Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
I am a Banana

Norwich Academy Team that have left.

Recommended Posts

My 9 year old, born at the end of August is the quickest lad in his year at school.

But I do understand what you''re saying as he is 350 days or something daft younger than the eldest boy in his age group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I''d take "coming through our academy" as somebody who has played for our youth team. You would need to be highly creative with the meaning to justify the inclusion of Lansbury or Drury, who played a season or two at youth level. Drury "came through" at Peterborough, and Lansbury "came through" at Arsenal. I don''t think we can claim either of those as products of Norwich. If we could, then we could claim Bobby Zamora as a product of Norwich, and I''m pretty sure that nobody is claiming that.

"I omitted Matt Ball who is on the books at Stevenage"

In order to include Matt Ball you would need to ignore the "played for Norwich" rule, because he didn''t make the pitch.

You have basically suggested that I''ve attempted to purposely create a rubbish team in order to further some agenda that I have against the academy, but you don''t appear to have been able to include anybody extra without including players still on our books, or players who were released by us before they hit 16.

So I think that pours water on those flames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"1). We shouldn''t have closed Bristol."

The question is did we have to close Bristol? That is one I would like to know the answer to. However I suspect, as I said before, I am not sure there was a choice.

"2). If we had to close Bristol then we should reopen it."

Another question worth posing. Have you considered asking the right people about it? Eg, send David McNally an email or tweet with that in it to see how he responds. It might give you more of an answer, same as question 1 as it would give us fans a bit of a picture about what went on and goes on. Although saying that someone like Nutty may well actually know this himself after his close supportive work with the academy etc.

"3). Our academy has underperformed in the past decade, even when considering the 90 minute rule."

I think Nutty was correct when he said ''compared to''? I say that because at the moment what you are actually saying is "compared to my expectations the academy has underperformed in the past decade, even when considering the 90 minute rule" - people may well then criticize your expectations which you can then point to successes 10-15 years prior. That in itself brings in another debate, perhaps worthy, perhaps not.

"4). Hatfield hasn''t been anywhere near as successful as Bristol. "

At this point I have to admit a lack of knowledge, but is Hatfield even the same sort of set up as Bristol. If you are comparing the two, how long was Bristol running for in comparison to Hatfield? How many say, top two tier players did they produce over their time? Is/was the academy leader in charge of recruitment there as well as in Norwich, as in is he hands on or do they have another leader?

"5). If the latest crop don''t cut the mustard then perhaps we should consider changing things, including personnel."

I think we are always considering changing things, Neil Adams was brought in to coach the youngsters and I believe a number of other ex-pros help coach as well.

But again, you can''t necessarily blame the academy set up for players not making it. To me the academy is responsible for players up until the point they become part of the professional set up, either as scholars or as professionals which some of them do become early. I say that because then they are under the stewardship of the first team set up and coaches.

Like I said before, I wonder if some of our past youngsters, if given a proper chance earlier on and loaned out, could have cut it at least at a higher level than they currently play. Ryan Jarvis is an example, as is Cave-Brown - both highly rated but never loaned out properly to be given a chance.

Hughton at least does appear to see the potential in loaning out players, even if it is to see whether they cut it or not.

No one is saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but as you have said it is a closed opinion and one you are apparently not open to discuss. Because mainly all that has happened is myself and Nutty try and understand why you make some of the sweeping statements that you do.

Personally I actually think one really good question is ''why does Norfolk not produce more decent footballers?'' - and it can be asked without criticizing the academy, or even finding fault with the academy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yarmy"]

Nigel surely the idea ofthe academy is to develop kids from a very young age and let them grow into footballers through the right coaching and development program ala Spain, Germany, Holland Belguim ect. Our academy ( like lots of English academies ) seem to think if a team loses @ 7 / 8 / 9 the kids are not good enough, what really is happening is we do not understand how to develop young kids into good / top footballers.

Kids are time trialed and the ones not quick enough get released unfortunately a kid born in July / August will not be as fast as a kid born the previous September - its not rocket science. I willhappily get a group of under 9''s born in May  June July August ( within the 90 min cattchment to play the academy under 8''s who will all be born Sept / Oct  / Nov. I suspect the 8''s would get absoloutely hammered hence why it wont ever happen     

[/quote]

 

Is that for me because I don''t see anything wrong with that opinion. Does it seem as though I have a different opinion? Cat one will allow us to do that much more than we could under the old FA rules.

