Lyon Are Also Becoming Baby Poachers
By: Inara | November 12th, 2008Readers of this blog will know how much I detest Arsene Wenger and his policy of stealing the youth players of other clubs. I know other clubs do it too (Chelsea is another notable example), but Arsenal do it every other day. In fact, I protested this post that praised Arsenal’s youth system chiefly because Arsenal’s youth system is really just Arsene systematically purchasing well known young prospects from other clubs.
I don’t like this at all, and I fully support Michel Platini’s call for helping clubs protect their homegrown talent. It’s not fair when a club spends a lot of time and money into developing a player, and then losing him for pennies because the labor laws in their countries prevent them from signing players to pro-contracts until they reach a certain age. I remember how annoyed I was when Arsenal came sniffing around Clement Grenier last year.
So you can imagine my horror this morning when I was confronted by two pieces of news. First, Lyon have just signed Ishak Belfodil, a 16 year old Algerian attacker from Clermont-Ferrond. Belfodil was also wanted by Chelsea, who sign young French players for fun these days.
Adam Maher (left) is still just a child.
The second piece of news is that Lyon are in hot pursuit of Adam Maher, a 15 year old midfielder at AZ Alkmaar. Apparently, Remi Garde has been to the Netherlands several times to observe him, and now Lyon want to take advantage of the fact that AZ can’t sign Maher to a pro-contract until he’s 16. Lyon are offering Maher a five year contract and have also offered his parents employment (a tactic Lyon have undoubtedly learned from Real Madrid).
This is HORRIBLE. Have Lyon decided that if they can’t beat the big European clubs at their game, they might as well join in? I mean, French teams stealing from Dutch teams is like poor people stealing from homeless people. This is bad manners, Lyon. Bad. And no, paying rock bottom transfer fees doesn’t count.
Of course, Lyon aren’t totally following in Arsenal’s footsteps here, as these kind of signings are still rather rare for the club. For the most part, Lyon are focusing on their own academy and are intent on promoting their own homegrown players. This season alone, Claude Puel has given Anthony Mounier, Lamine Gassama, and Sebastien Faure chances to shine. But my fear is that Lyon will steal homegrown talent of other clubs with greater frequency in the coming years, especially since they have the financial muscle and the appeal to bring in players like Maher. Also keep in mind that OL recently snapped up 17 year old Timothée Kolodziejczak from Lens last summer.
And while I applaud anything that makes Lyon stronger, I worry this behavior portends a bad future for Ligue 1 as a whole. It’s hard to take the moral high ground if French clubs, who constantly bemoan losing their youth, do it themselves. Those safeguards to protect homegrown talent may never materialize if Lyon continue to set a bad example for the rest of the league.
Category: Team News and Rumors
Tags: Academy, Adam Maher, Anthony Mounier, Arsenal, Arsene Wenger, AZ Alkmaar, Clement Grenier, Ishak Belfodil, Lamine Gassama, Michel Platini, Sebastien Faure, Team News and Rumors, Timothée Kolodziejczak, YouthSubscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
Inara, about Plessis I have to dissagree. If he turns into a top level EPL play (or Ligue 1 player) it -will- be as a result of Benitez’ willingness to play him.
If Houllier had left Benzema in the reserves, never played him, and Benzema had joined Monaco (or anywhere) two seasons later, would you feel right in saying that Benzema’s talent is “thanks to Lyon”? Plessis played very exactly 0 minutes (in all competitions) for Lyon. He was 19. It’s not like Benitez swooped down on a 15 year-old Pele that Lyon were just waiting to play as soon as they could register him. No. Lyon had three managers who didn’t play him since he was eligible to play in Ligue 1 : Perrin, Houllier, Le Guen. None of them thought he was good enough (or they’d have played him/not sold him). Benitez thought he was good enough, so yes, it is thanks to him that he has started getting experience, experience that will undoubtedly be just as important (if not more important) than anything else to help him fulfill his potential.
