young players but I do acknowledge the help I get from scouts and coaches. When I believe in a player, I give him a chance.

What’s the youngest age you can tell if a player has the potential to make it? Have you ever looked at a player and known instantly?
At 12 you can detect if technically a player can make it or not. At 14 to 16 you can detect if physically he will be able to cope with the demands of professional sport. And from 16 to 18 you can start to see if a player understands how to connect with other players. At 20 the mental side of things kick in. How does he prepare? How does he cope with life’s temptations and the sacrifices a top player must make? This is a job where you must be ready. If you get a chance, you have to take it.

More after the break
How much do you need to see of a player to know if he has the potential to go all the way?
I would say the first impression is vital and that takes 20 minutes. It does vary from player to player as some have obvious talent that you see quickly. Some more steady players who have less obvious skills need maybe six months before you realise they are the real thing. Lionel Messi at 13 years of age would have needed about one minute. I have seen tapes of him at 13. He gets the ball, dribbles past everyone and scores. He has talent. Some players – no, most players – aren’t so obvious.

How common is it to scout a player who crumbles under the pressure of the professional environment?
Yes, I have seen many who crumble under pressure. A big thing that goes wrong is general health. A good young player can simply have bad genes, and therefore bad hips or knees put an end to their career early. Health is important. Players must wake up happy, have no pain and jump around in training. It sounds obvious but it’s never guaranteed.

Since you began coaching, how less likely has it become for a player with professional potential to slip through the net?
Frankly, the percentage has been reduced dramatically due to the scouting and professionalism. When I was young, I came from a village where there was no chance of detection. Today if you are good anywhere in England, you have a chance. I have been detecting players for 40 years as I started young but even today I am wrong from time to time. It’s all about opinions, even at the top level, and that’s why I say to some players not to give up on their dreams.

With the advancement of technology and sharing of methods, are kids across the world coached in pretty much the same way these days? Does this include England or are there still cultural differences?
No, the levels are always changing and new methods are always being used. Personally I believe that the skill levels with young players is constantly going up. I met my first coach at the age of 19. Today a player is maybe five, so he or she is being exposed at a far younger age.

You told FFT in 2007 that the changes you wanted to see in English youth development were already in place and that some of the best young talent you’d seen was English. Do you stand by that?
Yes, I do. I told our coaches recently that in all my time here I’ve never seen so many good young English players. I have been accused so many times of bringing only foreign players to Arsenal but that is unfair.

How do young British players compare technically to their overseas counterparts?
Ten years ago they were behind but now they are at the same level. The first touch was not good enough and general technical ability was lacking, but not any more. You can see this in the results achieved by the under-17s and under-19s – things are much better. The school system in England gave up on competitive sport but now professional clubs have taken over the coaching of schoolchildren and the dividends are paying off.

Of all the players you have coached, who are you most proud of?
I refuse to give names as I don’t want to insult others. Some have overcome more than others but might not be as talented. Giving a start to a career such as Lilian Thuram and watching him win 142 caps is amazing. If you had told me that when he was just a boy, I would have said you are crazy. He was not the most talented but you are humbled by his efforts and proud to have been involved. Human beings always surprise you and that’s the excitement.

Arsène Wenger is part of Nike’s The Chance initiative – a global search for young footballers to win a full time Nike Academy place. Follow the stories at Nike Football's Facebook page or www.nikefootball.com

Also see:
Wenger: How to improve your 5-a-side
Wenger: 5 skills for 5-a-side


Read more at http://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/training/how-catch-wengers-eye#EFaiG6E84eMFA9Lx.99

 

[albakos]

Thanks for the link @SA Gunner
This section was quite revealing from Le Prof

What’s the youngest age you can tell if a player has the potential to make it? Have you ever looked at a player and known instantly?
At 12 you can detect if technically a player can make it or not. At 14 to 16 you can detect if physically he will be able to cope with the demands of professional sport. And from 16 to 18 you can start to see if a player understands how to connect with other players. At 20 the mental side of things kick in. How does he prepare? How does he cope with life’s temptations and the sacrifices a top player must make? This is a job where you must be ready. If you get a chance, you have to take it.

