Guest Knightrider Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 You see HTT, reading that shows all you know is based on little snippets you've read etc. As though the kids Chelsea look at and sign are lacking the basics. As for the rest of your post, fucking hell, I give up. The going for a shit analogy is apt though. They will take on kids who are quick, strong and have good character even if that kid has no real ability, as they will coach the ability. A lot of academies do that. This is partly why there is a huge turnover of kids who fail to make the grade because clubs are letting anyone in presumably because they fear missing out on a talent and because their fast-track coaching programmes actually work (in theory). I was watching an under 9s Newcastle United academy kid the other week and honestly, half the kids in development football (pre-league footy in mini-league football) that I've seen are better on the ball. He was tall, strong as an ox and very quick however, unlike a lot of kids that age. I'm in no doubt that NUFC will coach into him the basics and if he has a good character and a will to succeed, he may go onto develop his technique and whatever else even further. I honestly don't think people realise what a mess youth football in this country is really in tbh, not made any easier by academies accepting anyone with a bit pace, height or strength and to hell with actual ability. As for not needing any talent... do you know how many programmes have been set up that will teach kids in 6 weeks all of Ronaldinhos moves? Lots. I ask you, Jamie McClenn, how the heck did he get through our academy? Was it his ability? I doubt it, he had none. Maybe it was his engine, strong running, work rate, good character. Youth football is big money and football clubs know that the more kids they take on, the money they can earn. There are new markets opening up in extra expert coaching, one to one coaching, skills learning, even tournaments that parents are having to folk out for. Youth football development is becoming a money making scheme so they don't really care whether a kid has ability or not. Again, a kid today doesn't need ability to become a footballer as it can be coached or learned in the main and the game itself is being filled with these average footballers. Footy clubs aren't daft either, they make the football club and the academies two separate identities so when parents say "but NUFC is loaded" they say "ah, we aren't funded like that, we get allocated a certain amount and rely on grants and such". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 You see HTT, reading that shows all you know is based on little snippets you've read etc. As though the kids Chelsea look at and sign are lacking the basics. As for the rest of your post, fucking hell, I give up. The going for a shit analogy is apt though. They will take on kids who are quick, strong and have good character even if that kid has no real ability, as they will coach the ability. A lot of academies do that. This is partly why there is a huge turnover of kids who fail to make the grade because clubs are letting anyone in presumably because they fear missing out on a talent and because their fast-track coaching programmes actually work (in theory). I was watching an under 9s Newcastle United academy kid the other week and honestly, half the kids in development football (pre-league footy in mini-league football) that I've seen are better on the ball. He was tall, strong as an ox and very quick however, unlike a lot of kids that age. I'm in no doubt that NUFC will coach into him the basics and if he has a good character and a will to succeed, he may go onto develop his technique and whatever else even further. I honestly don't think people realise what a mess youth football in this country is really in tbh, not made any easier by academies accepting anyone with a bit pace, height or strength and to hell with actual ability. As for not needing any talent... do you know how many programmes have been set up that will teach kids in 6 weeks all of Ronaldinhos moves? Lots. I ask you, Jamie McClenn, how the heck did he get through our academy? Was it his ability? I doubt it, he had none. Maybe it was his engine, strong running, work rate, good character. Youth football is big money and football clubs know that the more kids they take on, the money they can earn. There are new markets opening up in extra expert coaching, one to one coaching, skills learning, even tournaments that parents are having to folk out for. Youth football development is becoming a money making scheme so they don't really care whether a kid has ability or not. Again, a kid today doesn't need ability to become a footballer as it can be coached or learned in the main and the game itself is being filled with these average footballers. Footy clubs aren't daft either, they make the football club and the academies two separate identities so when parents say "but NUFC is loaded" they say "ah, we aren't funded like that, we get allocated a certain amount and rely on grants and such". Why do so many not make the grade then? Seeing as, according to you, it's all about coaching and not raw talent? Rhetorical question btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 You see HTT, reading that shows all you know is based on little snippets you've read etc. As though the kids Chelsea look at and sign are lacking the basics. As for the rest of your post, fucking hell, I give up. The going for a shit analogy is apt though. They will take on kids who are quick, strong and have good character even if that kid has no real ability, as they will coach the ability. A lot of academies do that. This is partly why there is a huge turnover of kids who fail to make the grade because clubs are letting anyone in presumably because they fear missing out on a talent and because their fast-track coaching programmes actually work (in theory). I was watching an under 9s Newcastle United academy kid the other week and honestly, half the