Instead of bashing Benitez, you should be asking how Houllier (and even more so) Perrin missed such a talent. If Gourcuff continues to be a brilliant player, and continues to feature for the french national team, I won’t claim it’s as a direct result of Rennes’ youth system. No. A player with such talent could have succeded at Nantes, at Lorient, at Guingamp… We were just “lucky” to get him. He left for Milan where he continued to improve, even though he didn’t play much (this season he’s a lot better than when he left Rennes), and the experience he’ll be getting through playing regularly in the Champions’ League is something Rennes probably never would have been able to offer him. Silvestre started with Rennes, before going to Inter Milan and then Manchester United where he improved far beyond his playing level for Rennes.
Ultimately, it’s a player who succeedes in expressing his talent, the club is just a facilitator. Would Benzema have been as good if he had joined Grenoble when he was young? If Briand had joined instead of Benzema, would Briand be as good as Benzema? Or would Briand have been perhaps just a little better being trained at Lyon instead of Rennes, but still Briand? And Benzema would still be a brilliant talent if he had been brought through a Ligue 2 side (like Hoarau)?
A player is only good if he plays. You can have Pele and Maradonna on your bench, but if you don’t play them, they’re worthless. If afterwards they join another club and become brilliant, how can you claim a part in their success, when you didn’t even risk playing them? Plessis could be the best player ever, Benitez’ role will be just as important (if not more, since he actually -played- Plessis) as Lyon’s.
Posted from
China
-
Shazback, I don’t think you’re getting the source of my ire here. I’m not “bashing” Rafa . But there’s a difference between developing a player and giving a player a chance. Both are equally important to a player’s success. On the matter of Plessis for example, he learned his trade at Lyon, not just the skills but the discipline to accompany his innate talent, and it was for that reason that Rafa took him to Liverpool. Plessis is now benefiting from playing time, yes, and I’m glad he left Lyon to get it (I’m not blaming Rafa at all here), and should Plessis make a name for himself, Rafa deserves credit for unearthing this player. But not for developing him. Not for teaching him. There is a difference.
Gourcuff is a very talented player, and yes, perhaps he would have succeeded at any academy he attended. But it was at Rennes he learned his football. He was developed there. He left there already earmarked as a very bright talent. At Milan and Bordeaux, he got a wider variety of experience, but as a footballer, his development was already complete. There are a lot of talented players across France, but without the right training, without the right coaching, without the right support and discipline, these players never reach their full potential. Saying that academies are just “lucky” to have these sort of players really belittles all the work the academies do in producing them. If it were that easy to make good players, people wouldn’t be freaking out over England’s lack of a good youth development program or praising academies like Clairefontaine. Kids could just join whatever club they wanted and let their innate talent do all the work for them.
Posted from
United States -
Arsenal have never gone so far as too offer players parents jobs in order to lure them to the club. Also Wenger and the people at Arseanl make sure players, like Aliadiere, get their chance to prove themselves in top level football, which they might never get at their previous club, and believe me, some people feel that these players get too much of a chance from Wenger. Also Arsenal work hard to provide opportunities for players that dont make it at Arsenal. For example, James Dunne, Abu Ogogo, and Paul Rodgers were allowed to go on loan to Nottingham Forsest but none received offers immediatly, so Arsenal took them back and let them continue to play reserve football until they got another chance, and now Forest have agreed to sign Dunne. I think despite the fact that yes, Arsenal does “poach” players, they are by far the classiest in going about it.
In my personal opinion though, I think its good for the young players to go to Arsenal and work under Wenger, if they work hard enough they will almost certainly get a chance and if they dont make it they will usually still end up better than they started off. Plus by signing players at a younger age it allows them to adapt to their new home alot better, get to know the club and become a part of it, instead of a player just coming in for money.
Posted from
United States -
Kelly: Believe me, I am most unhappy with Lyon’s antics over Maher. And yes, I agree that for some players, moving to Arsenal was a good decision. But perhaps it’s because I see small clubs in France robbed of 15 year olds on a seemingly regular basis, that makes me so against poaching. Maybe the player benefits, but the formative clubs often get nothing. Clubs like Lyon, Marseille, PSG, and other top French sides can protect themselves to a certain extent by offering attractive contracts, but smaller clubs can’t. I understand that a player wants to leave for better opportunities, but like I said above, there should be a system of greater compensation.