How much do you need to see of a player to know if he has the potential to go all the way?
I would say the first impression is vital and that takes 20 minutes. It does vary from player to player as some have obvious talent that you see quickly. Some more steady players who have less obvious skills need maybe six months before you realise they are the real thing. Lionel Messi at 13 years of age would have needed about one minute. I have seen tapes of him at 13. He gets the ball, dribbles past everyone and scores. He has talent. Some players – no, most players – aren’t so obvious.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

And here I was thinking that we were already doing this? Only special talents get to be part of the squad everyone else is loaned out.

This season: Iwobi and Jeff part of the squad. Toral, Akpom, Hayden, Maitland-Niles, Zelalem, Sanogo all on loan.

Last season: We didn't even have a special talent in and out of the first 18. Both Bellerin and Coquelin came into the squad after being on loan.

If anything I think we should give players more chances at young ages. Playing for Arsenal is a huge experience and inspiring for youth ones to go all the way.

 

[bingobob]

Disagree get them away if they are good enough take them back. We don't need to develop through game time anymore
We've a bigger budget to buy ready made players.

Anyway our youth model was flawed. Countless lost players and under a decade without a trophy. If we were hoping to emulate United and more recently Barcelona those talents need supplemented with top players. Not surprising once we done that we've got back to back cups and are at the moment sitting top of the perch.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Anyway our youth model was flawed. Countless lost players and under a decade without a trophy. If we were hoping to emulate United and more recently Barcelona those talents need supplemented with top players. Not surprising once we done that we've got back to back cups and are at the moment sitting top of the perch.

That is the problem, if you want to supplement youngsters with winners and top players you have to keep them at the club, not send them on loan to Champions or Scottish league.

 

[albakos]

There was an interesting article form Tim Stillman at Arseblog about how players mature when they hit 23, he brought couple examples and made the argument that Ox is expected to hit that.

Elneny is also 23 so there might be some statistical truth behind that.

I agree with @bingobob in that you cannot rely only on youth to produce. You need experienced heads to be the core of team so youngsters can learn and take inspiration from.

Wenger "realised" this in an awful fashion in summer of 2011, when his youth jewel Fabregas, ****ed off to Spain, Nasri defected to MoneyCity and Wilshere suffered a long term injury. Only then he switched strategy and brought experience in Arteta, Mertesacker, Benayoun, Santos, who although not the most reliable, they certainly made way for more experienced players coming in following transfer periods: Santi, Giroud, Podolski, Monreal, Özil, Sanchez, Welbeck and Cech.

 

[Sweggeh]

Why would you loan out all our players and bring them back at 23?

Arsène has already said players can learn more in training with world class players than playing real games with poor quality League 1/2 players.

The only times when a loan is useful is when you want them to get experience of how to handle real games, everything down to the physical aspects and reacting to in game situations on the fly.

Going out on loan is useful for mentality and experience purposes, while staying and training with the first team will help them technically. I think the way Wenger is raising these current kids (keeping them training with the first team for a few years, then a year out on loan) is the right way to go about it.

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

Having youth players as back ups gives you a more motivated back up and a much cheaper wage as a back up. They need to be of the requisite level but it makes more sense it stops you having an old stale squad, see Chelsea.

Also bringing back players when they hit 23 is an awful idea. So Henry, Fabregas, Wilshere, Ramsey, Anelka wouldn't have played for us until they were 23?

Also more often than not players don't get the right development on lone and don't learn Arsenal DNA, see Coquelin and Gnabry, getting very little from loans.

 

[bingobob]

That is the problem, if you want to supplement youngsters with winners and top players you have to keep them at the club, not send them on loan to Champions or Scottish league.

The thing is it's about balance.

