Football Academies. A Boulevard of Broken Dreams?

I know this article about Dan Burn is written to prove that some players can survive rejection and go on to a successful career as a professional footballer what about the underlying numbers? 11% of 14,000+ PL academy players go on to make at least 20 professional appearances but that means 89% don't. On average, 4 players per EFL club from their academies went on to make their 1st team debut last season. But how many don't make it that far or don't go on to make a career out of football?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge1vvr84wno

With this in mind is it worth teams like RUFC investing in academies, especially when the PL are hoovering up and spitting out the top prospects?

I don’t know why we have one, an expensive extra that produces very little

unfortunately in my view the EFL and the associated bodies don't really care about those broken dreams, it is all about the individual clubs. A possible approach is that L1 and L2 clubs don't have academies or youth systems, but they all contribute the same % of revenue (or another number) to regional academies. The infrastructure of those academies (set up using the UEFA academy designs) is funded via a % from the Premier league, smaller % from the championship, % from parachute payments, % from the FA and a % built into TV deals for the EFL. These regional academies cover both men and womens football and there is a draft model similar to US sport for those that graduate to enter the EFL. Any sell on deals money goes to the first club and a % to the regional academy.
Just an idea

It's worth investing in a set-up for the young men who fall out of the 'elite' academies at an older age (16 as a minimum) but any younger is little more than a poor mirror of legitimate set-ups. There are obviously a lot of young men who (along with their families) have made a lot of sacrifices to get to the latter stages of larger academies, and in that number will be decent prospects for our level. Scouting professionals these days is a much easier job than pre-internet/data/stat tracking days, so if we're spending as much in that area today it's wasted. Focus on a 'second chance' set-up in a streamlined version of an academy, and get the better prospects around the first team at the earliest opportunity - the best of them will adapt and learn quickly if given the right exposure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UlleyMiller

It's worth investing in a set-up for the young men who fall out of the 'elite' academies at an older age (16 as a minimum) but any younger is little more than a poor mirror of legitimate set-ups. There are obviously a lot of young men who (along with their families) have made a lot of sacrifices to get to the latter stages of larger academies, and in that number will be decent prospects for our level. Scouting professionals these days is a much easier job than pre-internet/data/stat tracking days, so if we're spending as much in that area today it's wasted. Focus on a 'second chance' set-up in a streamlined version of an academy, and get the better prospects around the first team at the earliest opportunity - the best of them will adapt and learn quickly if given the right exposure.

---

I like that, it is about being creative and innovating. That takes good leadership and our club doesn't have that.

Putting it into practice the problem. When was the last time we had enough young players up to standard making the move up to the senior level? or a manager willing to give them a chance? Decades ago I'd say. We just aren't set up for it. Can't see us getting a manager either who'd stay long enough to see it through if we were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RU66

Putting it into practice the problem. When was the last time we had enough young players up to standard making the move up to the senior level? or a manager willing to give them a chance? Decades ago I'd say. We just aren't set up for it. Can't see us getting a manager either who'd stay long enough to see it through if we were.

---

It's not, and never should be, about the manager. These things are bigger than the incumbent management, and all our recruitment infrastructure should be, whether it's 16 year old trialists or 33 year old loan cover. The manager needs input and to understand the club's longer term aims, but should also be realistic about their place. We should never be in a situation where an incoming manager has to look at the legacy of numerous previous failed efforts to build a team, but should see a squad which is built around the club's general ideology and therefore something he can work with and pick a starting XI from.

Some of our better, more consistent players in recent times were with big clubs around the 16-21 age. That points to a level of scouting already done which likely outstrips anything we'd do, so even if they're not up to the PL, they're probably not far off first team standard in the bottom two tiers. Bramall (Arsenal), Viking (Villa), Humphreys (City), Rathbone (Manyoo), Barlaser (Newcastle) were all about 19/20 when they were discarded, and all were more than good enough for the third tier, if not higher. They are/were all more than capable of fitting into different systems, had something our fans could get on with, and generally appear to be decent lads. Hugill and Eaves, two of the more divisive players we've had were at the likes of Whitby/Port Vale and Oldham/Bolton at a similar age...

I make no claims this is a fool proof system, but it seems a lot more reliable than our academy or the acumen of Evans and Taylor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UlleyMiller

It's worth investing in a set-up for the young men who fall out of the 'elite' academies at an older age (16 as a minimum) but any younger is little more than a poor mirror of legitimate set-ups. There are obviously a lot of young men who (along with their families) have made a lot of sacrifices to get to the latter stages of larger academies, and in that number will be decent prospects for our level. Scouting professionals these days is a much easier job than pre-internet/data/stat tracking days, so if we're spending as much in that area today it's wasted. Focus on a 'second chance' set-up in a streamlined version of an academy, and get the better prospects around the first team at the earliest opportunity - the best of them will adapt and learn quickly if given the right exposure.

---

This is absolutely the right approach and one we should go with.

Theres an awfully large number of players per year dropped away but that doesn't mean they won't cut the mustard.

Equally, from first hand experience, a lot of PL acadamies have players they know won't ever cut it physically to compete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derbymiller

I like that, it is about being creative and innovating. That takes good leadership and our club doesn't have that.

---

I've said many times we have to understand our place a little more. We'll likely always be a small team from a poor, unfashionable northern town, but that can be a positive if you foster an underdog culture and are prepared to do things a little differently instead of just copying the formula others work to. Of course it's great to bring through a Wiles, straight off the local park, but there's absolutely no problem picking up a Viktor or a Barlaser - there was just as much of a bond with those lads as Wiles. If done right, the alternative route should be more cost effective and a lot more productive.

We aren't a big enough club it's going to be down to whose the manager at the time to oversea all aspects of running the football side of the club incl' bringing young players through. Warney failed on that he got shut of Yates.