Posted from
United States -
When you say like for the success of Fabregas, there is also Aliadiere, do you mean this in the way that for every good player Wenger signs, there are also not as good ones? Or do you mean for every success like Fabregas, there is also the damaging effect of coming to Arsenal, which can be seen with Aliadiere?
Posted from
United States -
A major problem is the countrys laws themselves. Im not sure if France is like Italy, where players can not sign pro contracts until they are 17 (i think its 17), where as in England they can at 16, which allows them to earn more money, but that is not really something the clubs can stop. There is always going to be someone taking advantage of this, if it wasnt one team it would be another. Its down to whoever can change the rules on this to make sure smaller teams get a better deal.
Posted from
United States -
Kelly: It’s the second, that for every Fabregas, there is an Aliadiere that was damaged by the move. It’s not just Wenger either. Evilo pointed out what happened when Le Tallec and Sinama left before their development was complete. So it can be very hit or miss sometimes.
Also, in France, I believe the age a player can sign a contract is 17 (which is why Lyon are offering Maher’s parents a job, and Maher a “trainee” contract which would later be replaced by a real contract). So yes, it’s the laws of a country that is creating these loopholes. But think about it. These labor laws were created to protect kids. And clubs are taking advantage of them in a big way – sometimes it turns out good, sometimes bad. Better the kids stay for another year or two until they are good and ready to leave.
Posted from
United States -
Well, i just want to point out that even since Aliadiere has left Arsenal, all he has had to say is praise for Arsenal.
When he played against Arsenal (and scored) last season, he said:
“Sometimes you get a bad run, but they need to get over it. They need a good result to get their confidence back. I really hope they go and win it,” he said.“I was here nine years, and you can’t just forget that.
“It is still my club, even though I didn’t play as much as I wanted to.
“I always look for their result and I still support them. It’s nice to come back here, and very special to get a goal.”
I doubt a player who felt “damaged” by his time at Arsenal would go on to root for them to win the league and say such kind things. Also other past Arsenal players, who are French, like Henry and Pires have had good things to say about Arsenal and Wenger, so I think you are over reacting when you single them out as the worst. Arsenal imo are the best at signing young talented players, getting the most out of them, and giving them a fair chance. Other teams that have since started to do the same are the ones who are using low morals and money to lure youngsters, and imo it is they who are the worst.
Also unfortuntly I think because of the economic situation this problem is just going to get worse, as more and more teams are be trying to spend a little here, in order so they dont have to spend alot later on.Posted from
United States -
ps i am going to bed, will reply in the morning
Posted from
United States -
I’m not saying that Plessis’ whole development as a footballer is down to Benitez, but de facto a considerable part of it will be.
Cantona was praised as one of the best players in his time, but his temper and unwillingness to commit to a fixed position in midfield made him something of a journeyman in the French League. At 22 he broke the French transfer record (22 Million Francs) to join Marseille, and had been one of the most promising players in France’s U21 European Champion side of 1988, providing two assists to Sauzee (who also joined Marseille in 1988) in the final. But in less than six months he had been banned from the national team for a year (insulting Henri Michel, then NT manager), and suspended for a month by Marseille for throwing his shirt to the ground after being subbed. After his suspension, Marseille loaned him to Bordeaux and Montpellier, where he was good but didn’t convince the clubs to sign him. He then returned to Marseille (1990-1991), had six good months with Beckenbauer as manager, and was then dropped by Goethals who found him not hard-working enough. Cue a cut-cost transfer to Nimes, where he took five months to get suspended for three months.
Then, he joined Leeds, and Manchester United the following season and blossomed (although he kept his short temper). Why? Because he wass played in a completely different role. In -all- the french clubs he had been asked to play as either a striker or a winger, yet never as an attacking midfielder. At Man U he was fielded as a midfielder alongside a “hard man” to keep him in check and do defensive duties (Ince/Keane), with two wingers to help him go forwards (Kanchelskis/Beckham/Giggs/Sharpe). He was given more freedom, and he responded perfectly to it. He was played lower on the pitch, and in the middle, instead of high or wide. So who gets the credit? Auxerre, who trained him as a striker? Beckenbauer who played him behind Papin, but still as a striker? Ferguson, who curbed his temper and played him as a playmaker?