kids in development football (pre-league footy in mini-league football) that I've seen are better on the ball. He was tall, strong as an ox and very quick however, unlike a lot of kids that age. I'm in no doubt that NUFC will coach into him the basics and if he has a good character and a will to succeed, he may go onto develop his technique and whatever else even further. I honestly don't think people realise what a mess youth football in this country is really in tbh, not made any easier by academies accepting anyone with a bit pace, height or strength and to hell with actual ability. As for not needing any talent... do you know how many programmes have been set up that will teach kids in 6 weeks all of Ronaldinhos moves? Lots. I ask you, Jamie McClenn, how the heck did he get through our academy? Was it his ability? I doubt it, he had none. Maybe it was his engine, strong running, work rate, good character. Youth football is big money and football clubs know that the more kids they take on, the money they can earn. There are new markets opening up in extra expert coaching, one to one coaching, skills learning, even tournaments that parents are having to folk out for. Youth football development is becoming a money making scheme so they don't really care whether a kid has ability or not. Again, a kid today doesn't need ability to become a footballer as it can be coached or learned in the main and the game itself is being filled with these average footballers. Footy clubs aren't daft either, they make the football club and the academies two separate identities so when parents say "but NUFC is loaded" they say "ah, we aren't funded like that, we get allocated a certain amount and rely on grants and such". Why do so many not make the grade then? Seeing as, according to you, it's all about coaching and not raw talent? Rhetorical question btw. No, I'm not saying it's all about the coaching, clubs are. When you are taking in hundreds of kids a year as some academies do, obviously the numbers that fail to make it or going to be even higher and that's what's happening. The game and its clubs need to change tact, they need to forget about physical ability and stop trying to create all these footballers which they can do but it's at a huge cost in terms of creativity and natural ability, and get back to scouting for genuine talent based on nothing more than ability. I can tell you now don't expect many Toon stars of the future based on some of the 'talent' I've seen, expect more Ramages than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest float one in Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Laugh all you will fellas, this isn't some crack pot theory. We wouldn't have academies if they didn't think they could turn a kid into a footballer. Every kid they get through the door isn't some finished article you know or blessed with amazing ability. In fact most are very much the same ability wise. And if people want to deny that Martins' co-ordination levels are s****... Of course they`re not finished articles! These lads might be more or less the same ability wise, but they`re still miles better than 99% of other kids who try just as hard as them in the teams they play for on sunday mornings! Theyve all got something extra. Regarding Martins, he kept us up last season (along with one or two others) cos he had the ability to score in a very very poor team. His unpredictability and occasional individual brilliance was an asset. That is great. But at 22 or 23 or whatever he is too old to develop into the player we need over the next 3 or so years. We need to develop a consistent, effective, attacking style of play. Can you imagine him playing for Man U or Arsenal? He would just look out of place and if you cant see that you need to pay more attention when you are watching football. In the same way, if he played sunday league he would look like he`d just been beamed down from planet Pele. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Ramage isn't exactly Hercules is he? He's tall but skinny and slow. I don't think what you're saying is true. Look at the West Ham generation. Physically Lampard was a skinny one. No great physical specimen although pretty tall, same with Carrick but they had good footballing attributes. Joe Cole wasn't particularly pacey or strong. Rio Ferdinand is a very natural footballer. He had a ballet scholarship and all, does that mean he has good co-ordination? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallowgate Toon Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Balls over the top are what we should be giving Martins, even if the defender looks like he is there first, Martins can still get past him and create a decent shot a la Riise and Liverpool yesterday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Serious questions will be asked of Keegan if he doesn't pick Martins against Birmingham and we come away with nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Only goals are going to keep us up the way we are defending. Martins has to start, the only question should be whether Owen starts with him. IMO he should. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teepee Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 start martins and owen - if they don't perform, then kk has to do his job and substitute the worst of them for a bigger striker - also if the worst performer is owen! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Balls over the top are what we should be giving Martins, even if the defender looks like he is there first, Martins can still get past him and create a decent shot a la Riise and Liverpool yesterday. is this a whoosh ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 If he is dropped to the bench again for the Brum game then sing for him from kick off until he is put on, its a fkn joke him not starting.