bebo
Looking for a Manager
Arsenal n Mutd has youth players making into the 1st team. Atm think Gibbs, Jack n Sczcy were all youth players. Southampton has the most come to mind.
English Premier League thread
- Thread starter gerd
- Start date
amineken22
*****
- 9 November 2010
I think that's a myth tbh.
Here's something for ya:
a list with players who were produced or played for one of the Big Five club's academies "only" and will be playing in the prem next year (the players who are still with their mother club are bolded) :
Arsenal :
Wojciech Szczęsny, Kyle Bartley (Swansea), Kieran Gibbs, Carl Jenkinson (West Ham), Gaël Clichy (Manchester City), Steve Sidwell (Arsenal), Jack Wilshere, Jonjo Shelvey (Swansea), Cesc Fàbregas (Chelsea), Serge Gnabry, Jerome Thomas (Crystal Palace), Dwight Gayle (Crystal Palace).
Chelsea :
Jamal Blackman, John Terry, Robert Huth (Stoke), Nathan Aké, Ryan Bertrand (Southampton), Pat van Aanholt ( Sunderland), Liam Bridcutt (Sunderland), Jack Cork (Southampton), Scott Sinclair (Manchester City), Fabio Borini (Liverpool), Carlton Cole (West Ham).
Liverpool :
Martin Kelly, Andre Wisdom (West Brom), John Flanagan, Steven Gerrard, Raheem Sterling, Jordon Ibe, Tom Ince (Hull), Paul Lambert.
Manchester City :
Wayne Hennessey (Crystal Palace), Kasper Schmeichel (Leicester), Karim Rekik, Paddy McCarthy (Crystal Palace), Nedum Onuoha (Queens Park), Micah Richards, Kieran Trippier (Burnley), Ben Mee (Burnley), Neil Taylor ( Swansea), Glenn Whelan (Stoke), Joey Barton (Queens Park), Stephen Ireland (Stoke), Shaun Wright-Phillips (Queens Park), Daniel Sturridge (Liverpool).
Manchester United :
Tom Heaton (Burnely), Alan Tate (Swansea), Ryan Shawcross (Stoke), Wes Brown (Stoke), John O’shea (Stoke), Jonny Evans, James Chester (Hull), Paul McShane (Hull), Alex Bruce (Hull), Phil Bardsley ( Stoke), Danny Simpson (Queens Park), Zeki Fryers ( Tottenham), Kieran Richardson (Aston Villa), Marc Wilson (Stoke), David Jones (Burnley), Darron Gibson (Everton), Tom Cleverley, Danny Drinkwater (Leicester), Matty James (Leicester), Ravel Morrison (West Ham) Robbie Brady (Hull), Adnan Januzaj, Danny Welbeck, Frazer Campbell (Crystal Palace).
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
@aminiken. I'm saying players that stay in their clubs, not that are made in the academy but go to other clubs.
Compared the great Arsenal and Man Utd teams of the 90's/early 2000's you have very few academy products in first squad of the title contenders.
Arsenal: Adams; Keown; Parlour; Cole. All key players. Plus other minor player.
Man U: The all class of 92, plus many others.
Today you have in:
- Arsenal only Wilshire and Gibbs (Szczęsny and Gnabry were bought at 16, almost made players, like Fàbregas. Not on the same level, but they still very talent prospects);
- Chelsea: Terry and Blackmon (a marginal player). Aké was bought at 16.
- Liverpool: Gerrard, Flanagan and Kelly (marginal player). Sterling was bought at a young age, but the value of the transfer can be expensive (5m or 10m, can't recall, if he plays a certain number of seasons, or other conditions).
- City: Richards (was good for a time. Today probably will be sold (3rd RB)). Rekic and others on loan are basically bought at 16.
- Utd are the one exception. Not the most talent lot, but still there's a culture of bringing young academy players to first team.
As you see the picture is quite poor. If you compare with the Spanish and German clubs you get embarrassed as Academy member.
LFC and AFC could take serious efforts to develop more young players, that way they could compete with the others without spending the same (a la BVB). Don't know if they aren't already, I don't follow too much the young prospect anymore. But the impression is that the model seems to buy foreign 16 year olds. But most of those signings do not work, the kids’ talent is wasted, they have difficulties adapting to a new country, a new way of football.
Compared the great Arsenal and Man Utd teams of the 90's/early 2000's you have very few academy products in first squad of the title contenders.
