Local Hero?

[alpal78]

I think Alex Ferguson would disagree with all of you, and 'local' slightly misrepresents my point, which is as much about produced players as anything.

 

Inter are a perfect example to back up my point too, as i said. A year later they're struggling because there was no foundations there beyond the manager. My point was about building consistent progress around certain players.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. It's more about building a consistent foundation by having players that (a) come through regularly enough to provide enough players and (b) have enough attachment to the club to stick around and care about how the club performs.

 

Man Utd a brilliant example as you say, and Inter (and possibly Chelsea) an example of how success that is only built through mercenaries can be fleeting.

 

Man Utd is an interesting example as they seem to keep a core of 'local' players, but again players like Beckham, Scholes, Giggs were important because they were awesome not because they were products of the academy. Of their current crop of 'local' players, I would say only Fletcher can be considered important. Players like Brown and O'Shea don't contribute anything significant, they are not even in the first team.

 

In fact if anything over the last few years, Man Utd has become less 'local' with more reliance on players like Ronaldo, Nani, Rooney and this season Berbatov, and yet have more or less retain their success.  

[Wullie]

Thespence knows what i'm on about.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah, I mean obviously it doesn't really matter where the players are from, as long as you have them for long enough and they care enough to try hard and stick around.

 

That's why the Man Utd generation of Beckham and co was so amazing - doesn't matter whether they were actually from Manchester or not.

 

I think that was Wullie's main point though, I think everyone realises that the place of birth on your passport doesn't really make much difference. The value is more in bringing players into the team from an early age and making sure they're the right quality.

[JH]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

[ponsaelius]

 

Buying players will only get you so far without a soul to the squad, a few who will always be there, no matter who comes and goes in the meantime.

 

That's different to having homegrown players though. That's just having a consistent spine to the squad, it matters little whether they're properly 'homegrown', born in the area or even from the same country.

 

Inter have Zanetti (captain), Cordoba(vice-captain), Cambiasso (captain in waiting) etc who have been there years but are all bought in rather than being home-grown.

 

 

[Yorkie]

A truly successful team includes romance and sentiment in their path to glory, as well as trophy. For example, i'd rather re-live the Bobby years than get an injection like Man City have. They might win more than us but it wouldn't mean as much. A 'local hero', or however you want to put it, probably isn't essential when you've got £1billion to spend on players... but for normies such as us, having players from the area aid to the driving force substantially. It's all relative imo.

[alpal78]

Exactly Ian. Honestly don't think it's coincidence that as Terry and Lampard start to age and wane, so do Chelsea because the foundations beyond them don't exist.

Lampard is an interesting exception because he wasn't theirs and they paid a lot for him but i've always thought of him as a local who the success since RA has been built around. I'm not trying to lay down hard and fast rules here but it's the same principle as the Liverpool boot room which brought them massive success across 20 years and 4 different managers.

 

Buying players will only get you so far without a soul to the squad, a few who will always be there, no matter who comes and goes in the meantime.

 

Chelsea have suffered because they have not replaced Terry and Lampard with players of similar quality. Now that they have bought David Luiz, I expect them to improve and if they can find a goalscoring midfielder like Lampard (which admittedly is not easy), they will be firing on all cylinders again

[alpal78]

Yeah, I mean obviously it doesn't really matter where the players are from, as long as you have them for long enough and they care enough to try hard and stick around.

 

That's why the Man Utd generation of Beckham and co was so amazing - doesn't matter whether they were actually from Manchester or not.

 

I think that was Wullie's main point though, I think everyone realises that the place of birth on your passport doesn't really make much difference. The value is more in bringing players into the team from an early age and making sure they're the right quality.

 

Ian I did include Wullie's wider definition in my OP. I defined 'local' players as those who were either a) born in the locality or b) came through the youth academy. I still don't think they are necessary for success though like I said many times they do bring a sense of belonging to the fans.