 

Singsomethingsimple - It''s only you who keeps listing the players who came through the academy during different eras so to make your lists fair please could you list the boys who were already in our academy when Sammy Morgan joined and the boys that were left by him to Ricky Martin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yarmy"]

Nigel surely the idea ofthe academy is to develop kids from a very young age and let them grow into footballers through the right coaching and development program ala Spain, Germany, Holland Belguim ect. Our academy ( like lots of English academies ) seem to think if a team loses @ 7 / 8 / 9 the kids are not good enough, what really is happening is we do not understand how to develop young kids into good / top footballers.

Kids are time trialed and the ones not quick enough get released unfortunately a kid born in July / August will not be as fast as a kid born the previous September - its not rocket science. I willhappily get a group of under 9''s born in May  June July August ( within the 90 min cattchment to play the academy under 8''s who will all be born Sept / Oct  / Nov. I suspect the 8''s would get absoloutely hammered hence why it wont ever happen     

[/quote]

Like others you do raise some interesting questions. However I think that the main one is that you suggest that it is the British/English approach to youth coaching that is at the core of the problem.

I''d be inclined to agree with this. National sides that have produced success recently have all been playing smaller sided games with younger kids for a long time now. Smaller sided games means more overall touches on the ball, an increased focus on ''touch'' and technical ability, movement and many other skills that playing 11 Vs 11 at a young age does not.

One such small sided game is futsal - a game I have played as part of training when trained as part of a team in Acton in West London by one coach who also coached for Barnet (I think) and another that worked at the FA HQ in pushing futsal into more academies and youth set ups.

The FA as a whole does have a lot to catch up on in those terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that we will go round in circles on all of the five points, because I''ve attempted to explain why I hold those opinions numerous times, and you and Nigel have attempted to explain why I shouldn''t hold those opinions numerous times, and we are already going round in circles. It will never end. Two completely opposite sides of the spectrum, obviously, sometimes opinions are just so far apart that attempts to meet in the middle prove completely fruitless. Perhaps we just need to accept that.

"Personally I actually think one really good question is ''why does Norfolk not produce more decent footballers?'' - and it can be asked without criticizing the academy, or even finding fault with the academy"

But I do disagree with this, because my argument has been constantly that there have been numerous great players come out of Norfolk and Suffolk, in the Eighties and Nineties. I simply disagree with the notion that good footballers don''t come out of East Anglia, and I''ve put forward two dozen or more examples of very accomplished and nationally famous footballers from the 80s and 90s, and even the 00s, that have been raised in East Anglia and come out of our local youth systems. A better question would be "Why in the past ten to fifteen years have Norwich failed to find and sufficiently develop great players from Norfolk and the surrounding areas, considering the fact that during the 1980s and 1990s they seemed to discover a good five or six per decade".

What is your theory there? Bad luck? Poor coaching? Insufficient scouting? I don''t think that "bad luck" is an excuse that most people would be able to use to justify poor performance in their profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Well I''d take "coming through our academy" as somebody who has played for our youth team."

So what you are saying is my interpretation doesn''t match your interpretation which is the ''right'' interpretation so I am therefore wrong? Ok. Well sorry but I think I am right.

"You would need to be highly creative with the meaning to justify the inclusion of Lansbury or Drury, who played a season or two at youth level."

Did I not admit that Lansbury could be contentious so drop him in favour of another player? Play 4-3-3 and put Cureton in as a third striker.

However I have to say that I disagree about Drury. He was a product of our youth Academy - not Peterborough''s. He was part of the academy from around 9-10years old. He chose to leave and go to Peteborough when he saw other players in the youth team offered YTS and he wasn''t. As he is a late August birthday he would have been one of the youngest in his year.

"I don''t think we can claim either of those as products of Norwich. If we could, then we could claim Bobby Zamora as a product of Norwich, and I''m pretty sure that nobody is claiming that."

Sorry but I think if they were part of the academy process up to the age of 15/16 then I think it is fair to say that they were part of the academy up until the point where the club has to decide whether to pay them or not. They were academy products, rejected at the last hurdle perhaps but products none the less. Zamora embarrassingly for being too short.

"In order to include Matt Ball you would need to ignore the "played for Norwich" rule, because he didn''t make the pitch."

My bad. Strike that.

"You have basically suggested that I''ve attempted to purposely create a rubbish team in order to further some agenda that I have against the academy,"

No I haven''t. If that''s how you interpreted it then I am sorry - but that is not how it was meant. You stated it wasn''t possible, I was sure it was. And whether you agree with my interpretations of Banana''s rules or not, I have at least reduced the number of players included on bending the rules.

