Liam Palmer

[scram]

thanks for such a thorough and interesting reply mate.

you're right in recalling that i did attend academy games in the past but not anymore. the reasons for that are:

a) general falling out of love with football due to disenchantment with the hated Premiership and venal modern footballer

b) the DREADFUL standard of our academy sides

c) the DREADFUL standard of most academy sides in general

i used to go along with me dad and the extraordinary thing was the incredible (and depressing) similarity between the teams at U-18 level. Big, aggressive, one-paced. Big goal kicks, hunt the second ball, get in the mixer. Full-backs belting it down the channels, fit forwards chasing it. No flair and very little technical ability. Lads and teams that had it shone out. The two best sides i ever saw were Southampton about four or five years ago (superb in every dept) and Middlesbro around the same time. Far better sides than those of the so-called big Four that came to town.

the last time i saw our academywas when palmer, modest and cottingham were in the U-16s. I hadnt heard of any of them apart from modest but we wandered up to the top pitch to watch.There were three or four others who looked like real players too. Modest looked terrific, cottingham very classy and full of energy (me dad said he reminded him of ronnie whelan) and palmer (a striker at the time) was all pace, skill and creativity. I thought they all had a decent chance of progressng to the first team subject to the usual caveats regarding women and booze, injuries etc etc

So i am very depressed to see that only palmer appears to have a future in the game. What's gone wrong? i honestly wouldnt know but there's a real dropout in performance, to borrow a concept from your reply above, going on and i think macauley should be asked to explain why that is. there might be a very genuine reason for it but who knows?

I do think that the academy very clearly needs a massive overhaul and an injection of cash, no doubt.

i'd love to know the secret of boro and southampton's success. any ideas? is it largely due to having very good staff?

At the risk of sounding like a deranged parrott - i firmly believe a good academy is due to its staff and not finances - obviously increased finances can hire better staff which can make the academy better etc etc - but some very good academies don't have big financial muscle.

Saints is an acaemy i know a bit about - not so much Boro - but Saints have a good learning environment fostered by good staff and continuity - they "had" a superb facility but there new(ish) manager has comandeered large parts of it for the 1st team and so the academy is dispersed (on the same site) but in lesser facilites - it's one of the reasons that i always prefer there to be some distance in line management between 1st team and academy - but the people are good, decent people and take a great interest in the holistic development of their kids

I do believe our academy requires an overhaul - and not just in finances but also personnel - a new structure and new staff who have track records in player development

I might not know our academy but i do know academy football - look at what we have to offer prospective signings (not talking about a nicely cut pitch or a decent array of gym equipment here either) - but you're trying to sell our academy to a highly rated youngster - and you can say "errr we rarely win games and we rarely get players through to the 1st team" - there is a reason why good academies get good players and poorer academies get poorer players - and for that reason alone a staff overhaul who aren't tainted by the failures of the past is necessary imo.

More and more clubs are now realising the benefit of a productive youth system and placing more emphasis in this area - we run the risk of being further left behind unless we act decisively

[adamwestsleftear]

and as for these "targets"

thats a terribler idea,,it just means coaches will be working to meet the target rather than giving youngsters the development they need

its a very labour thing,with the nhs,they creaters so many targets,patients were losing out in tersm of qaulity of care,,

you cant polish a turd,and i think mcauldly is doing fine with the resources

[scram]

and as for these "targets"

thats a terribler idea,,it just means coaches will be working to meet the target rather than giving youngsters the development they need

If the playet isn't developing then the targets won't be met ffs - one begets the other, they're not mutually exclusive!

[adamwestsleftear]

If the playet isn't developing then the targets won't be met ffs - one begets the other, they're not mutually exclusive!

id say it would be foolish to try and qauntify "development"

who will be deciding who is good enough and who isnt,,?

the same guy that has targets to meet by any chance?

more worrying would be any emthasis on results

results are meaningless,and if we are to develop young players,we need to encourage them to play techincal football,neat ,one touch,and not be hoofing it megson style to get results,cos that will just lead to "big lads",playing "non football" at the expense of improvement

im sure you know more about the academy than me scam,so i will bow to your wisdom

Edited April 23, 2011 by adamwestsleftear

[scram]

id say it would be foolish to try and qauntify "development"

who will be deciding who is good enough and who isnt,,?

the same guy that has targets to meet by any chance?

more worrying would be any emthasis on results

The targets are set through the academy by the head of the academy in conjunction with his assistant - the people who have to meet the targets are those delivering the coaching

- and the targets are related to player development - a good academy manager knows every player at his academy - he knows through his tracke record and experience what he is expecting at each group and individually with each player - he will also know the expected drop-out rate at each age group in academies generally and within his own - this is what enables him to assess what he feels is acceptable in terms of individual progress and collectively as group development.

