Is that definite ? Let us see how we are in a few years time with these new generations who are winning under-age youth tournaments. I do sort of get what you saying but that doesn't stop us producing high quality, highly technical, highly skilled black players with vision who are tactically aware. Where I get what you saying is I've heard it and I'm sure others have but no matter the technical ability of some players with their vision a criticism is they need to be able to get around the pitch well enough because of their size and athleticism. There are a couple of players I am watching in our academy at the moment because I definitely think that this is the case with them. One is u17 and one is u15 and they central mfs. It hasn't stopped us promoting them but perhaps some players from their group in other positions are physically and or athletically ready but most important also have the quality to flourish no matter the opposition. Here is the catch 22, can they survive high tempo football the older they get and when there is physical contact how often do they lose the ball in duels in between the good stuff they do ? So much to weigh up and as we know it is hard enough for our players to get opportunities without worrying about other things. I remember when we had this debate before. I don't think we should be highly critical of each others view points because it is damn interesting.
Nobody has claimed that we're picking "untechnical" black players. This isn't about the black players in the squad it's about the non-black players that are not in the squad. Unless you're positing that the most technical players in the country are mostly black (how? Why?) I don't see a way around the obvious conclusion that academies are prioritising athleticism over technical ability on some level before they should. It's not like this is a small disparity. It's massive. We're talking about some national team XIs with one or two white players in a country where over 80% of the country is white. I don't see any way that we're not losing out on talent from that pool if this is how we're scouting. Hell, wasn't it a Man City coach that got in trouble for referencing "BBQs" (big, black and quick)? That has to give you a sense of the mentality out there.
the whole conversation is based on the premise that the best technical players aren't being selected. Which infers that black players are technically inferior. Again, geography is the focus. We're probably missing out on talent from the pool, mainly because a lot of people live outside the intense football structures that are inherent within the country. No different to France having more North African players in their side, or even Spain having vastly more Moroccan players in their set up than would be deemed expected if you just went off demographic percentages. Same with England and the increasing South American/Latino influence in our Youth teams. It's vastly out of wack with the general demographics, but much more representative of the areas that footballers have always historically come from. In the next few years we'll start to see loads of more players of Eastern European descent and less players of Irish descent. The through line will not be race, but geographical migration within England of Irish people away from urban areas and Eastern Europeans into them areas.
As for the BBQ comment. We have no context surrounding how or why that term was used. It could've been used in the same way that this discussion has been framed 'there's an over-reliance on BBQ players'. Which is hardly an example of positive discrimination.
It's presumably a bit of a virtuous circle for those who stand out at a very young age. I was speaking to the scout that picked up Jack Lankester for ITFC who I mentioned on a previous thread and how they picked up boys. I'm sure this sort of thing isn't news to anyone, or unusual - basically there are 5 or 6 satellite centres where a coach gets enough players to put together a team, they play each others centres and the neutral coaches watch the game and rate the players. Everyone there liked Lankester as he could go past people easily, before they found out he was a 5 year old playing with 7 year olds. He was presumably both physically and technically good to be able to take on players nearly 2 years his elder and he then goes into the academy, receives better coaching and continues to improve. If it is the case the black boys stand out physically AND technically, and the combination fo the 2 give them the advantage then whats the issue? I've watched ITFC academy for 15 years plus, gone are the days when some academies, notably London ones, bring down a team full of boys that are just (using the awful acronym above) BBQ and beat you by overpowering. Yes the boys may still be BBQ, but they are also all technically excellent too. I'm sure there is something in these boys being physically better and being picked up earlier, but the ones that are technically good aren't getting overlooked because of that
No it doesn't. It infers that black players are technically on par. I don't understand why this argument keeps being repeated. There is no area of the country - a footballing hotbed or otherwise - where black kids overwhelmingly outnumber white kids, not even close. Even in London the blackest boroughs in the city are only about 30-40% black.