"but you don''t appear to have been able to include anybody extra without including players still on our books, or players who were released by us before they hit 16."

Again you are now introducing your interpretations as rules. For what it is worth if you have played at an academy since you were say 8,9 or even ten, move on at 15 to play in another one for a couple of years before becoming part of their playing squad I think it''s pretty tough to say they were an academy product in the same way you have said some of the players I mentioned elsewhere were signed at 15/16 and couldn''t be classed as our products - which I accepted.

"So I think that pours water on those flames."

Come again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Singsomethingsimple - It''s only you who keeps listing the players who came through the academy during different eras so to make your lists fair please could you list the boys who were already in our academy when Sammy Morgan joined and the boys that were left by him to Ricky Martin"

Resorting to nicknames, simple insults for simpletons like yourself, Nutty Nigel (I will do you the dignity of referring to you as your chosen username).

Another perspective would be that the youngest players at the academy when Martin arrived (under 9s), if they made it all the way through the system to 16, would have reached the end of the final age group (Under 16''s) almost three years ago.

Using your (il)logical approach, we can''t give Ricky Martin any credit for any of Martin, Rudd, or Adeyemi, because under your new little rule they would be Sammy Morgan players (all in the system when Martin took over). You always want it both ways, Nigel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicken,

Why don''t you ask I''m A Banana to clarify his rules? Because otherwise what you are saying is my interpretation doesn''t match your interpretation which is the ''right'' interpretation so I am therefore wrong? Ok. Well sorry but I think I am right.

See how this works both ways? This is called "disagreeing", which is defined by Merriem Webster as:

"Have or express a different opinion"

Neither of us seem willing to change our opinion, disagreement is something which goes both ways. Two people are required in order to disagree on a subject. You seem to be suggesting that I am disagreeing with you, but you aren''t disagreeing with me. Or that I am in the wrong for disagreeing with you, and you therefore disagree with me.

Going round in circles, and it will keep going round in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"But I do disagree with this, because my argument has been constantly that there have been numerous great players come out of Norfolk and Suffolk, in the Eighties and Nineties. I simply disagree with the notion that good footballers don''t come out of East Anglia, and I''ve put forward two dozen or more examples of very accomplished and nationally famous footballers from the 80s and 90s, and even the 00s, that have been raised in East Anglia and come out of our local youth systems. A better question would be "Why in the past ten to fifteen years have Norwich failed to find and sufficiently develop great players from Norfolk and the surrounding areas, considering the fact that during the 1980s and 1990s they seemed to discover a good five or six per decade". "

Don''t twist or confuse my words sir!

Also note that you went from Norfolk and Suffolk to using East Anglia - which increases the area once more.

No after what you said about our population in this fine county why haven''t more come out of that. And that is an open question, I''m not suggesting it is the academy more what is different about what we (Norfolk) do with our youngsters to say other areas where there are higher numbers of successful footballers.

It''s an intriguing question.

"I think that we will go round in circles on all of the five points, because I''ve attempted to explain why I hold those opinions numerous times, and you and Nigel have attempted to explain why I shouldn''t hold those opinions numerous times."

No, we pointed at floors in the reasons you gave for your opinions.

Like I said, and have shown I agree with some of the points that you raise, but I don''t agree that they point to the conclusion you come to - which is rather hard line, without knowing any of the facts or having experienced any of the coaching first hand.

Two of your points about the Bristol centre, for example are good points, but they don''t provide a reason to think our academy is failing. They suggest three relevant questions: Why did it shut? Did it have to? And could another in that location be opened once more considering it''s success?

If you ask these of the club and fail to get decent answers I will be one of the first to support further questions to the club. I should imagine that to the first two you will at least find some sort of accurate answer as it is historical and I suspect that it was due to the club having to make tough decisions.

As a matter of interest who was the last player to come through the Bristol centre and make it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve twice now suggested that we have disagreement in opinion, and that we will be going round in circles because of it, that could be considered an olive branch for us to "agree to disagree".

But that wouldn''t satisfy either your or Nigel, because you are not willing to respect my entitlement to an opinion or respect my wish to share it publicly, instead you want to "point at floors" (flaws I assume), which roughly translates into:

"You are not welcome to your opinion because it has flaws. In order to not have flaws it would have to be the same as mine".

Which itself roughly translates into:

"My way of thinking is the only way of thinking".

