Remember just a few seasons back when Arsenal were being lauded from all quarters and praised to the high heavens about how they're a model for youth development and were churning young players for their first team? Well, I was doing some research about that for a post in the thread on England and Liverpool, and it seems to me that the media (surprise surprise), our own owners and fans might have just gone a bit overboard in their praise.
Let me preface things by saying that, I do not consider a young player who is bought from another club and then proceeds to make a good number of appearances (not the odd one or two) in the first team right away as a club-developed product. Ditto anyone who is bought and loaned out right away and then returns to play for the first team. On the other hand, I would regard a player who joined the club and spent the majority of a season or two in the reserves (i.e. U-21s) as a player who was club-developed.
Given this criteria, how many Arsenal youngsters really fit the bill? Firstly, let's look at their Academy graduates who have played a decent number of games (say, 30 league games or more) for their club since 2000:
- Cole, Bendtner, Gibbs, Wilshere, Szczesny, Fabregas, Hoyte, Djourou
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C._Academy#International_academy_graduates
(strictly speaking, these are graduates who played for their country, but I think you could safely say that those who didn't go on to play for their country aren't worth a mention)
That's 8 guys in 14 seasons, with Hoyte actually playing just 34 games in 6 seasons with the club. Of the eight, Bendtner (sorry, the_KHL, wherever you are), Hoyte and Djourou aren't anything to crow about.
Hang on! How about their other young guys? You know, the youngsters who're actually pretty good, like Reyes, Diaby, Song, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Ramsey, Flamini, Vela, etc? Surely they were somewhat developed by the reserves?
Well, all these guys were bought and went straight to the first team, with the exception of Vela, who arrived at 16 but went out on loan for a few seasons due to work permit issues before returning to join the first team. Even someone like Jenkinson went straight into the first team after arrival.
So, what's this big youth churning factory we're talking about again?
Over the same time frame (from 2000 till now), Liverpool has churned out these guys who played 30 or more league games:
- Spearing, Warnock, Kelly, Flanagan, Insua, Sterling (last two bought and developed in the U-18s and reserves)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_F.C._Reserves_and_Academy
Yes, only Sterling is a potential star in that pack (right now), as compared to the pair that Arsenal produced (Cole and Fabregas), and the players we produced have not been that high quality and definitely have been a tier or two lower than their Arsenal contemporaries. However, that's just us versus Arsenal, which isn't the point here.
The point is that, on an absolute basis, Arsenal's products haven't been that great. As mentioned, Cole and Fabregas were top products but the way the media was going on about their youth policy and factory, it was easy to be led to believe that they produced more top players from their Academy and Reserves, when only two actually did.
Am I being harsh and have my facts wrong? If you considered buying young players for the first team as youth development, then sure, Chelsea's pretty great at that too.
Let me preface things by saying that, I do not consider a young player who is bought from another club and then proceeds to make a good number of appearances (not the odd one or two) in the first team right away as a club-developed product. Ditto anyone who is bought and loaned out right away and then returns to play for the first team. On the other hand, I would regard a player who joined the club and spent the majority of a season or two in the reserves (i.e. U-21s) as a player who was club-developed.
Given this criteria, how many Arsenal youngsters really fit the bill? Firstly, let's look at their Academy graduates who have played a decent number of games (say, 30 league games or more) for their club since 2000:
- Cole, Bendtner, Gibbs, Wilshere, Szczesny, Fabregas, Hoyte, Djourou
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C._Academy#International_academy_graduates
(strictly speaking, these are graduates who played for their country, but I think you could safely say that those who didn't go on to play for their country aren't worth a mention)
That's 8 guys in 14 seasons, with Hoyte actually playing just 34 games in 6 seasons with the club. Of the eight, Bendtner (sorry, the_KHL, wherever you are), Hoyte and Djourou aren't anything to crow about.
Hang on! How about their other young guys? You know, the youngsters who're actually pretty good, like Reyes, Diaby, Song, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Ramsey, Flamini, Vela, etc? Surely they were somewhat developed by the reserves?
Well, all these guys were bought and went straight to the first team, with the exception of Vela, who arrived at 16 but went out on loan for a few seasons due to work permit issues before returning to join the first team. Even someone like Jenkinson went straight into the first team after arrival.
So, what's this big youth churning factory we're talking about again?
Over the same time frame (from 2000 till now), Liverpool has churned out these guys who played 30 or more league games:
- Spearing, Warnock, Kelly, Flanagan, Insua, Sterling (last two bought and developed in the U-18s and reserves)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_F.C._Reserves_and_Academy
Yes, only Sterling is a potential star in that pack (right now), as compared to the pair that Arsenal produced (Cole and Fabregas), and the players we produced have not been that high quality and definitely have been a tier or two lower than their Arsenal contemporaries. However, that's just us versus Arsenal, which isn't the point here.
The point is that, on an absolute basis, Arsenal's products haven't been that great. As mentioned, Cole and Fabregas were top products but the way the media was going on about their youth policy and factory, it was easy to be led to believe that they produced more top players from their Academy and Reserves, when only two actually did.
Am I being harsh and have my facts wrong? If you considered buying young players for the first team as youth development, then sure, Chelsea's pretty great at that too.