The emphasis is never on results - i know an academy that aged u14 went from november to early march unbeaten - against invariably bigger clubs with much more money and resources - so even though thropughout their unbeaten run they had a couple of players playing up - they started to play 6-7 players up which obviously weakened the u14 group as they were playing a number of u13's and the weaker (and released) members of the u14's - so they started losing games which was expected but the real result was getting so many of that age group to successfully play at a year higher - so this is one objective marker that can be used - the developmental stage of those players was generally one year higher than their chronological age - so that can easily become a legitimate target (as i outlined earlier) - along with the amount of players (numbers or percentage) retained - if the coach is expected to be able to keep the development on track of say 10 players - and he does that because at least that number is retained - then he has met his target - multiply this through the different age groups and hopefully you can see how targets can be set and met/not met.

results are meaningless,and if we are to develop young players,we need to encourage them to play techincal football,neat ,one touch,and not be hoofing it megson style to get results,cos that will just lead to "big lads",playing "non football" at the expense of improvement

The big lads powering their way to overcome weak opponents is largely a myth - because sooner or later the big/strong kid isn't comparatively big and strong any more - if all a player has is size then he won't last as the technical players ctach up his size he will get left behind.

I don't know any academy where they are more interested in getting results than they are developing players - because ultimately the job of the academy boss depends on developing good players - not winning matches

[Guest foreverSWFC]

I don't know any academy where they are more interested in getting results than they are developing players - because ultimately the job of the academy boss depends on developing good players - not winning matches

Then why do England never produce technically gifted players? Obviously, alot of academy set ups in the country are getting it wrong if we are not producing the best players in the world.

Certainly at grass roots level winning is the main objective, coaches do not really care about developing the players skills it's all about winning the games.

[scram]

Then why do England never produce technically gifted players? Obviously, alot of academy set ups in the country are getting it wrong if we are not producing the best players in the world.

Certainly at grass roots level winning is the main objective, coaches do not really care about developing the players skills it's all about winning the games.

Firstly we do produce some excellent technical footballers - but admittedly not enough

The real answer is complex and multifactorial and can be traced back to the initial inception of the academy structure - an excellent idea but badly implemented - some clubs started drifting away from some of the criteria and further changes are underway. Seeds sown today can take many years to produce fruit so the evidence takes time to become apparent

Then there is the vexed problem of globalisation - where the bigger clubs scour the globe for their talent - so a kid at Arsenal isn't just competing to be one of the best in his region - but in the world - and that's tough

At grass roots level there is incredible resistance to change among (usually) parents who want their 10 year olds playing 11 a side on full sizw pitches - they want leagues (kids aren't bothered) and they want to be able to win plastic baubles to brag about. It is far from conducive to player development

Also English football is the least technically demanding of the big leagues so the initial technical requirement isn't as high - let's use an example of say...Carlton Cole - there's no way such a technically limited footballer would have had such an illustrious career outside the UK

[Guest foreverSWFC]

Firstly we do produce some excellent technical footballers - but admittedly not enough

The real answer is complex and multifactorial and can be traced back to the initial inception of the academy structure - an excellent idea but badly implemented - some clubs started drifting away from some of the criteria and further changes are underway. Seeds sown today can take many years to produce fruit so the evidence takes time to become apparent

Then there is the vexed problem of globalisation - where the bigger clubs scour the globe for their talent - so a kid at Arsenal isn't just competing to be one of the best in his region - but in the world - and that's tough

At grass roots level there is incredible resistance to change among (usually) parents who want their 10 year olds playing 11 a side on full sizw pitches - they want leagues (kids aren't bothered) and they want to be able to win plastic baubles to brag about. It is far from conducive to player development

Also English football is the least technically demanding of the big leagues so the initial technical requirement isn't as high - let's use an example of say...Carlton Cole - there's no way such a technically limited footballer would have had such an illustrious career outside the UK

Although i do love the English game, this is what annoys me and why i prefer to watch spanish football, unless we adopt a more technically minded style of football, i don't believe England will be able to compete in the World Cup and Euros.

[Bluesteel]

I agree about Carlton Cole and also Darren Bent. If your tall, quick, strong with a good shot you have every chance in England.

A mate of my colleague at work worked at Sunderland and Bent was a prime example of a player whou couldn't do passing, crossing etc but was great at battering down the channel and getting a shot off.