Don''t kid yourself into believing that you are being the reasonable one here. You and Nigel are genuinely welcome to your opinion, I understand and note it, it differs from mine.

I''ve got pretty far in life by questioning the status quo, being strong in my opinions, and sticking with those opinions. I have never been a mouthpiece for other peoples opinions, I reach my opinions for my own reasons. You may not welcome me to an opinion of my own, but I have one nonetheless and if you don''t like it then you can either endure it willingly or endure it with suffering.

By taking such offence to my mere opinion you are merely choosing to endure it with suffering. "Like it or lump it" as they say.

Lump it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicken I beleive the FA have caught up and understand as have Man City who are investing £500m and Stoke who if your saw Pulis the other day spent a lot of his teams break in Spain and Germany working out why they have a conveyor belt of talent being developed and he does not. We wont even have shadow squads in our club and we do not play the kids born later in the year in lower age groups. Unfortunately the premier league demands results even if you are 7 or 8. To develop kids properly will take a minimum of 7 years you cant change things overnight. Tell Messi, Inesta, Fabregas, Villa ect that you have to be over 6ft 2 to be a professional footballer.

The kids that can make it are not neccesarily the ones that are the best in younger age groups they are the ones that can be developed via obvious talents that they have. Let the people that can develop these younger kids come in and give them 10 years and we will produce the most amazing kids. Pressurising kids that they will be dropped for having a bad couple of weeks or even months is not the way forward.

I am not meaning to degrade any acheivements I am suggesting that if we change now it really can make a difference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yarmy, I actually went to school with a kid who was signed at 13. He was released a year later and told "if you can play like you did at 13 again we will have you back".

His big brother was told "he was the best in his year at 13, but the other kids have outgrown him physically". That was after one year.

By the time he was 16 he had shot up to 6ft 2", he''s now 6ft 4", good height for a striker don''t you think?

Nobody from his age group made it, although four got YTS scholarships at sixteen.

That''s how I know how much emphasis they put on strength and size. I''m not suggesting that he would have "made it", he probably wouldn''t have made it, but he was definitely technically the best in his age group, even if it was a very uninspiring one (with nobody making it pro).

That was under Sammy Morgan, for the record, before Nigel jumps all over me with his anti-Martin conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"Singsomethingsimple - It''s only you who keeps listing the players who came through the academy during different eras so to make your lists fair please could you list the boys who were already in our academy when Sammy Morgan joined and the boys that were left by him to Ricky Martin" Resorting to nicknames, simple insults for simpletons like yourself, Nutty Nigel (I will do you the dignity of referring to you as your chosen username). Another perspective would be that the youngest players at the academy when Martin arrived (under 9s), if they made it all the way through the system to 16, would have reached the end of the final age group (Under 16''s) almost three years ago. Using your (il)logical approach, we can''t give Ricky Martin any credit for any of Martin, Rudd, or Adeyemi, because under your new little rule they would be Sammy Morgan players (all in the system when Martin took over). You always want it both ways, Nigel.[/quote]

 

I''m not trying to give anybody credit for anything or discredit for anything. I''m not even interested in the merits of Morgan or Martin at this stage. I''m just fed up with you making ridiculous lists which are biased to your preconceptions. Now from your lists could you please tell me which players were already at the academy when Morgan came and which players were inherited by Martin from Morgan. Surely that is more relevant to the bigger picture than your lists born out of prejudice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sing up thats quite mildI know of a 7 year old that dared to go to to another club who was told if you go there you will never play for this club again despite him worshipping NCFC one of the funniest things I ever witnessed though was a young kid having it suggested to him that it was time to go back to Colney. Kids tell it the way they see it and his response was why ? do they need some different coaches. Because of category 1 academies unfortunately some of the top producers of kids will not have jobs as existing academy staff are not going to put their own jobs at risk 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel,

A prejudice that you have dreamt up out of some mistaken belief that I have personal beef with Ricky Martin. You are wrong.

Enjoy your opinion, I will enjoy mine. Can we all assume that you know Ricky Martin personally? I can think of no other reason why you would be so offended by the mention of his name in a slightly negative light.

If you do, then might you have a vested interest in leaping to the defence of an acquaintance? A pro-Martin agenda?