[alpal78]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny  

[JH]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny 

 

Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area)

[ponsaelius]

Like I've said, it's more to do with having a consistent spine to the team rather than where the players are actually from. Man U/Barcelona have had success from having a consistent spine to the team, they've just happened to be for the majority homegrown/local players rather than bought in/foreign. Teams like Chelsea and Inter have next to no homegrown players at all (Terry is the only one I can think of for both teams), but they still have a consistent set of quality players that are always there and this helps them be successful.

 

 

[Anderson]

It's not local players as such that you need, it's players who actually care about the club, who see them as more than an employer. However, as expected it is usually local players who've grown up with the club which provide you this; obviously this isn't always the case, Barton and Nolan being two good examples of players who really care about Newcastle United and understand what the club is all about.

[alpal78]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny 

 

Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area)

 

Ya I see your point on the confusion, but to me it makes no difference, both are not prerequisites to be successful.

[Anderson]

Also another note, stability is also key and this is normally another thing local players bring. Look at Man Utd, after a brief skim of their squad they have only Brown and Scholes Manchester born. However they have players like Giggs, Ferdninand, Fletcher, Rooney, O'Shea etc who have been there for a good while, and of course a stable management situation.

So in short you don't necessarily need local players but, stability and players who care; it's just that more often than not local players provide both of these.

[Wullie]

Like I've said, it's more to do with having a consistent spine to the team rather than where the players are actually from. Man U/Barcelona have had success from having a consistent spine to the team, they've just happened to be for the majority homegrown/local players rather than bought in/foreign. Teams like Chelsea and Inter have next to no homegrown players at all (Terry is the only one I can think of for both teams), but they still have a consistent set of quality players that are always there and this helps them be successful.

 

Well quite, but it's a lot easier to keep a spine made up of homegrown players (I know, I know "transfer request" yawn) - the players that tend to stay for a very long time at clubs are usually local, Inter is an exception but their South American contingent adheres to the same rule of keeping a solid spine - the "boot room".

 

My original point was about Carroll, who every single person in Newcastle had earmarked as the future of their football club, sold to the first bidder without a second's thought about the club's future, the team's future. That he's a Geordie is a huge plus and was extremely important to me but I'd have said exactly the same if it had been Ranger, or Krul, who had flourished into an international and then been sold off. Won't pretend local isn't important - I get more pleasure from a Shola goal than anyone else in the squad because he's doing what I always dreamed of doing. If you have no care for local at all, I think you've got to ask yourself why you support NUFC, surely? That's for another thread maybe, it's not the crux of the point I was making.

 

You've got to have a fabric to the club unless you're Manchester City. When you get those quality players coming through that you think can form that spine, you should be clinging on to them for dear life. I'm sure if Paul Scholes had been told in 1995 that they'd accepted a huge bid for him from Massive Club X, he'd have gone willingly as well. The difference is that Ferguson wouldn't have entertained any sum for him, because he knows players like that are too important.

[Wullie]

Also another note, stability is also key and this is normally another thing local players bring. Look at Man Utd, after a brief skim of their squad they have only Brown and Scholes Manchester born. However they have players like Giggs, Ferdninand, Fletcher, Rooney, O'Shea etc who have been there for a good while, and of course a stable management situation.

So in short you need stability and players who care and it's more often than not that local players provide both of these.

 

 

What Sir Bobby Robson said in your signature is spot on.

[Punk77]

A truly successful team includes romance and sentiment in their path to glory, as well as trophy. For example, i'd rather re-live the Bobby years than get an injection like Man City have. They might win more than us but it wouldn't mean as much. A 'local hero', or however you want to put it, probably isn't essential when you've got £1billion to spend on players... but for normies such as us, having players from the area aid to the driving force substantially. It's all relative imo.

 

This!

 

Since I'm a Norwegian, I'm probably a bit disqualified when it comes to to talking about the significance of a local hero. But here's my view anyway..Imo you can become a hero regardless of your belonging.  What's really defines a hero in my opinion, is those good players who decide to be loyal to their club,  even if the club hits rock bottom. Like Le God of Soton, and Shearer are such heroes.  Of course, one might say that the reason why Shearer was loyal, was because he's from Newcastle. But that need not be true. One can be loyal regardless of affiliation. And for me that is the important thing. But what this club really needs, is not a local hero, but players who really want to play for the club, who are proud of wearing the black and white.Too often  we bought players who couldn't care s*** about the club. Their goal was to complete the generous contract Fred had just given them. Also, we cannot undermine the importance of having good squad players too, like Smith and Kuqi. They're not good enough, but are 100% professional and will give everything if asked. That can be much more decisive in a difficult situation than having an Owen that doesn't give a damn.  I was absolutely delighted to read about how proud Kuqi was when he signed for us. And for that reason alone I will be ecstatic if he scores. He gives 100% and cares!.