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Which academy did Maradona attend? Just so I know. The Gypsy one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Which academy did Maradona attend? Just so I know. maybe we should call him up and offer him a contract. his intelligence on the pitch and first-touch are better than Martins so theoretically he should still be a better player than him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Which academy did Maradona attend? Just so I know. maybe we should call him up and offer him a contract. his intelligence on the pitch and first-touch are better than Martins so theoretically he should still be a better player than him. Surely we just need better coaches and we can then stick with what we've got. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think we should round up 11 Nigerian kids between the ages of 8 and 10, then train them like fuck to be God's in one position each. At least I think that's the solution, I've been lost for the better part of the last 2 pages though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think we should round up 11 Nigerian kids between the ages of 8 and 10, then train them like fuck to be God's in one position each. At least I think that's the solution, I've been lost for the better part of the last 2 pages though. didn't we try that with Ameobi? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Of course they`re not finished articles! These lads might be more or less the same ability wise, but they`re still miles better than 99% of other kids who try just as hard as them in the teams they play for on sunday mornings! Theyve all got something extra. They do have something extra, their physical strengths more often than not. Trust me, what talent is in academies isn't that much different to what is out there in Sunday league kids' football. The gap isn't that big. I suggest you go and watch a few academy games and then a few normal Sunday league kids' football games to see for yourself. What you will notice is that a lot of academy kids are bigger, stronger and quicker but natural ability wise, there isn't much between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think we should round up 11 Nigerian kids between the ages of 8 and 10, then train them like f*** to be God's in one position each. At least I think that's the solution, I've been lost for the better part of the last 2 pages though. didn't we try that with Ameobi? Stop shooting holes in my ridiculous theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Ramage isn't exactly Hercules is he? He's tall but skinny and slow. I don't think what you're saying is true. Look at the West Ham generation. Physically Lampard was a skinny one. No great physical specimen although pretty tall, same with Carrick but they had good footballing attributes. Joe Cole wasn't particularly pacey or strong. Rio Ferdinand is a very natural footballer. He had a ballet scholarship and all, does that mean he has good co-ordination? So what was it that got Ramage through then, his ability? Anyway, I'm not saying the only players getting through are those with physical attributes, or that this is only what clubs are looking for. outstanding natural ability will always be snapped up and come through. What I am saying is that where development is concerned, attributes like dribbling, skill, ball control, shooting etc. can be coached so these things are not essential these days for a lot of academies. What is essential is physical attributes which can't be coached. This is what clubs look for more than anything else as they know that a Joe Cole is extremely rare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedudeabides Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Ramage isn't exactly Hercules is he? He's tall but skinny and slow. I don't think what you're saying is true. Look at the West Ham generation. Physically Lampard was a skinny one. No great physical specimen although pretty tall, same with Carrick but they had good footballing attributes. Joe Cole wasn't particularly pacey or strong. Rio Ferdinand is a very natural footballer. He had a ballet scholarship and all, does that mean he has good co-ordination? Ramage isn't exactly Hercules is he? He's tall but skinny and slow. I don't think what you're saying is true. Look at the West Ham generation. Physically Lampard was a skinny one. No great physical specimen although pretty tall, same with Carrick but they had good footballing attributes. Joe Cole wasn't particularly pacey or strong. Rio Ferdinand is a very natural footballer. He had a ballet scholarship and all, does that mean he has good co-ordination? Fat Frank, are you sure? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Adebayor? Been very very impressed with him, not and never will be a goalgetter, but he's a promising player, last season he couldn't do anything, looked way out of his depth, came on in leaps and bounds since. Coach did you not say this yourself? Adebayor is the same age as Martins is he not? So if you felt he went from not being able to do anything to becoming a promising player and furthermore a goal getter which you didn't feel he could ever become, then why do you feel Martins will not progress any further? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 If Martins had a full season in the premierleague i'd put money on him getting 20 goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 If Martins had a full season in the premierleague i'd put money on him getting 20 goals. He only missed 6 games last year....and only managed 11 goals in the 32 he played. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 If Martins had a full season in the premierleague i'd put money on him getting 20 goals. He only missed 6 games last year....and only managed 11 goals in the 32 he played. In his first season in the premiership and without having a pre-season with us, after having joined us so late in the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Martins would be tons better in a decent team with some movement iyam. Not many of our players can I say that about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now