Summer Rumour Mill

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Is Kaide Gordon a liverpool academy player?

Gordon joined Derby County in 2013 at under-9 leve and went onto to make his senior debut on 29 December 2020, as a substitute in a 4–0 win against Birmingham City.

On 5 February 2021, it was announced that Gordon had joined Liverpool. Derby County received an undisclosed compensation fee, reported to be in the region of £1 million, rising to £3 million with add-ons.Gordon made his Liverpool debut in an EFL Cup tie at Carrow Road where Liverpool beat Norwich City 3–0 on 21 September 2021. He scored his first goal for Liverpool against Shrewsbury in his second match for Liverpool in the third round of the FA Cup, becoming Liverpool's second youngest goalscorer in all competitions, and their youngest ever scorer in the FA Cup. He made his English Premier League debut on 16 January as a second-half substitute against Brentford.

Gordon was 16 when he moved to Liverpool, too young for a scholarship or a pro-contract - you have to be 17 to do that. However, realising his high potential, Derby had made the offer of both a scholarship and a pro-contract at 17, when he was still only 16, before Liverpool were attracted. Having made those offers, regardless as to whether he accepted them or not, Derby were entitled to negotiate a transfer fee in the event of an offer before he was 17. That is what they did and that is why we got a fee above the academy development costs compensation figure.

That is what Derby have done with Jack Thompson and Niall McAndrew who are joining at 16 next month, so if other clubs come in for them we can negotiate a transfer fee.

See, I do know my numbers and a lot more besides. Glad to have taught you something tonight 😂

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Throwing out the Forest example if that makes you feel better, I still don't think we've done well at selling academy prospects. Do you disagree? 

We've done OK, but should have done a lot better based on the quality of players. There are a long list of reasons for that.

Your earlier suggestion was that the players produced aren't actually as good as we think. I and many others who have greater knowledge of youth football than you disagree.

My typical starring point is maturity of the academy. Forest have a steady stream of players for decades. Their entire setup has been established for a long time.

However, Derby have been on and off for decades. Due to inconsistencies in our setup and approach, we've more or less had 3 bursts of players. Late 90s, mid 00s and late 10s/early 20s. Funding has switched from high to not at all, to low, to high, etc...

In the late 10s, we failed in a few areas. Lack off opportunities due to changing styles of the first team and extremely large first team squads.

As consistency in quality improved in the 20s, off field issues worsened. We were finally able to guve opportunities to youngsters due to squad size, but we were no longer able to retain them for long enough to increase their value. Imposed restrictions eventually meant we could only offer 1 year deals to promising players, resulting in them leaving for basic compensation fees. Restrictions also meant we had to release youngsters who were on the fringes of the squad, just so we could boost our squad of over 21s to 15 people.

[duncanjwitham]

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Sibley being on the bench has no reflection on how good the player is? That's an excuse. He had a good break out season, and was rumoured to have interest from Wolves to be fair, but Burke had the likes of Bayern, United, Liverpool and ultimately Leipzig who he moved to as the clubs rumoured to be interested. That would suggest there was a difference in quality, even if he didn't live up to expectations. 

Sibley didn’t have a “breakout season” though, he played a handful of games, including that hat trick, and then we barely played him for a year.  If we wanted to get a good price for him, he should have been played regularly, not dropped for half a dozen games every time he had a slightly below par performance.  

The fact that Burke struggled to get into the Millwall team last season, and has failed to establish himself at any club, suggests there really isn’t much difference in quality.  It’s basically all down to the marketing - Forest put him in the shop window and got a good price. We didn’t do that.

[Andicis]

12 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

See, I do know my numbers and a lot more besides. Glad to have taught you something tonight 😂

You didn't answer my question. Bogle and Gordon are the inverse of each other. Yet you clearly want to count Bogle but not Gordon. Anyway, we're done here. 

[Andicis]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Your earlier suggestion was that the players produced aren't actually as good as we think. I and many others who have greater knowledge of youth football than you disagree

You and your fellow youth football experts may think that, yet the players we produce don't seem to hit the heights people claim that they will. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

You didn't answer my question. Bogle and Gordon are the inverse of each other. Yet you clearly want to count Bogle but not Gordon. Anyway, we're done here. 

I count both. We were the first club to offer both a scholarship and a pro-contract. Swindon didn't do that with Bogle because he was too young. I can see why you're done. You've been hammered.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You and your fellow youth football experts may think that, yet the players we produce don't seem to hit the heights people claim that they will. 

My cutoff is U18 summer intakes. A 16 year old joining a new club and being part of their U18 squad would eventually be an academy graduate.

A 16 year old joining another U18 squad half way through the season wouldn't meet my requirements.