 

Summing up: I admire those players who stay regardless, those players who care, those players like Smith and Nolan who -despite their limited capabilities on the pitch- do the extraordinary when the club is in trouble. Those are the players that I admire and I think it's very important that the club have. They can instill good values into the younger ones, and keep the hottest players firmly on the ground. In other words as long as we secure such a good mix, which we have now, we will be fine. And I embrace every player as long as they're proud to wear the shirt.

[ponsaelius]

Like I've said, it's more to do with having a consistent spine to the team rather than where the players are actually from. Man U/Barcelona have had success from having a consistent spine to the team, they've just happened to be for the majority homegrown/local players rather than bought in/foreign. Teams like Chelsea and Inter have next to no homegrown players at all (Terry is the only one I can think of for both teams), but they still have a consistent set of quality players that are always there and this helps them be successful.

 

Well quite, but it's a lot easier to keep a spine made up of homegrown players (I know, I know "transfer request" yawn) - the players that tend to stay for a very long time at clubs are usually local, Inter is an exception but their South American contingent adheres to the same rule of keeping a solid spine - the "boot room".

 

My original point was about Carroll, who every single person in Newcastle had earmarked as the future of their football club, sold to the first bidder without a second's thought about the club's future, the team's future. That he's a Geordie is a huge plus and was extremely important to me but I'd have said exactly the same if it had been Ranger, or Krul, who had flourished into an international and then been sold off. Won't pretend local isn't important - I get more pleasure from a Shola goal than anyone else in the squad because he's doing what I always dreamed of doing. If you have no care for local at all, I think you've got to ask yourself why you support NUFC, surely? That's for another thread maybe, it's not the crux of the point I was making.

 

You've got to have a fabric to the club unless you're Manchester City. When you get those quality players coming through that you think can form that spine, you should be clinging on to them for dear life. I'm sure if Paul Scholes had been told in 1995 that they'd accepted a huge bid for him from Massive Club X, he'd have gone willingly as well. The difference is that Ferguson wouldn't have entertained any sum for him, because he knows players like that are too important.

 

I agree with this. That's why I felt inspired enough to go out of my way to make that Carroll video, with all the romanticised local hero #9 stuff and shots of the city etc. That kind of stuff will always mean a lot to fans, but personally I feel less and less like it actually makes a difference to a team's success. At the end of the day the best teams are the teams that spend the most money.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Oh yeah, I definitely enjoy Shola's goals more because he's a local lad, and I would prefer if we did have a local spine. I just doubt whether it actually makes any difference to our chances of success.

[Wullie]

Oh yeah, I definitely enjoy Shola's goals more because he's a local lad, and I would prefer if we did have a local spine. I just doubt whether it actually makes any difference to our chances of success.

 

Having a spine does though, and you can't create one of those with money, no matter how much you've got. You've got to either spend money and HOPE that it creates itself, or take the bull by the horns, create it yourself and more importantly, hold onto it no matter what.

 

That's the point.

[JH]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny 

 

Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area)

 

Ya I see your point on the confusion, but to me it makes no difference, both are not prerequisites to be successful.

 

I think the latter certainly is. Man City have shown that you can't just throw money at 11 of the best players and expect them to win.

 

There is a 'spine' to every team, like Wullie says. You need money to make a team great and successful, but Chelsea have Lampard and Terry at their centre, Man United had Giggs and Scholes, Arsenal have Fabregas, Liverpool with Gerrard and Carragher (a few years ago).

 

You can't have success without a team.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Oh yeah, I definitely enjoy Shola's goals more because he's a local lad, and I would prefer if we did have a local spine. I just doubt whether it actually makes any difference to our chances of success.