I think in England we produce the odd class player such as Beckham, Rooney, Wilshere? And all hope is pinned on them. Whereas Spain or France churn out 3 at a time which makes their side so much better.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Bluesteel

[torryowl]

[/b]

Although i do love the English game, this is what annoys me and why i prefer to watch spanish football, unless we adopt a more technically minded style of football, i don't believe England will be able to compete in the World Cup and Euros.

real and barca are arguably the best in the world as for the rest it doesnt compare to the prem and the lower down you go the worse it gets ,i watch segunda games at elche who are in the play -off spots and would wager they would struggle to stay in the championship .

[Last_Great_Hope]

Just on the original OP regarding giving Palmer some game time now we are safe - I watched the Millwall - Preston game yesterday. Millwall have a bit of a Striker crisis with three first teamers out so played McQuoid (21)and a teenager called Marquis (18). Interviewer asks, Are you worried about having two young strikers up front in this crucial game?

Kenny Jackett answers - "No of course not. Afterall, whats the point in having good young players at the club if we don't give them the chance when we can?"

They went on to play very well and score a goal each in a very comfortable performance.

[shtommer]

Reasons not to do this:

a) We're playing teams scrapping for relegation, it's unprofessional and unfair on their rivals

b) We need as many points as we can get

c) JOC has rediscovered form and got his place back - totally unfair on him

I like Palmer but he should get in on merit or not at all

[TheBoyBeevers]

Reasons not to do this:

a) We're playing teams scrapping for relegation, it's unprofessional and unfair on their rivals

b) We need as many points as we can get

c) JOC has rediscovered form and got his place back - totally unfair on him

I like Palmer but he should get in on merit or not at all

It's totally unfair on us that we've had to watch a few weeks short of 3 years of his abysmal performances.

The fact that he has decided to put in a few half decent games when his contract is up soon shouldn't mean he becomes part of our long term plans.

[scram]

Reasons not to do this:

a) We're playing teams scrapping for relegation, it's unprofessional and unfair on their rivals

b) We need as many points as we can get

c) JOC has rediscovered form and got his place back - totally unfair on him

I like Palmer but he should get in on merit or not at all

It's got sod all to do with other teams - how we look after our young players and when we choose to give them 1st team exposure is entirely up to us

In many ways this is the perfect time to give the youngsters some game time

[nick-swfc-]

Its not going to do him or us any harm at all.

Give him a game Megson!!

[Salmonbones]

guys,just as you all stupidly said that coke/miller in the middle was the way to go,,

coke/palmer,would be rubbish

no professional manager is going to play to offensive midfielders in the middle

not irvine,not megson,,the reason being is that,,its unbalanced

as it happens i agree that palmers should be given more game time,and im surprised that megosn hasnt used him more in light of his good cup preformance

coke has been frozen out under megson so dont expect to see him,,

id go o"conner/palmer,,,it atually has balence

Sheridan/Palmer

Now, most will say Palmer was defensive, however at times he was VERY attack minded, had an engine like you wouldn't believe, and would bust a gut to get past our forward line when possible. I even saw him score a hat trick once.

You can have two attack minded central midfielders, if they are good enough.

Edit: What i'm suggesting I suppose is a flair midfielder next to a box to box midfielder, opposed to an advanced midfielder next to a defensive midfielder.

Edited April 24, 2011 by salmonbones

[malek]

We should forget all about this bloody specialist role for central midfielders.

We need two of them that have skill to attack, and passion to defend.

[Salmonbones]

Malek, while I agree to a certain extent, how often do you recall some of the best midfielders ever adopting much by the way of an all round game?

I can't remember Sheridan making a vast amount of tackles, or Danny Wilson making many defence splitting passes, they were both good at what they were good at, and no one tried to change their game.

Edit: Both were good at the basic stuff though - , which is something we seem to lack with our current crop of midfield players, going back quite some time! Yes, Sheridan COULD tackle if the need arose but rarely did, and Wilson did sometimes turn playmaker, although very very infrequently.

Edited April 24, 2011 by salmonbones

[scram]

We should forget all about this bloody specialist role for central midfielders.

We need two of them that have skill to attack, and passion to defend.

So you're coming round to my way of thinking at last

[Guest Distraught!]

Reasons not to do this:

a) We're playing teams scrapping for relegation, it's unprofessional and unfair on their rivals

b) We need as many points as we can get

c) JOC has rediscovered form and got his place back - totally unfair on him

I like Palmer but he should get in on merit or not at all

All of that assumes that Palmer wouldn't be up to the job and no improvement to the team would come of it.

Recently, the Pigs have thrown in a few of their younger players. I bet they wished they had done so sooner!

Palmer would have the luxury of playing when there is absolutely no pressure or demand on the team.

Why not give it a go?