Arsenal: Adams; Keown; Parlour; Cole. All key players. Plus other minor player.
Man U: The all class of 92, plus many others.
Today you have in:
- Arsenal only Wilshire and Gibbs (Szczęsny and Gnabry were bought at 16, almost made players, like Fàbregas. Not on the same level, but they still very talent prospects);
- Chelsea: Terry and Blackmon (a marginal player). Aké was bought at 16.
- Liverpool: Gerrard, Flanagan and Kelly (marginal player). Sterling was bought at a young age, but the value of the transfer can be expensive (5m or 10m, can't recall, if he plays a certain number of seasons, or other conditions).
- City: Richards (was good for a time. Today probably will be sold (3rd RB)). Rekic and others on loan are basically bought at 16.
- Utd are the one exception. Not the most talent lot, but still there's a culture of bringing young academy players to first team.
As you see the picture is quite poor. If you compare with the Spanish and German clubs you get embarrassed as Academy member.
LFC and AFC could take serious efforts to develop more young players, that way they could compete with the others without spending the same (a la BVB). Don't know if they aren't already, I don't follow too much the young prospect anymore. But the impression is that the model seems to buy foreign 16 year olds. But most of those signings do not work, the kids’ talent is wasted, they have difficulties adapting to a new country, a new way of football.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
Some players on that list is rather dubious to be fair. Fabregas spent a few months in the Arsenal academy and six years in the Barcelona academy. I don't think he should be listed as an Arsenal youth product to be honest.
Rickie Lambert spent 14-15 years in the lower leagues before getting some PL football and got bought back at the age of 32, hardly a youth product either but rather a case of self made man.
I'm sure there are other examples, but those were the ones I spotted initially.
Rickie Lambert spent 14-15 years in the lower leagues before getting some PL football and got bought back at the age of 32, hardly a youth product either but rather a case of self made man.
I'm sure there are other examples, but those were the ones I spotted initially.
I think the best bits are the pie charts that illustrate how much spending has changed since the sugar daddys.
And I know I'm a bit thick, but how the hell is Rio Ferdinand the most expensive player in history according to his 'TPI'?
Methinks the TPI needs some work if that's the case. There's a phenomenon called depreciation which should be used to value assets of any company. In football, that tends to be 5 seasons - roughly equal to a players 'life' at a club. If a player signed 12 years ago is contributing the biggest single value to your cost model, you're probably doing the cost model wrong.
The bottom line about the sugar daddy clubs' spending is that it enables them to break lots and lots of eggs and still make the best omelette. If you added up City and Chelsea's 'rejects' over the past decade, those transfer fees alone would cost more than any other teams'. That's not the 25 or so that end up being in the squad, that's the dozens of buys that didn't work out, and were just discarded. That's the key difference.
For me the single most important way of looking at this is simple total cash expenditure each season, so gross tranfers in - gross sales + wages. That is the measure of how much a club is spending, and when you look at that it gets scary (see the Swiss Ramble for lots of examples). You'd expect United to be better this year not only because they have a football manager in charge this year, but also because they've spend a ton of cash on 3 players in the last 18 months.
Last edited:
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
Ferdinand being the most expensive is pretty obvious given that it was 30m about 13 years ago
By the model's logic, it's more financially prudent to have purchased 4 players at 40m over the course of the 12 years and sold 3 of them for £1 each then it is to have played your 30m asset for 12 years. In this model buying in the past and keeping a player in the long term makes you look less financially prudent.
That's why the whole thing is nonsensical to me.
I agree that you should factor in inflation to player fees, absolutely, but you can't ignore how long players have 'paid down' that initial outlay. I also don't get why the author doesn't just use CPI or RPI for the EU. Trying to balance inflation for each transfer window in isolation is crazy, clubs still do exist in the real world, and most of their other costs (and almost all of their revenues) would all be baselined with CPI/RPI.
Anyway, none of it really matters. Teams in the same league will play against other teams in the same league who are subsidised by a third party. That's the way football works, has worked and will continue to work. City and Chelsea just have richer third parties.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
It's an indicator which displays worrying numbers at the very least. You always have to use some sense when reading charts like that, and this one is no different.
amineken22
*****
- 9 November 2010
I think he does take on that the player's value gets amortize over the years, but at the same time it's also affected by their performances and wages (kinda what Transfermarkt.com use for their appreciations). Basically the player's performances will either boost, justify or drop their MV.