 

Having a spine does though, and you can't create one of those with money, no matter how much you've got. You've got to either spend money and HOPE that it creates itself, or take the bull by the horns, create it yourself and more importantly, hold onto it no matter what.

 

That's the point.

 

Yeah, a consistent and high-quality core to the team is essential I agree.

[alpal78]

I think people are getting mixed up a bit here.

 

How so Jonny  

 

Well half the people are talking about local players (those from the area etc.) while others are referring to it in the sense of players that have settled at a club, been there for years (not necessary from the area)

 

Ya I see your point on the confusion, but to me it makes no difference, both are not prerequisites to be successful.

 

I think the latter certainly is. Man City have shown that you can't just throw money at 11 of the best players and expect them to win.

 

There is a 'spine' to every team, like Wullie says. You need money to make a team great and successful, but Chelsea have Lampard and Terry at their centre, Man United had Giggs and Scholes, Arsenal have Fabregas, Liverpool with Gerrard and Carragher (a few years ago).

 

You can't have success without a team.

 

Yes but this 'spine' can be anyone regardless of whether the player is local born or came through the local academy or foreign players who had no association with the club before they signed. The key is that these players must be willing to give their all to the club. I would say our spine now are players like Colo, Enrique, Tiote, Barton and perhaps Nolan, all of them bought (some quite expensive) and none of them which would qualify as 'locals' (even using the broad definition)

 

Nobody would argue against having a spine for a club to be successful, that would be silly and was not the original argument. It was whether we need 'local' players (through birth or academy) which has now somewhat morphed into having a 'spine'.

[Punk77]

I agree that you need a spine. And that's probably one of City's main problems. They become more obsessed with money than football. That spine does not need to be local however.  A player can care about a club, regardless where you come from. Although one might say that when the player is local, the probability of his values being aligned with club values increases.  Giggs and Scholes were good players, and they contributed to silverware. But who knows what would have happened if success failed to appear. It's likely that they would have left the club. As I said, it's easy to be loyal when you win one trophy each year. And everybody knows that Gerrard was on his way out of Liverpool, but that suddenly changed after CL-final victory in 2006. In other words, being local doesn't have to mean squat. It's only when the shit hits the fan that it's possible to find out who's loyal and who cares.

 

What the club can do however, is to secure that most players that sign have good values and are interested in playing for the club. When you literally hurl money after players, it's likely that they will sign not because they want to play for the club, but because of the money involved. And this predicament is City experiencing now, and it was a problem for us earlier (Owen, Luque amongst others).  Then it's much better to offer modest contracts now. Those who have ambitions will sign regardless, and if they blossom we can later renegotiate the contract. Tiote saw this as his big opportunity, and HBA maybe sees us as a stepping stone to reignite his career, which is also fine by me. Point is that both want to be here!

[alpal78]

I agree that you need a spine. And that's probably one of City's main problems. They become more obsessed with money than football. That spine does not need to be local however.  A player can care about a club, regardless where you come from. Although one might say that when the player is local, the probability of his values being aligned with club values increases.  Giggs and Scholes were good players, and they contributed to silverware. But who knows what would have happened if success failed to appear. It's likely that they would have left the club. As I said, it's easy to be loyal when you win one trophy each year. And everybody knows that Gerrard was on his way out of Liverpool, but that suddenly changed after CL-final victory in 2006. In other words, being local doesn't have to mean squat. It's only when the s*** hits the fan that it's possible to find out who's loyal and who cares.

 

What the club can do however, is to secure that most players that sign have good values and are interested in playing for the club. When you literally hurl money after players, it's likely that they will sign not because they want to play for the club, but because of the money involved. And this predicament is City experiencing now, and it was a problem for us earlier (Owen, Luque amongst others).  Then it's much better to offer modest contracts now. Those who have ambitions will sign regardless, and if they blossom we can later renegotiate the contract. Tiote saw this as his big opportunity, and HBA maybe sees us as a stepping stone to reignite his career, which is also fine by me. Point is that both want to be here!

 

:clap: