|
|
Post by deliasmith on May 10, 2013 10:35:04 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around.
The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ...
We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on.
Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by MuddyWoody on May 10, 2013 10:46:06 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around. The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ... We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on. Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction. I don't see any of that as a reason not to try and develop a good academy setup. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 10:46:50 GMT
After the investment already made in the academy I'd suggest it has to be made to work rather that cut our losses and give up on it, that seems all too easy to me. Just becuase something has been flawed for so long does not mean it cannot be successful in the future, it just needs hard work and dedication from the right people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on May 10, 2013 10:48:47 GMT
You a WUM?
So we can't compete with Manc / Brum / mersey clubs because they're bigger clubs, we can't compete with Crewe because they have a good acadamy and we can't compete with Vale because -er- we just can't.
And by this logic, we must give up all attempt to bring on youngsters ourselves and instead rely on the cast-offs from elsewhere. Brilliant.
PS. Add Bracewell and Chapman to your list.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokeyMan on May 10, 2013 10:50:51 GMT
We never had the infrastructure we now have beforehand, and just because we haven't had a good record developing talent, doesn't mean we never can develop youngsters. We have a great opportunity with the new academy and training complex, and the least we should do is try.
|
|
|
|
Post by kavinoz on May 10, 2013 10:57:08 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around. The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ... We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on. Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction. A slightly contentious view I'm sure many will refute. I presume this is a post simply to get indignant reactions & a good old ding-dong slanging match going? There may be a grain of truth in what you say in respect of the competition for young players but it certainly does not follow that there is no future in our bringing on young kids. Our success, or otherwise, will be built on a combination of young, home developed talent and some astute, strategic "imports". With the size of our support base we are unlikely to ever become a self-sustainable Prem team without a relatively successful youth set-up. |
|
|
|
Post by keasie1863 on May 10, 2013 10:57:30 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around. The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ... We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on. Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction. Ok kempy.keep sucking. |
|
|
|
Post by vahl on May 10, 2013 10:59:11 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around. The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ... We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on. Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction. I am not sure whether or not to take this as a joke or not. It seems legit but this board is crazy. I think you miss the entire point of an academy. I don't think it matters whether we suddenly manage to find the next Sir Stan playing on the fields of Longton Park on a Sunday afternoon. Having a football academy is not about finding such players, that's just one of the perks now and again if you are lucky enough. For a Premiership team, simply put, its purpose is to recruit lads who play football, coach them how to play (tactically, fitness, etc) at a standard close to your own first team, take your pick from the 'good uns' and sell on ones you think can make it at lower league levels for a profit. If done correctly, with our facilities and future academy direction (academy players playing in our first team), we should be able to compete with any team in England for the services of some of England's most talented boys. Sometimes I feel Stoke fans completely miss the impact the new academy is going to have on our club. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 11:00:31 GMT
We have a very poor record of bringing young players on, going back what? 30 years? 40 years? 50 years or more I'd say. And located where we are geographically and in terms of status we have no chance of picking up a very good young player in front of the Manchester, Birmingham and Merseyside clubs - as is witnessed by the utterly abject performance of our youngsters this season. And with Crewe so close and with such a fine, richly deserved reputation for bringing on young players who may not have quite made it first time in Manchester or Liverpool we aren't even the best second chance around. The academy was a bit of idealism from Uncle Peter, I think. Our future is definitely not in bringing on kids. I can think of THREE Stoke youths who became regular top-division forwards - Heath, Crooks and, just about, Sean Haslegrave, and one decent midfielder, Bernard; Port Vale have a better record - Earle, Bright, Chamberlain ... We're lucky that we've got money and we are located close enough to so many EPL football clubs that it's easy to recruit decent players who don't want to move from Cheshire. It's out-of favour English guys from Old Trafford, Anfield and so on, and good players from newly relegated Lancashire or west midlands clubs, that we ought to rely on. Pulis is right: the Stoke Academy is a waste of money and a distraction. Ok kempy.keep sucking.   |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 11:06:57 GMT
It is fair to say that our record on youth development has been pretty dismal for decades. Having Dicko and Wilko as regulars in our promotion season was about the last big success for youth progression to a decent first team. Can't remember who the manager was though. Anyone?  |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 10, 2013 11:13:09 GMT
To be honest, our academy seems pretty fruitless compared to other teams. Look at the players Man City, Everton, even Aston Villa are churning out every season. Maybe it's because we don't give them a chance. "You never win anything with kids" said a certain pundit on the first day of the season, about a team featuring teenage Paul Scholes, David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Gary Neville and others. We all know how that season ended eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 11:15:59 GMT
To be honest, our academy seems pretty fruitless compared to other teams. Look at the players Man City, Everton, even Aston Villa are churning out every season. Maybe it's because we don't give them a chance. "You never win anything with kids" said a certain pundit on the first day of the season, about a team featuring teenage Paul Scholes, David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Gary Neville and others. We all know how that season ended eh? It is fruitless.....hence the investment |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 11:19:16 GMT
Give it a few years, we've only been an elite academy for a season. Being honest it looks like some early signs are there already, like him or hate him Shotton came through the ranks and is now a first team regular and arguably our best RB at the moment (when he IS played at RB). The likes of Jamie Menagh and George Waring, the latter of which was scoring for fun at Everton, have left their clubs to join us - we seem to have some attraction power for the first time in a long while. Change won't happen overnight, and there's already talk of our U18's etc having players who are capable of being first teamers in the future. We just need to be patient and certainly not abandon the Academy. Nothing gets the crowd off their feet like a local lad, we just need to wait and slowly more and more will be PL quality and be in the team!