Bogle is a Derby academy graduate. Brereton is a Forest graduate. Gordon isn't a Liverpool graduate. Cash isn't a Forest graduate. Plange and Ebiowei aren't Derby graduates.

[ilkleyram]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

My cutoff is U18 summer intakes. A 16 year old joining a new club and being part of their U18 squad would eventually be an academy graduate.

A 16 year old joining another U18 squad half way through the season wouldn't meet my requirements.

Bogle is a Derby academy graduate. Brereton is a Forest graduate. Gordon isn't a Liverpool graduate. Cash isn't a Forest graduate. Plange and Ebiowei aren't Derby graduates.

Though I bet you that MOTD and Sky pundits will describe Gordon as a Liverpool Academy graduate when he starts playing in their 1st team regularly. Mind, that probably says more about their knowledge than anything else. We can just shout at the telly.

[CBRammette]

Just had to check the thread title again, so any rumours anyone?

[vonwright]

Still not convinced any of our academy players have been that good, sadly.

I'm not sure any have been better than Will Hughes - who was in the first team before the big investment in the academy - and even his career has been pretty underwhelming compared to what Derby fans expected. 

The academy has given us a regular stream of first team players, has been a source of great pride and excitement, and it has been great to see the youngsters come through. It's also a real shame that administration cost us the likes of Ebosele and Ebiowei and ripped the heart out of the set up.

But I've have hoped for one of two absolute gems and we've not really seen that. If making money was the aim we probably could have done better in terms of selling at peak value, but it wasn't the aim - producing premier league footballers was. Right up until we went bust. Arguably we managed to hang on to the crown jewels in Bird, Knight and Sibley, and to be fair they didn't exactly set League One alight. 

[DCFC1388]

Any incomings expected today @Big Trav ?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

33 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Any incomings expected today @Big Trav ?

Barry The Sham reincarnated suggests Curtis Nelson is next.

[YorkshireRam]

15 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

We might have lost the absolute top players, but there are still a lot of players in the academy though.  If we radically change the type of player we want to produce, we're basically writing off most of those and starting the whole process again.  So in 5 years time, we start producing big, strong, quick players for Paul Warne's system.  But Paul Warne almost certainly won't be here then.  And if we've appointed another McClaren-type, then we reset again, and in 5 years time etc etc.  It's a losing battle gearing the academy around the manager.

If the club wants to make a decision that we only want to play Warne-style football, and we're going to set the academy up to do that, and appoint managers to do that, then OK. But I think that's a crazy decision to make because, as much as anything, I think there's near-zero chance that Warne-style football will be effective at even top-end Championship level, let alone Premier League.

I'm not quite sure what the alternative is though, try and shape the academy now on guesswork based on how our manager in 5 years will want to play? I'd wager the argument is that we're trying to produce prospects that have more chance of breaking through to the first team, regardless of the style employed by the manager at that moment. Maybe our academy prospects have been deemed to not be physical enough and we've taken steps to address that. Without a crystal ball though, you can never ensure you're producing young players that directly fit the requirements of their potential manager years down the line. 

You're jumping straight to the academy now producing hoofball players which I think is a bit of a stretch, it could just be a numbers game that not enough of our youngsters become pros and that required a refresh to the setup... 

[GenBr]

10 hours ago, Andicis said:

You and your fellow youth football experts may think that, yet the players we produce don't seem to hit the heights people claim that they will. 

You are wasting your time. There are a number of people on here that take criticism of the academy as a personal insult. The academy produces a lot of mid tier average to good championship or below players. It produces virtually none who will ever be capable of playing in the premier league on a regular basis. As far as I'm concerned we haven't produced anyone as good as Will Hughes, despite the vast investment we've put in since then, and even he hasn't gone on to what we thought he would. The academy does give us a solid number of players who will be able to get us back to the championship one day and a few who might even make us a couple of mill when we sell, but i've seen little evidence that we will be able to produce anyone who can take us to the next level. Even if we did they'd be immediately poached for peanuts.

[duncanjwitham]

11 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

I'm not quite sure what the alternative is though, try and shape the academy now on guesswork based on how our manager in 5 years will want to play? I'd wager the argument is that we're trying to produce prospects that have more chance of breaking through to the first team, regardless of the style employed by the manager at that moment. Maybe our academy prospects have been deemed to not be physical enough and we've taken steps to address that. Without a crystal ball though, you can never ensure you're producing young players that directly fit the requirements of their potential manager years down the line. 

You're jumping straight to the academy now producing hoofball players which I think is a bit of a stretch, it could just be a numbers game that not enough of our youngsters become pros and that required a refresh to the setup... 