Godotelli
Stroking Silva's Hair
There's an article that goes into how the conversions are made.
By his reckoning, the price paid for Stan Collymore back in 95 was the equivalent of around 30m today. This seems pretty accurate.
What's interesting is that he was sold in 97 for 7m but, due to inflation at the time, this lesser fee would equate to 34m today.
Whether Rio has been worth the 60-70m given that he served Utd well for a good portion of his 12 year stay is inherently subjective but I would agree that using this figure for his £XI isn't without its flaws given that quite clearly Rio was not what he once was
By his reckoning, the price paid for Stan Collymore back in 95 was the equivalent of around 30m today. This seems pretty accurate.
What's interesting is that he was sold in 97 for 7m but, due to inflation at the time, this lesser fee would equate to 34m today.
Whether Rio has been worth the 60-70m given that he served Utd well for a good portion of his 12 year stay is inherently subjective but I would agree that using this figure for his £XI isn't without its flaws given that quite clearly Rio was not what he once was
Last edited:
ZeroTheHero
Banned
The biggest offensive star players often directly contributes to partly pay for themselves in terms of sold merchandise and increased club popularity but that's rarely the case for defenders.
I highly doubt Rio Ferdinand's person brought many new Man United fans, quite the opposite I'd think. But he was a good, solid defender for quite a few years so I strongly doubt United "lost money" on him in any way.
I highly doubt Rio Ferdinand's person brought many new Man United fans, quite the opposite I'd think. But he was a good, solid defender for quite a few years so I strongly doubt United "lost money" on him in any way.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Solid? Rio was one of the best CB's in the world for most of the last decade. He more than repaid the investment. CL money, TV money (in England performance matters), etc. depend on how you perform. A defender may not contribute much merchandising wise, but their on pitch performance is indispensable for getting that money.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
Jesus fuck, my praise wasn't flamboyant enough for you? Some people...
I also remember him being juiced up, which is why he skipped that test. That counts for something in my book which is also why I implied that he might not have brought tons of new fans to the club. I might be wrong in thinking the average Joe has ethics though.
I also remember him being juiced up, which is why he skipped that test. That counts for something in my book which is also why I implied that he might not have brought tons of new fans to the club. I might be wrong in thinking the average Joe has ethics though.
Last edited:
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Saying that a player is good, solid is a flamboyant praise since when. Cahill is a good, solid CB. Rio was top 5/10 for most of his career. Yes, he was probably juiced up at some point in his career, but he paid the price and return at a top level also. Ethics has nothing to do it. He was caught (or avoided being caught) and he was punished. You can’t hold that against him.
But the discussion is rather pointless... As normal you see things from a different spectrum than I.
But the discussion is rather pointless... As normal you see things from a different spectrum than I.
ZeroTheHero
Banned
I didn't say my praise was flamboyant because I didn't intend it to be, but my words were sufficient enough to state the fact that he was good. Moreover, he didn't pay the price at all because some people paid off the right people and he got a minor slap where he should've been properly neutered to state an example for the sport. Rio Ferdinand is a class example of rotten sportsmanship protected by a rotten association and greedy men.
Last edited:
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
8 months ban isn't a minor slap by any chance(Davids in the same period of time got a 4 months ban for testing positive for nandrolone). How Ferdinand is as person has nothing to do on how good a footballer he was. No every professional is a gentlemen, there are assholes too, plenty of them in fact.
Ultimate, he was a "good" defender and more than repaid the investment.
Ultimate, he was a "good" defender and more than repaid the investment.
- Thread starter
- #2,748
gerd
Retired Footballer
Rio Ferdinand was never top 5/10 in the world on his position.
He seemed exceptional because he played in a league with weak defenderd (Cahill is a very average defender by the way, i'm not even sure if Kompany is one of the best in the world, makes lots of mistakes with our national team).
He seemed exceptional because he played in a league with weak defenderd (Cahill is a very average defender by the way, i'm not even sure if Kompany is one of the best in the world, makes lots of mistakes with our national team).
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Name ten in the 2000's that were better than him then.
Hyppia. Carnavaro. Terry. Thuram. Nesta. Desailly.
There's a few for starters. Just my opinion off top of my head. Might have dates mixed up but that was a quick 2 mins thought.