We have 11 players on loan statistically none will make the grade but as we are more prone to keeping young players let's say 3 out of the 11 make it. The purpose then of selling those 8 is to get reserves to buy new first team players. Sell them for average 3m each then you've bagged 24m with resale clauses in each and buy back clauses, this is what Barcelona do.

How you squeeze them in is through squad redistribution. Is, for example, young player X a more cost effective solution than your 19th squad player. If so move on squaddie bring in the free alternative. You've created a space and added to the 24m. You might also find that it isn't the case so you reloan the player.

Ideally though you keep the player in and around the first squad for the first season loan them the next and make a judgement. We are in the football business as such our primary business needs to be buying, selling and developing players. With finite resources this model is best at balancing the lot imo.

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

But maybe League One and League Two. There is no shame in that for a young player - show me you can deal with football at that level and then come up again. I'm not really talking about loan deals, personally I prefer feeder clubs. The problem with loan deals is that managers will naturally favour his own permanent player whenever there is a 50/50 decision, unless the loan player is at a much higher level. So if we could manage that ourselves, it would be more efficient.

Read more at http://www.arsenal.com/news/features/20160115/Arsène-wenger#YVePvSaZGLMl8FYy.99

 

[samshere]

To loan or not to loan is the question. And I think our management gives a lot of thought to that. We've had exceptional talent like wilshere loaned out, other people are retained in the squad. Players like bellerin get a chance in the squad even though they haven't performed that well on loan, because our team obviously rightly realises that there are a lot of factors involved in a player performing at a high level. To my mind there are three important factors considered while developing a player
1.Talent/potential exhibited at the player age level
2.Maturity of the player, both physical and mental
3.Squad situation of both Arsenal and the loaned club with regards to the particular player position

A combination of the above will decide if the player is to be loaned or made a part of the squad. Player development is an art not an exact science. I don't think that there should be a one size fits all policy with regards to player development.

Great idea for a thread btw...

 

[MutableEarth]

You mention Wilshere, but even he went on loan. And I really don't see this as a problem given that we have since abandoned the model somewhat in favor of experience some 4/5 years ago now. There are young players we have who probably deserve more of an opportunity to play for us than some of the "experience" we have but do not get that opportunity.

 

[albakos]

The loan system is quite effective if you manage to find a team which plays a similar type of football to your parent team.

I remember Wilshere went to loan at Bolton, which at the time I think was managed by Coyle. Now he's history but I remember they played some impressive football passing football when he first took over. Same was with Song, who after coming back from Charlton loan was visibly better and it didn't take long for him to get his position in midfield.

Which is why I think some loans are simply wrong. Gnabry going to a hoofball WBA is typical example.

 

[WhatAFC]

La liga teams have B teams in the 3rd tier of their league. This makes a massive difference to the development of their young players because they still train the way the first teams do but they get competitive football.

It would mean a complete restructuring of the divisions below the championship though.

 

[bingobob]

You mention Wilshere, but even he went on loan. And I really don't see this as a problem given that we have since abandoned the model somewhat in favor of experience some 4/5 years ago now. There are young players we have who probably deserve more of an opportunity to play for us than some of the "experience" we have but do not get that opportunity.

My answer to that lies in what you've said.

7 or 8 years ago young players would have developed with us. They would have taken the places of 30 year olds who were either offered a one year extension or nothing at all. Now we are transitioning where we are retaining the older players and sending out younger players. As such it's more necessary to hold onto those older players to pad out the squad.

In that transition there will be winners (the older players) and losers (players like the Ox who are left in a limbo between the two phases and those in the new phase who were gearing toward first team development to now transitioning to loan development.)

For those who've just experienced the new phase it's a massive change and one which may catch people out. In the case of Coquelin you cam argue his loan helped him realise his potential.

 

[BBF]

It makes sense, but I dislike the idea of hoarding players in the same way Chelsea do and messing about with their future. It's also difficult because teams in our league or the championship won't play our players unless they're one of the best players in the team. Clubs usually tend to focus on their own players rather than loanee's as well.