I can’t help but think of Modric being rejected at a trial because he was ‘too small and weak.’ I don’t know what makes people so sure that similar players aren’t rejected here. Especially, when you consider that we’re not overly blessed in that department. Again, I can’t name specific players that have lost out because this all happens before they’re known. I do concede that geography plays a part, as kids in urban areas have a much greater chance of being scouted. From personal experience, a few of the lads on Arsenal’s books are surely only there by luck of geography, physical athleticism and early development. I can’t help but feel that they should take a chance on a smaller but more technical player. Unfortunately, youth coaches have to think pragmatically too. There are positive signs of a change in approach though. Players like Angel Gomes and James Garner are hardly beasts physically. Perhaps it comes down to individual coaches having the courage to persevere with the late developers and smaller lads.
I find it curious that this debate sparked up again because of an all-white goalkeeper camp, which is odd, because goalkeepers being a white-dominated position isn't new nor is it something specific to England. (Plus we've had Ellery Balcombe, Joseph Anang, Nathan Trott, Josh and Tobi Oluwayemi, Kelechi Chibueze, Coniah Boyce-Clarke, Arlo Doherty, Serine Sanneh, Daniel Jinadu, Arthur Okonkwo, Brandon Austin and others I've doubtless forgotten called up in recent years)
I don’t even think I understand the argument anymore. At first I thought it was a point about athletes being taken over technical options. Now its athletes with the same technical qualities being picked over lesser formed persons with the exact same technical ability? It’s not as if little players that struggle to cover the pitch aren’t seen in youth games. There was a player in the 98 age group that looked about 10 years old playing for England U16’s.
Also the idea that athleticism isn't a trait you'd want in a keeper is laughable. Seems like a bigger issue is that England are sometimes slow to identify the best black goalkeepers at 13/14, a common problem you have with 'racial stacking' in most sports/industries/cultures.
Ok. England has no history of overlooking technical players. In fact we’re practically awash with them and have been for years. It’s just not a problem we have. Countries like Spain however, haven’t won anything in recent years due to their massive over reliance on players of West African heritage and failure to produce technicians. Anybody, who talks about diversity is talking nonsense because diversity doesn’t matter. How could things possibly be any better?
I don't doubt that there is an inherent bias in many academies towards athletic youngsters but, whereas it was once almost purely based on athleticism, I don't believe that exists for the most part now. Clubs simply won't retain players for the long-term at the higher levels if they haven't got sufficient technical ability. I'm not naive enough to think there aren't elements of that remaining, but from what I've seen with my eyes up close and personal, it's not the prevailing attitude. And like @BarryfromEastenders I don't know what the point is here now? If there's a concern that less athletic young teenagers aren't getting due attention from academies but are eventually coming to the fore later in their career (as hinted at in the fact England's teams get whiter as they get older) then...maybe that's their natural development path? It's incredibly obvious that athletic youngsters will stand out earlier and make broader strides earlier in their career, but I don't see how you can force those who aren't to match that progress without a monumental culture shift (and there's already been a fairly dramatic one anyway). Clubs are trying all sorts of things to make sure they're not letting kids slip through the net, what with bio banding and mixed-age competitions and individual development plans and all that.
You keep using the word 'overreliance', which is strange. Also funny how Garner isn't a 'physical beast' despite possibly being the tallest midfielder we have at any age group and one of the biggest outfield players.
I like that. Let natural progression play it's course. There is no academy who wants to let a gem leave (big, small, black, white) or not look after individuals with technical ability. If they have the quality for senior football they will get there no matter the genetics with or without a certain club. But sometimes you can't always look to the future for an individual (let them go where their performances take them) and what more can you go with than the now if they good technically and are physically more ready than others and performing ? Anyways I'm happy with the path academies are going in England. A lot is going right and I am enjoying watching it. It is technical , creative and exciting. That is what matters to me.
I use the term over reliance in the context of being over reliant on a minority group rather than the larger demographic. It's a matter of opinion. For example, I consider England rugby team to be over reliant on public school educated players. Point taken re Garner but I was thinking more in terms of sprinting and muscle.
On this point I don't think it it so much a question of the physiology of black players so much pushing them ahead, its actually a trend you see throughout Western European teams of national representative sides being more and more dominated by kids from immigrant families, especially at younger youth levels. Its an interesting phenomenon in itself and its the same in France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Switzerland etc. Its not just black kids either though, where there's more Arab, Turkish, Latin American immigrants or whatever this is reflected too, only we don't have so many here. I don't know why this is the case but its something you can't help but have noticed watching international youth football on a European level.