That's the entire point though - it shouldn't be guesswork.  We decide what style of football we want to play and we only appoint managers that play that style of football.  Who we appoint as manager is entirely 100% within our control.  I'm not saying it should be massively restrictive - McClaren, Clement, Wassall, Lampard, Cocu, Rooney and Rosenior all played a roughly similar style to each other.  It's just when you randomly mix in Rowett, Pearson and Warne that you get problems.

Maybe the hoofball comment is a distraction, but there's no point having an academy producing players that fit into a 433-McClaren style (defenders developed in a back 4, technical, ball playing midfielders, wide players drifting infield to link up with the forward who drops off the front) if the current manager wants a back 3, ball-winning midfielders and wingbacks hitting the by-line to cross to a target-man.

We've had almost an entire season of people saying you can't blame Warne for anything, it's not his squad, not his type of players etc etc.  And now when it comes to the academy people seem to think the polar opposite - the manager should just take whatever players he's given and deal with it 🤷‍♂️.

[YorkshireRam]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's the entire point though - it shouldn't be guesswork.  We decide what style of football we want to play and we only appoint managers that play that style of football.  Who we appoint as manager is entirely 100% within our control.  I'm not saying it should be massively restrictive - McClaren, Clement, Wassall, Lampard, Cocu, Rooney and Rosenior all played a roughly similar style to each other.  It's just when you randomly mix in Rowett, Pearson and Warne that you get problems.

Maybe the hoofball comment is a distraction, but there's no point having an academy producing players that fit into a 433-McClaren style (defenders developed in a back 4, technical, ball playing midfielders, wide players drifting infield to link up with the forward who drops off the front) if the current manager wants a back 3, ball-winning midfielders and wingbacks hitting the by-line to cross to a target-man.

We've had almost an entire season of people saying you can't blame Warne for anything, it's not his squad, not his type of players etc etc.  And now when it comes to the academy people seem to think the polar opposite - the manager should just take whatever players he's given and deal with it 🤷‍♂️.

This is getting towards the Director of Football & Head Coach v CEO & Manager debate though where how much the club/board restricts coaching autonomy is under question. That's usually seen as a negative and many think we should leave the on-field stuff to the coaching staff.

And that's a slightly reductionist take imo, players are adaptable and just because they're coached as 15 year old to play as an attacking #8 in a 433, doesn't mean they can't also perform to a high standard as a traditional #4... If the thinking is to produce well rounded, intelligent footballers capable of stepping up to pro-level, then arguably playing style doesn't matter as they'll be competent enough to just adapt to whatever system and playing style the current manager requires?

[EnigmaRam]

Is this academy stuff still going on?! 🤣🤣

[duncanjwitham]

3 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

This is getting towards the Director of Football & Head Coach v CEO & Manager debate though where how much the club/board restricts coaching autonomy is under question. That's usually seen as a negative and many think we should leave the on-field stuff to the coaching staff.

You aren't restricting coaching autonomy though, you just don't appoint managers that don't play in the style you want...

4 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

And that's a slightly reductionist take imo, players are adaptable and just because they're coached as 15 year old to play as an attacking #8 in a 433, doesn't mean they can't also perform to a high standard as a traditional #4... If the thinking is to produce well rounded, intelligent footballers capable of stepping up to pro-level, then arguably playing style doesn't matter as they'll be competent enough to just adapt to whatever system and playing style the current manager requires?

I really don't understand why people find this so hard.  Players cannot be good at everything, no matter how talented or adaptable they are.  And even if you could recruit players like that, why is it remotely advantageous to have your academy players doing something completely different to your first team? It just makes the step up even harder if they have to learn a completely different job at the same time.

[sage]

This thread isn't about how our academy has been run and what players it has produced. 

 

It's about Paul Warne and why players don't want to play for him.

 

Let's get back on topic.

 

😀

[YorkshireRam]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

You aren't restricting coaching autonomy though, you just don't appoint managers that don't play in the style you want...

I really don't understand why people find this so hard.  Players cannot be good at everything, no matter how talented or adaptable they are.  And even if you could recruit players like that, why is it remotely advantageous to have your academy players doing something completely different to your first team? It just makes the step up even harder if they have to learn a completely different job at the same time.

Because what you're describing isn't ''something completely different to your first team''. You're not coached to just play one very specific position. Roberto Firmino will not have been coached to be a false 9 at youth level, no chance; yet his skillset: close control, finesse and passing range led him as a pro to discover his best form in that niche striker role. It's those aforementioned skills that would have been coached- develop a multidimensional player with a wide range of skills and that will serve them better to become a pro, than to try and mould them in one set, and very specific positional style. 

We can agree to disagree, I just think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. The academy wasn't regularly producing top-level talent, maybe it will now. Let's see what happens.