I feel that Cantona owes equal parts to Auxerre, Ferguson and himself (and perhaps also to Guy Roux and Manchester United). Sure, had Auxerre not taken him, and he had joined some CFA-level side, he might have never made the cut (being very aggressive, etc.). But Auxerre had nothing to do with him becoming the great player he was at Manchester United, seven years after leaving Auxerre.
Lyon are in a similar position with Plessis, in my opinion. Yes, they formed him, pruned him, and trained him. But how much was down to the club? Plessis’s own talent and hard work is what made it happen, just as much as the advice and facilities provided by Lyon. Plessis honoured his part of the deal (training hard, turning out for the reserves in boring, rough games against part-timers, so forth), and Lyon fulfilled their part of the deal (training in good facilities, top coaches, etc.). But Lyon didn’t feel like taking it up to the next level. Perhaps Lyon used to play Plessis as a deep-laying midfielder (like Essien/Diarra/Toulalan) or as an axial midfielder (like Juninho/Tiago/Bodmer), and felt he wasn’t good enough. Benitez (from what I’ve seen) has used him as a deep winger/left midfielder. Perrin/Houllier might not have thought he was able to play in such a position. And so perhaps it -is- down to Benitez recognising that he should be playing on the wing that Plessis has taken another level.
So Plessis owes to Lyon, Benitez and himself in equal parts? Perhaps. But he owes certainly something to Benitez, who is actually giving him playing time.
(I just thought of this, but would you say Cristiano Ronaldo hasn’t been trained by Ferguson and developed as a player? He scored and played quite often in his first season at Man U, but he was a long way away from the level he now has. If Plessis does the same, who gets the credit? Lyon who brought Plessis to being a player not good enough for Ligue 1/Coupe de la Ligue/Coupe de France by age 19, or Benitez/Liverpool who took him to being good enough for Champions’ League/International by age 24?)
About the state of football in the UK, I’m not -that- concerned. The main reason it’s bad is because of stupid rules enacted by the FA after Man U’s “fledgelings” in 1996-1997 that limited to a 1-hour transit/90 mile radius for academies. They also dismantled the national training center that had given Owen, Joe Cole and Wes Brown… Now they’re setting it up again, after realising they fucked up. And I think the 90 mile rule will fall soon, since it’s impractical and doesn’t provide results. However, all is not as bad as it seems. France didn’t beat Scotland either time when they played in the Euro qualifiers, Northern Ireland came very close to qualifying too, after beating Spain 3-2… And Wales didn’t do too bad either (being Wales, that is). If the UK fielded only one team (60 million people in the UK, like France), then I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be so worried about the youth situation. A quick look at Man U’s academy point out the problem : Evans plays for Northern Ireland, Gray plays for Scotland, Gibson plays for Rep. of Ireland, O’Shea plays for Rep. of Ireland, Fletcher plays for Scotland… And that’s just those that have made it to the pro squad (cutting out the dead wood). None of those players were “poached”. They were eligible for more than one “home nation” and chose to not play for England. (Giggs too, in fact, but I glossed him over because it was so obvious). Champions’ League final in 2008? 10 English players (all starters), 1 Welsh & 1 Scottish (both on the bench), as well as one Irish player brought up through an English youth system (on the bench). 12 “UK” players, and 1 non-UK player from a UK youth system. And that’s Man U and Chelsea’s final squads, only them.
England didn’t qualify for the 2008 Euro, and that’s what crystallised all the fears about England’s competitive future. But do you really have fears for the long term and the future of the English national side? England’s U-21’s are on a 21-game unbeaten streak, were semi-finalists in the 2007 U-21 EURO (losing out to the Netherlands 13-12 on penalties after a 1-1 draw, Netherlands went on to win 4-1 in the final), so I think they’re doing at least as well as the French U-21s, who didn’t qualify for the 2007 U-21 EURO after losing to Israel… (yea, Israel, who went on to prove their credentials by scoring 0 goals, conceding 6 and losing all 3 of their games in the tournament proper.)
I’m just thinking of how different 2002 and 2006 could have been for England if Giggs had been part of the squad. Or Rush in 1990, or Hughes in 1992, or McCoist in 1988, or Best in 1968… Gosh, the UK would have had some pretty nice teams!
Posted from
China -
I’ll try to be shorter.
Promise!
For Le Tallec and Sinama-Pongolle, it just goes to show that when players are 16, they’re still far from a complete player.
1989 :
Golden Ball : James Will (SCO)
Golden Boot : Fode Camara (GUI), Khalid Al-Roaihi (KSA), Nelson Gil (POR), Tulipa Cruz (POR), Flag of Bahrain Khaled Jasem (BHN) [shared]
“Rising Stars” : Serginho (BRA), Henry Zambrano (COL), Fode Camara (GUI), Victor Ikpeba (NGA), Godwin Okpara (NGA), Luis Figo (POR), James Will (SCO), Claudio Reyna (USA).How many became -anything- beyond average players? The Serginho in question is not the one that went on to play for AC Milan, but another one who stayed for his whole career in Brazil. Zambrano was a good player, but a long way from being anything close to a world-beater. Fode Camara never made a mark on world football, and I bet is far less known that the artist of the same name. Ikpeba rose quite high, winning the Olympics in 1996 and the french league with Monaco (and Wenger)… But flopped in Germany and Spain, and with less than 200 professional games to count went to play in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Okpara came to europe with Ikpeba, but didn’t get on quite as well, staying in the Belgian league after flopping in Ligue 1. Figo was clearly a success, so he’s one that they got “right”. James Will played only 7 games for four clubs (Arsenal, Sheffield Wednesday, Dumferline, Turriff) before becoming an amateur footballer. Reyna became a high roller for the US national team, and a reliable high-level player. No idea what became of Gil, Tulipa, Al-Roaihi and Jasem, but they’re no household names.
I could go on like that for every tournament. Sometimes they get more names right, sometimes they get less. But it’s not like Sinama-Pongolle and Antony Le Tallec were 100% certified geniuses who were ruined by their move to Liverpool. In 1989 (you can take another year, I just took it because of Saudi Arabia winnning against Scotland in the Final, with Bahrein 4th, something I’d love to see happen in a real world cup, just for giggles) only 1 of the prospects turned into a world class player, and only two or three rose to become good top-division players. Look at the “prospects” in 2001 :
Carlos Tevez (ARG), Caetano (BRA), Diego (BRA), Fernando Torres (ESP), Florent Sinama Pongolle (FRA), Anthony Le Tallec (FRA), Femi Opabunmi (NGA).
Tevez, Diego and Torres are pretty much already world-class… So perhaps the quota is filled? Sinama-Pongolle, Le Tallec, Caetano and Opabunmi should just fight out for perhaps one last place, that of the “good top division player”?
Posted from
China -
This is crazy. Almost all the renowned clubs like Barcelona/Ajax do it. They poach babies and turn them world class footballers. The most famous one being Messi, who was stolen at 11. And Barca is apparently crying foul over Fabregas move. And I tell you waht, Fabregas was himself plucked by Barca at a young age from a small club, Mataró. And you hate Wenger because you hate him. I hate him, I think he is a whinging wanker, but a talented one at that.
Posted from
United States -
Lol, so now a team’s academy is not much of importance?
So now, a guy coming through Rennes’s academy or Grenoble’s doesn’t make a difference?HELL YES it does.
Auxerre and Nantes for instance, as well as Le Havre or Caen developped many talents over the years and yet never had the financial means of Lyon, PSG or OM, which with their money could have signed the youngsters much easier than them.No, Auxerre, Nantes, Le Havre or Caen had good academies and good TEACHERS.
As for Houllier, I’ve stated many times how the epitome of prospects wasting. Plessis is one example. Another is that he refused to see Ben Arfa but refused to play him, or refused to sell Sinama and Le Tallec and insisted on them joining Liverpool WAY too soon, etc…
The guy just likes the possibility of having these kids next to him, but never trusts them enough.One thing Wenger does well is trust the kids.
Posted from
United States -
Evilo, how important are academies? Look at the France squad chosen today (I’ll throw in a few others afterwards) :
Hugo Lloris (Nice), Steve Mandanda (Le Havre), Yohann Pele (Le Mans)
Gael Clichy (Cannes), Escude (Cannes), Evra (PSG and Marsala), Rod Fanni (Martigues), William Gallas (Clairefontaine and Caen), Philippe Mexes (Toulouse and Auxerre), Bakary Sagna (Auxerre), Mikael Silvestre (Rennes)
Alou Diarra (Louhans-Cuiseaux), Lassana Diarra (Le Havre after being rejected by Nantes and Le Mans), Yoann Gourcuff (Lorient and Rennes), Samir Nasri (Marseille), Franck Ribery (Lille and Boulogne), Jeremy Toulalan (Nantes), Patrick Vieira (Trappes, Drouais and Tours)
Nicolas Anelka (PSG), Karim Benzema (Lyon), Jimmy Briand (Rennes), Thierry Henry (Les Ulis, Palaiseau, Viry-Chatillon, Clairefontaine and Monaco), Steve Savidan (Angers)Nice, Le Havre (2), Le Mans, Cannes (2), PSG (2), Marsala, Martigues, Clairefontaine (2), Caen, Toulouse, Auxerre (2), Rennes (3), Louhans-Cuiseaux, Lorient, Marseille, Lille, Boulogne, Nantes, Trappes, Drouais, Tours, Lyon, Les Ulis, Palaiseau, Viry-Chatillon, Monaco, Angers… It’s not like there were only five clubs in France that bred international-level players.
I said I’d add a few others : Abidal (Lyon-La Duchere), Squillaci (Toulon), Malouda (Remire and Chateauroux), Coupet (Le Puy), Sagnol (Saint-Etienne), Rothen (Caen and Troyes), Cisse (Nimes and Auxerre)
Zidane only joined Cannes when he was 15 after training for five years with Septimes-les-Vallons (non-league), Makelele trained from 9 to 16 with Savigny-le-Temple before joining Stade Brestois, and Nantes when he was 18, and just for the sake of it, here’s a few clubs where the France 1998 and 2000 team learnt their trade : Pires (Reims and Metz), Trezeguet (Platense), Petit (Argues), Blanc (Montpellier), Deschamps (Aviron Bayonnais and Nantes), Djorkaeff (Grenoble).
Given all that, I think that any difference there is between the club setup of Grenoble and Rennes is far less important than the actual quality of the player. The main work of an academy is to filter through a large number of very young players (9-14) in order to have a high concentration of talents. They don’t turn Johnny Doe into Benzemas. They just allow Benzemas to fulfil their talent. But Benzemas can succede also outside of academies, and often do…
Posted from
United States -
Benzemas have a much higher chance of failing at say Grenoble (meh, I really don’t have anything against Grenoble) than say Nantes, Auxerre, Rennes or Monaco.
An academy’s job is MUCH MORE than just scouting.
You named the clubs they played with before entering a real academy, and that’s irrelevant. A player really learns the finest points of football between 16 and 21.
Of course, very few players are born in Rennes and play for the Stade Rennais, what’s exactly is your point bringing up where a player played at age 9???I work for a school that prepares players for possible pro academies and until they’re 15, maybe 14, the club they play is is irrelevant. Not everyone lives 5 kms from a pro academy.
Posted from
United States -
So you’ll aggree that Wenger developed Fabregas (since he joined Arsenal when he was 16)?
Most people are of the mild belief that players learn continuously from age 10-11 to age 23-25.
I don’t know about your local sporting association’s academies, but in France, academies don’t start at 16.
Clairefontaine, for instance, is exclusively for students aged 13-15… And by that time they’ve already recognised the best talents in the Ile-De-France (and often beyond) region. In similar fashion, Rennes, Barcelona, and every single academy known to the footballing world as being worthwile of being mentioned in a discussion relevant to youth training have teams for U-11s, U-13s, etc. all the way to U-21s, and associated training structures… After all, how would Barcelona have known Messi was worth the energy by time 13 (and River Plate when he was 11) if he would only start learning the “finer points” of football three years later (by appearing in the Champions League, no doubt).