As a defender, I believe Rio was overrated. He was good but like most players, the praise is overboard. Someone liked him and he got lucky. If Fergie signed someone else they might have stood out more than him. Probably better defenders about in worse teams. That's footy for you though.
There's a few for starters. Just my opinion off top of my head. Might have dates mixed up but that was a quick 2 mins thought.
As a defender, I believe Rio was overrated. He was good but like most players, the praise is overboard. Someone liked him and he got lucky. If Fergie signed someone else they might have stood out more than him. Probably better defenders about in worse teams. That's footy for you though.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Desailly after 2002 was basically done, shouldn't really count. Hyppia? Come on.
I include him in my top ten of the 2000.
In no particular order: Nesta, Staam, Cannavaro, Lúcio, Thuram, Carvalho, Puyol, Terry, Campbell and Ferdinand.
I include him in my top ten of the 2000.
In no particular order: Nesta, Staam, Cannavaro, Lúcio, Thuram, Carvalho, Puyol, Terry, Campbell and Ferdinand.
Last edited:
amineken22
*****
- 9 November 2010
I'd say: Nesta, Samuel, Carvalho, Metzelder, Puyol, Campbell, Terry, and Ayala.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Metzelder! For real?
amineken22
*****
- 9 November 2010
yeah, Metzelder for real. He was a beast before all his injuries, very hard to pass through him.
He, Ballack and Deisler were the best out of their generation, sadly only Ballack got to fulfill his potential (sort of).
He, Ballack and Deisler were the best out of their generation, sadly only Ballack got to fulfill his potential (sort of).
- Thread starter
- #2,755
gerd
Retired Footballer
If you look in England alone: Vidic, that was a top defender.
Besides him: Cannavaro, Nesta, Puyol, Thuram, Barzagli,
If you want to have an idea if a player was absolute among the best, here is a test.
In 10 years time will people outside his nation remember him as one of the greats of his era.
Maybe the answer is yes for Ferdinand, but i personally have my doubts.
I'm talking about a CB like Beckenbauer, Baresi, Scirea, Ayala, Nadal, Marius Trésor, Desailly, Andrada (Uruguay, the 30's), Bergomi, Varela, Billy Mc Neill (Celtic in the 60's), Carlos Alberto (Brazil 1970).
If you look for a Man Utd CB among the best ever: Jaap Stam.
Besides him: Cannavaro, Nesta, Puyol, Thuram, Barzagli,
If you want to have an idea if a player was absolute among the best, here is a test.
In 10 years time will people outside his nation remember him as one of the greats of his era.
Maybe the answer is yes for Ferdinand, but i personally have my doubts.
I'm talking about a CB like Beckenbauer, Baresi, Scirea, Ayala, Nadal, Marius Trésor, Desailly, Andrada (Uruguay, the 30's), Bergomi, Varela, Billy Mc Neill (Celtic in the 60's), Carlos Alberto (Brazil 1970).
If you look for a Man Utd CB among the best ever: Jaap Stam.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
Before his injuries he was a good defender with the potencial to be great, however he never fulfilled that. Not enough to put him ahead of established players, but I get your point.
andy18cruz
Sth, sth ... dark side
never said he was a all-time CB, but for sure a top ten in his generation.
Vidic was great later on his career from 2008 or something forward. Before that he was a guy that despite his physical dominance made a lot of silly mistake and besides always lacked a bit of pace. With time he developed his game and became a more consistent defender. Ferdinand in the other hand has been in top level since his Leeds days (early 2000's) and was consistent for all the decade. Probably one of the fattest CB's if you take his size in consideration. Not the best at reading the game, but his physical attributes more than made for it. Cannot put Vidic ahead of him. Consistent play for over a decade is a remarkable achievement in itself.
Vidic was great later on his career from 2008 or something forward. Before that he was a guy that despite his physical dominance made a lot of silly mistake and besides always lacked a bit of pace. With time he developed his game and became a more consistent defender. Ferdinand in the other hand has been in top level since his Leeds days (early 2000's) and was consistent for all the decade. Probably one of the fattest CB's if you take his size in consideration. Not the best at reading the game, but his physical attributes more than made for it. Cannot put Vidic ahead of him. Consistent play for over a decade is a remarkable achievement in itself.
Yes Hyppia. Without a shadow of a doubt. Very good CB. Ferdinand was no better than him. The love in for Ferdinand is a joke tbh. He was good, but not a great.
YoungGun_UK
20 TIMES!
Hyppia OK mate.