Lump it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]Nigel, A prejudice that you have dreamt up out of some mistaken belief that I have personal beef with Ricky Martin. You are wrong. Enjoy your opinion, I will enjoy mine. Can we all assume that you know Ricky Martin personally? I can think of no other reason why you would be so offended by the mention of his name in a slightly negative light. If you do, then might you have a vested interest in leaping to the defence of an acquaintance? A pro-Martin agenda? Lump it.[/quote]

 

It''s not me making lists. I have approached this with an open mind since the 2009 AGM and Roeders comments there. I dislike your method of distorting the facts to fit your point of view. You make lists to highlight a fault in the academy after Morgan left. I said you were comparing apples with pears and asked you to list the players each inherited but that didn''t fit your agenda so you took your ball home.

 

Now I have no agenda except to find answers to something that interests me. I feel by manipulating facts to suit a preconcieved point of view you have taken a very interesting thread away from making any progress towards providing answers. So what about those lists that compare apples with apples? If we can discount Morgan or martin from the equation we may well maker some progress. Far more so than just fitting one of them up with grossly manipulated lists.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are ignoring my primary points and zooming in on one observation that I made about Ricky Martin.

I assume by your refusal to answer that you do know Ricky Martin personally, that would explain why you picked up on the mention of his name.

By ignoring my primary point throughout this, which has been that we shouldn''t have closed Bristol, and instead making a mountain out of a molehill about my mention of Ricky Martin you are manipulating the argument yourself.

He would hardly have got a passing mention by me if you didn''t keep mentioning him yourself.

If he is your friend, and you believe that mentions of his name would be unwelcome, then stop bringing him into the argument. You have diverted the argument onto a Morgan v Martin one more frequently than I have in this thread.

You and Chicken seem keen to keep this alive, whilst I''m bored stiffless and would be happy to see it die, so feel free to let it do just that.

As for Roeder, glad that you feel you can take his words seriously. New heroes and all that. The man was a fool, Robert Eagle didn''t go on to great things did he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now. Roeder was a poor manager but a good and respected judge of a player. Again your comparing apples with pears. Do I know Ricky Martin? LOL. I''ve met him and spoken to him. But no more than I''ve met and spoken to so many other people at the club over the years. My two favourites to talk to were Ken Brown and Worthy. My least favourite was Roeder because I met him but he wouldn''t speak to me. I respect his opinion on somethings though and he certainly knows more about football than I ever will. Although his attitude pretty much mirrors yours on this thread. He was right about the new heroes. The guy played today.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The list of players from the 90''s and 00''s was made by Chicken, who is backing your corner, so if you have a problem with a side-by-side comparison of the quality of players seen in the two decades then take that up with Chicken, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Roeder was a poor manager but a good and respected judge of a player"

Obviously didn''t see what Huckerby had to offer though, went and won newcomer of the year in the MLS. His transfer policy was sign ten players, three will turn out decent. Could have done with Chrissy Martin that season too, couldn''t we? Pretty sure I remember him playing Darel Russell up front. Yeah, football genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]"Roeder was a poor manager but a good and respected judge of a player" Obviously didn''t see what Huckerby had to offer though, went and won newcomer of the year in the MLS. His transfer policy was sign ten players, three will turn out decent. Could have done with Chrissy Martin that season too, couldn''t we? Pretty sure I remember him playing Darel Russell up front. Yeah, football genius.[/quote]

 

Can you tell the difference between being a manager and a good judge of a player? I think you have a huge problem in understanding what people are saying.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"]Chicken can knock her/himself out if she fancies writing a list. No skin off of my ballbag.[/quote]

 

Probably your best option is to be disruptive at this point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no inclination to make lists. Especially ones that are rubbish. I mean, as if the academy boss coaches and scouts every single player that comes into and ''through'' our academy?

My major point of grievance was that it was claimed Banana''s challenge couldn''t be done and it can.

Not only that but it looks likely that come the summer it will be even easier to complete, not harder.

I feel I have approached the rest with an open mind, accepted I have been wrong on some points but seen little but bloody mindedness in return - despite the facts.

If you want to know what irks me - it''s when you say you have done stuff or know stuff Sing, and then don''t admit you got it wrong when proven otherwise.

The ''cultured footballer'' being a prime example. You cannot admit that not only did you not ''teach'' me what one is but that in fact you only highlighted that you understanding of what it meant was very different to the normal accepted understanding of the term. And on top of that clearly identified that you also have a very different understanding of ''box to box'' midfielder which you appear to confuse with ''defensive''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that you couldn''t bare to watch this thread die Chicken, it was falling down the list nicely. I suggest that you find somebody else to debate with or continue the thread alone. This will be my final post on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×