It might be a question of willing suspension of disbelief on my hand, but if Man U (amongst others) is ready to accept a 9 year-old from Australia in their youth teams, it is probably because (1) they have a setup for 9 or 10 year-olds, (2) they believe that training him from age 9 will be useful, and (3) by age 9 he is already more advanced than his peers.
P.S. I was just reviewing this before posting and I thought of the football club I played for at age 11 and 12, and how excited we were when the INF detection came to Antony to check up on us. And how none of us (even though we were doing quite well in our league) were retained for the next round of trials.
Posted from
United States -
Lol, local sporting association?
We’re sending kids to Stade Malherbe de Caen (and sometimes to Rennes or Strasbourg) every year, yes I’m in France.
ANd I’m telling you from my own experience that usually they take our guys at age 14-15. Once or twice, they sign a guy from our school at age 11, but THEY LET HIM in our structure until he’s old enough to enter the academy.
You’re not making any difference between youth teams from a pro club and its academy.Yes playing for a great academy at age 13 is important, but when you say a guy played in Club X at age 9, it serves no purpose.
Fabregas was in part developped by Arsenal yes.
Posted from
United States -
Evilo, I’m not saying that where a player is played when he’s aged 9 will define his success, but merely that talents express themselves regardless of where they are.
Take Thierry Henry. At age 13 he’s accepted at Clairefontaine. How did they know he was any good? Because he’d been playing in DH Fed-14 with Les Ulis when he was 12… He already had the most basic arsenal a footballer needs : ball control, passing, ball protection, shooting… Sure, he was only as good as a 13 year-old could be, but that meant that the training he received aged 9, 10, 11 and 12, however insignificant when compared to the countless hours he will do in but one year when he’s 18, were still very important.
I prefer the case of Makelele, who was signed from non-league Savigny-le-Temple straight to D1 side Brest when he was 17, less than one years later moved to Nantes (as a side-effect of Brest being administratively relegated to D3-Ouest), where he made his first D1 start barely 8 months later… From non-league to D1 in 20 months. Three years later, he’s won the French league and is called up by the French NT.
Academies do provide better chances for players to blossom (better facilities, more professional take on training, greater emulation between trainees), but I don’t think academies are more important than the players themselves. You can go back and look at the list of players I posted above. Some might change depending on your viewpoint, but I listed all their clubs prior to their first pro game (unless they joined said club and played as a pro within a year).
Vieira came through lower division teams (Trappes, Drouais, Tours), and after joining Cannes took only two months to get a start. Pires came through a team that was going from D2 to DH in consecutive years (Stade Reims), and took less than six months to become a regular starter for Metz. Deschamps joined Nantes from non-league Aviron Bayonnais, and within 20 months had his first D1 start, not even being 17. Zidane is similar, joining Cannes from non-league Septime-les-Vallons and getting his start within 18 months, also before he turned 17. Leboeuf started with D1 side Toulon aged 16, but was released to join D3 Heyeres when he was 18, only returning to D1 three years later (to be relegated)… And they all went on to win the most coveted trophy in football. I give credit to their talent more than to the academies that they played in for a few months before being asked to play as full professionals.
Posted from
United States -
Actually, it is very important to have a proper training before the age of 15. You will reach your VO2max (VMA pour les francophone) at the age of 15. So if nothing is done before this age, your VO2max will be low.
You can be very skillful and not be able to become a professional if your resistance is crap. So if manchester take a young talent when he is 9, they can make sure he reaches a high level of VO2max by giving him specific training. In modern football, it is crucial.
In fact, asians have a better VO2max compared to other races.Check what’s VO2max here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVO2Max
Shazback & Evilo: I always love your exchanges!
Posted from
Japan -
Shaz : I’m not disputing the fact the first factor is the player’s talent.
But I’ve seen oh so many talented players join average academies and fail there.
OTOH, younger, I’ve played with Frederic Née, who was clearly not the most talented player out of my promotion. Yet he went on to have a very good career and a NT selection.