My impression from living around the UK is that talent congregates in certain areas. I've lived in East Kent, an area that never produces footballers, Leicester where rugby and cricket were far more popular. Then Liverpool where everyone played football, to Cambridge where I've lived for 15 years next to a park with goals, surrounded by young families, where I literally never see anyone kicking a ball around. Football talent tends to come from constant play at a young age in an informal environment. Best players have always come from areas highly populated by young families close together - it used to be pit villages and terraced houses - now it seems to be urban high rise flats. Which happens to be where most of the recent immigrants to Europe can afford to live in.
Some interesting comments on this topic as I’ve been questioning this myself for a long time now. I think another problem, is the fact that we in England still have the September-August System. We are the only country who has this system (I think) as all or most other countries use the January-December system. Academies in England tend to favour kids who are born September-December in their relative age groups, after all these kids have an advantage of upto 8 months, meaning most (but certainly not all) will be physically and mentally more advanced than the rest of the kids who are born January-August. At English academies you’ll find that in each age group there’s probably only a handful of kids born January-August, and a lot of those kids tend to be black lads as they’re up to speed physically with the rest of the group, certainly at the top cat1 clubs anyway. This is purely from my own experience and what I’ve seen. Now when it comes to international level at u15, the January-December system is used. This means there will be a mixture of kids who are u15’s (born jan-aug) and u14’s (born sep-dec) with their clubs. This is where the roles are reversed! England will favour kids born January-August who play at u15 level with their clubs. After all these kids are going to be more physically adapted to u15 football. And like I’ve said a very high % of those born January-August at top cat1 academies in England are black lads, hence why we’ll see a lot of black kids in the England set up at youth level. If england didn’t favour kids born January-August they’d struggle to compete with other countries when it comes to tournaments and games. Those top kids u14’s born September-December will start to creep into the England set up at later stages (most likely first team level), when physicality has evened out and they’re all men. This is another reason why it’s very difficult for English academies to compete when they go to tournaments abroad to places like Spain and play against the likes of Barcelona. If you look through the age groups at Barcelona you’ll find that most kids are born January-May. This gives them a huge advantage over English academies who’s best kids are born September-December in the same year.
Dunno about other countries but France have the same concerns about kids born early in the year between Jan and August dominating their international selections/physically developing earlier as we do Sept-Jan kids; it simply shifts the goalposts to aid a different group of kids, and others suffer.
Yeah, there's no real fix to it. There's always going to be players born at the end of any age bracket. Academies are incredibly cognisant of this though, it's something they've focused on in the last decade to ensure they're considering it in decisions they make. I think people on here that are worried about how talent is identified, would be surprised if they went to watch some academy games, especially the lower age groups. You could easily watch some games and wonder why some kids who look to be struggling in games are persevered with, but the games are a tiny part of how they're assessed. Every young coach in the country has grown up idolising Guardiola + Messi. Skills coaching and individual technical coaching is such a huge focus.
I’m glad to hear that we’re on the right path. I think we can all agree that we’re now producing players with outstanding technical skills. We’ve made great strides in recent years. If there is a worry, it’s not over our premium talent. It’s over some of the ‘filler’ players that will probably never make it at the highest level. They by nature make up the majority of kids in an academy. I think there is still a slight tendency in some acamedies, to lean towards athletic players when picking these ‘fillers.’ These players have an impact on team playing style and lead to playing at a more frantic pace. This is in my opinion, why we often struggle against foreign teams in the second half of matches. We’re not used to playing at different tempos and conserving energy. I can see this beginning to change though, with players such as James Garner who is an expert at slowing the game down - so I’m fairly optimistic.
Just to refresh our memories and who is it at the camp now from 23-27 October so far. Khalon Haysman Brandon Bryan-Waugh Jordan Hackett Omari Forson (unattached) Jamie Bynoe-Gittens (Man City) Carlos Borges Morten Spencer Frankie Okoronkwo Shola Shoretire James Beadle Charlie Weston Josh Ireland (Stoke) James Clarridge (Nottm Forest) Joe Whitworth (Crystal Palace) * Louis Flower possibly there ?