Youth, Scouting & Investment in Players.

[macattack 0]

 

 

Having watched the start to season - a season I had so much hope in - I have been bitterly disappointed.  Not simply the quality of play, or lack of quality I should say,  but the talent which now wear the NCFC shirt.

 

10 years ago Norwich had a reputation as one of the best passing teams in the game, recognised across the land and even in Europe.  Norwich, for a relatively small club in the top flight, did not resort to aggressive, game destroying or long ball tactics that many of our peers at the time introduced in order to compete.  We had a belief in how the game was to be played, a style that was admired and philosophy that many clubs desired.  As a result of this we forged a reputation I was so proud of - proud to be part of and proud support.  To hear other clubs and their supporters claim admiration for what Norwich were achieving on and off the pitch was something that put our City on the map.

 

Norwich had to sell players to survive.  I did not like that at the time, but on reflection we always had a replacement and a replacement that invariably shocked me with how their quality and how good they were. 

 

We had a youth policy that supplied endless talent.   A tale of one hero leaving only for a new one to step forward.  Dale Gordon departed and Ruel Fox stepped up. Lee Power, Chris Sutton, Darren Eadie, Keith O''Neill, Craig Bellamy - all products of a youth system that worked.  I know they were sold but consider this - would they have selected NCFC as a club if it was not recognised as a breeding ground for talent.  But also given the growing role agents were playing would they have selected us if one, this talent was allowed to achieve its goal of playing in the first team which could only happen as a result of senior players moving on. Two,  I would also suggest they selected us as they new if they performed and performed well they would be allowed to follow their dream and maybe play for a ''top three/four club'' only if we made a tidy sum.  It worked.  And I am sure their agents new this as well -  it was attractive to all concerned.

 

The scouting system was second to none. Steve Bruce, Mickey Phelan, Dave Watson, Chris Woods, Bryan Gunn, Robert Fleck, Mark Bowen, Ian Culverhouse, Ian Butterworth, Andy Linagin, Andy Townsend, Tim Sherwood, Mark Robbins - all relatively unknown or unproven but allowed Norwich to out-punch its weight for years.  A continual cycle of player departure allowed new opportunities for up and coming players.  It did not always work but on balance I think we got it right. 

 

What might have been had we kept hold of them?  That was always my argument - an argument I took to the streets to protest for.  But reflecting - would we have signed Mark Robins if Fleck had not left? Andy Townsend if Phelen had not moved on?  And how could you stop a player leaving Norwich for example Man United and the opportunity to treble his income and status for his family.

 

I cheered the proclamation when Delia declared on the pitch at Carrow Road in one of her first interviews Norwich would no longer be a selling club  - like the previous regime.  We kept Belamy, Eadie and O''Neill that season.  Times were looking up.  But I did not think that being a non-selling club we would miss the development of youth talent and the scouting policy that lead the way in football.  All three players subsequently left.

 

My question - where has the Youth Development gone?  Why is the scouting only producing mediocrity?  I hope the recent signings come good but I fear, and hate to admit, we have missed a trick. In ten years this is my biggest disappoint.  That and how supporters from other clubs say what a great footballing club Norwich used to be.......

[Baldyboy 0]

i was having a conversation with a new guy at work yesterday and i was surprised to hear that his son was formerly in the academy.  however, and this is sad but typical of this club,  the lad was discarded by the club 2 years ago at 14 because he was too short.  he played up front and banged in goals for fun but because he was too short he was deemed not good enough.  even after a season in the local leagues last year where again he scored for fun he has now turned his back on football totally, because as his dad says he is totally disillusioned with it.  there is a happy ending though this young man is now a county champion athlete,   and heres the best bit, hes now 5 ft 11 inches tall!!!    sums up why our youth set up is so poor.

[macattack 0]

Funny that baldyboy.....this club needs real leadership....if we can''t afford to buy players we have to develop our own....its'' not rocket science...clearly DS and her cronies should concentrate on what matters...players on the pitch...not building hotels!  This drives me mad...

Seriously though...with our financial''s as they are..our scouting and youth policy needs addressing....otherwise LEAGUE 1 here we come...!

[Old Shuck 188]

I can think of two reasons why we might be struggling to get promising youngsters all the way through and into the team.

1. The 50 mile rule-or whatever it is, please clarify someone-anyway, isn''t there now a law within the game that says you can only approach and sign on young players who live within an ''x'' miles/''y'' travelling time radius of your club. Previous to that, you could recruit from anywhere and everywhere, which we did very successfully-I think this new rule is part of the Academy structure or something that all clubs had to sign up to. It makes it difficult for us, as it means that part of our catchment area is the North Sea! And it can be abused-I recall Mn Utd poaching someone from us because they claimed that, IF they flew, then the player in question was eligible under the ''y'' travelling time rule. Ridiculous.

Of course, having got the English Channel as part of their catchment area hasn''t stopped Southampton getting some very good youth players through their system-Walcott, Bale, and now Stedman. But it doesn''t help. I think that, if we quit the Academy system, we''d be able to go where we liked, so to speak, again, but there would then be implications for that as well.

2. It used to be that clubs looked for young footballers and made them athletes with it. Now it seems that clubs are targetting atheletes and trying to turn them into footballers! So, rather than a young player being turned away because he "wasn''t good enough" (surely the be all and end all?) it is now because (as cited earlier) he wasn''t "tall enough", "string enough", "fast enough"etc etc-never mind their footballing skills!

[breaker2 0]

I think if you look at most clubs they have a nucleus of talented youth, some of them are known about some are still unknown. Apart from the very top clubs, teams academies are made up of mostly british players. Im not sure about the distance rule, im sure at one point it was a time thing of about 2hours. Of course some players can move down, and live near the academy, though im not sure of this.

I emailed Neil Doncaster, several months ago about the world cup occuring in Canada, i mentioned several players that i thought would be worth looking at, and also enquired whether we would even be scouting the tournament, i recieved a standard email, saying he had forward it to another department. Some of the players i mentioned Macauly Chrisanthus, Lulinha, Mykell Bates, henri Lansbury. Players who have consrquently gained significantly more status. Now at the time he may well have thought, what does he know, but the fact that the email seems to have been paid little attention, and the lack of positive reply to whether we were scouting the tournament shows a lack of ambition.

I was at the Academy and the PDC, for about 5 years, and when it came to making the final cut for the last year, i was told i was not fast enough, there was 3 defenders in the group, and the only one that got through was a left back, who really was rapid. Since i have played little football, because of a similar feeling of dissapointment. It does seem speed is considered the best attribute,.