Caen’s academy IMO, had a lot to do with that. If he had joined Alès, like a guy from our promotion that was much more talented, there’s a good chance he would have never reached more than CFA.Posted from
United States -
And the contrary is almost just as frequent… (Even though the most promising players from the INF join generally better academies and better clubs, since they’re “in demand”).
Here’s just a few of the players who went through the INF, joined good academies, but ultimately didn’t fulfil their talent : Lionel Mathis (joined Auxerre, never grew beyond just being a good D2 player), Reynald Lemaitre (joined Caen, just an average D1 player), Jacques Faty (joined Rennes, spent five good seasons and played 150 games, before joining Marseille and becoming instantly useless)… And this is only those that the INF talk about, since they recognise that of the 22 students that they have in each year, only 6 or 7 sign pro contracts.
Perhaps the difference between Frederic Nee and the other guy was very plainly how hard he worked… If the other guy had lots of talent but didn’t work hard in training, he would have flopped at Caen (and better academies than Ales probably didn’t offer him a place exactly for that reason), whilst someone less talented but who works hard can succede far better (hence Caen taking on Frederic Nee and Ji-Sung Park becoming a professional footballer).
Posted from
China -
Nah, the reason the other guy didn’t sign in Caen was that he was not too bright, schooling wise.
At the time, Caen had a very strict policy regarding results.
Of course, that has changed…
Would you say Créteil has a better academy than Auxerre?
Because they have one of the most impressive youth talent crop of the world at their disposal, and yet Auxerre builds more pro players.
See, not all has to do with the prime element.It’s like the discussion about the “innée” and “acquis”.
You can put two twins in two different families, they might have the same genetics, the same talents, but one will realize it better in Family A with better teachers than in Family B with average teachers.Posted from
United States -
And how many of Auxerre’s players come from Auxerre? In fact, how many of Auxerre’s players come from Creteil (or the Creteil area)?
After all, take a player like Abou Diaby. He grew up in the Paris area, and from there was taken into the INF. When he’s coming to the end of the INF training, he’s 15, he’s one of the best players his age in France… So when Creteil turn up alongside Auxerre, PSG and Marseille, they don’t even get a sideways glance. Afterwards, Auxerre have a good record of trusting young players, and they have good trainers, so the conditions are better than at Paris, Lyon or Marseille, and a lot better than Creteil (where he would probably become their most important player by the time he can grow a proper beard).
It’s kind of a false argument. If your argument was even half-right, then PSG should set up a youth structure of high quality (too bad if it costs an arm and a leg), and with over a sixth of the French population within a few hours, they would be winning leagues like there’s no tomorrow… Just imagine if every player from the Paris area still played for Paris : Anelka, Henry, Saha, Briand, Ben Arfa, Makelele, Dacourt, Diaby, Gallas, Evra, Piquionne, Boumsong, Diarra (Alou and Lassanna), Gouffran, Bellion, Cheyrou (both), Wiltord, Rothen, Vieira, Yohann Pele… There are probably a lot more, too.
Posted from
China -
Erh, no what I mean is that Créteil has good youth teams and a vast potential because their scouting is much easier than Auxerre.
However, Auxerre develops more prime players because 1/ they have more money to sign hyped youngsters (we’ll get back to that later) and 2/ because they’re a better academy.And your point about PSG is exactly what I’ve said : it takes more than financial power (because PSG has more than Auxerre for example) and scouting to have a good academy.
It has to get good teaching.For instance, Diaby was a member of PSG’s youth teams.
Yet has he developped into a PSG player? No. Because he chose the quality of Auxerre’s teaching.Posted from
United States -
Yoann Gourcuff :
“Mais je n’oublie pas mes années passées là-bas, et je remercie le Stade Rennais de m’avoir permis de progresser, au sein de l’un des meilleurs centres de formation de France (le meilleur en 2007-08, selon la FFF, NDLR), qui arrive à sortir beaucoup de jeunes professionnels. C’est vraiment un bon club, qui possède de bons éducateurs, et qui figure parmi les meilleurs de Ligue 1.”
Posted from
United States
Read the rest of the comments
Comments are closed
Home 