|
|
|
|
Post by Godo on May 10, 2013 12:11:32 GMT
50 years? So ex-players like Crooks, Heath, Bracewell, Chapman, Bould, Chamberlain etc are in their 70's are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 10, 2013 12:42:18 GMT
It is fair to say that our record on youth development has been pretty dismal for decades. Having Dicko and Wilko as regulars in our promotion season was about the last big success for youth progression to a decent first team. Can't remember who the manager was though. Anyone? I think it might have been the same bloke that would have sold Wilko to Blackpool but an injury to another player scuppered the deal and I think he was the same bloke that I believe let Wilko go and another manager re-signed for the club  |
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on May 10, 2013 13:09:06 GMT
You're an idiot, we can sign youngsters from ANYWHERE in the country because we got into the top category thanks to Coates' investment. I'm pretty sure we got the highest rating of any academy as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 10, 2013 14:11:22 GMT
It is fair to say that our record on youth development has been pretty dismal for decades. Having Dicko and Wilko as regulars in our promotion season was about the last big success for youth progression to a decent first team. Can't remember who the manager was though. Anyone? Are you hero worshipping Boskamp here? Fooking hell are you on the next Belgium trip? Fooking hell i never thought I would see the day. As for the original post I actually do not believe anyone is that stupid and not named Pulis. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 14:22:43 GMT
The Boskamp who played Wilkinson 3 times before farming him on loan? Or the Boskamp who played Dickinson a few times at the end of the season after farming him out on loan for most of the season? Or the Pulis who had them as regulars in a promotion winning team? |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 10, 2013 14:43:32 GMT
The Boskamp who played Wilkinson 3 times before farming him on loan? Or the Boskamp who played Dickinson a few times at the end of the season after farming him out on loan for most of the season? Or the Pulis who had them as regulars in a promotion winning team? No, the manager who, not once but twice tried to get Wilko out of the club and if he'd had is way would not have been here to play in that team and also the manager that realised that Dicko wasn't good enough and sold him |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 10, 2013 15:53:16 GMT
The Boskamp who played Wilkinson 3 times before farming him on loan? Or the Boskamp who played Dickinson a few times at the end of the season after farming him out on loan for most of the season? Or the Pulis who had them as regulars in a promotion winning team? That's bollocks. Stephen Wright, Andy Griffin and Danny "friggin" Pugh were all bought in to replace Wilko and Dicko and all of them weren't as good! Why he stuck with Griff I'll never know and it was getting injured at Coventry that turned the tide. Even Chris Riggott was favoured at right back for a moment!  |
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 10, 2013 17:46:13 GMT
The Boskamp who played Wilkinson 3 times before farming him on loan? Or the Boskamp who played Dickinson a few times at the end of the season after farming him out on loan for most of the season? Or the Pulis who had them as regulars in a promotion winning team? I thought it was common knowledge that Pulis released Wilko, got sacked (fond memories) and Boskamp resigned him? Clearly not down your way then? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 18:02:37 GMT
The Boskamp who played Wilkinson 3 times before farming him on loan? Or the Boskamp who played Dickinson a few times at the end of the season after farming him out on loan for most of the season? Or the Pulis who had them as regulars in a promotion winning team? I thought it was common knowledge that Pulis released Wilko, got sacked (fond memories) and Boskamp resigned him? Clearly not down your way then? Are my figures wrong in how how many times Johan Boskamp, saviour of the club and general purveyor of youth opportunity played our two young full backs over Tony anti christ Pulis? No. |
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on May 10, 2013 18:05:00 GMT
Sheiks had a 'mare these past few days. Dear oh dear
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 18:07:56 GMT
I thought it was common knowledge that Pulis released Wilko, got sacked (fond memories) and Boskamp resigned him? Clearly not down your way then? Are my figures wrong in how how many times Johan Boskamp, saviour of the club and general purveyor of youth opportunity played our two young full backs over Tony anti christ Pulis? No. That's right the guy who did no worse than Pulis despite only being left with nine players. The clown whose football was a million times better than anything Tone has ever produced. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 10, 2013 18:10:40 GMT
I thought it was common knowledge that Pulis released Wilko, got sacked (fond memories) and Boskamp resigned him? Clearly not down your way then? Are my figures wrong in how how many times Johan Boskamp, saviour of the club and general purveyor of youth opportunity played our two young full backs over Tony anti christ Pulis? No. Better than the one game the season before under Pulis or the five the year after under you guessed it Tony Pulis. H |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 18:12:17 GMT
Are my figures wrong in how how many times Johan Boskamp, saviour of the club and general purveyor of youth opportunity played our two young full backs over Tony anti christ Pulis? No. That's right the guy who did no worse than Pulis despite only being left with nine players. The clown whose football was a million times better than anything Tone has ever produced. So you agree with Mark Wolstanton then that Stoke fans are a bunch of cunts who don't respect managers who get us to Cup Finals, unlike Wigan fans, proper fans. Welcome on board, jimmy. |
|
|
|
Post by TheBra1n on May 10, 2013 18:13:17 GMT
speaking with a little inside info i do know that young lads ARE picking Stokes academy over the teams you mentioned, and i know of 5 players that have just signed that picked Stoke over Manchester United, why you ask, well its simple, Stokes academy is one of the best in this country.
we may not have a historical record of bringing young lads through but that is set to change, a massive push has been made both finacially and mentally to ensure we have some one the best young talent is on our books, with hard work some of these youngsters may well make it to the very top, however we wont see it happen for 8 or 10 years but that is the commitment the club has made.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 18:16:14 GMT
Are my figures wrong in how how many times Johan Boskamp, saviour of the club and general purveyor of youth opportunity played our two young full backs over Tony anti christ Pulis? No. Better than the one game the season before under Pulis or the five the year after under you guessed it Tony Pulis. H Or the 20 odd a piece in a promotion winning side? TP, giving youth a chance for the first time in 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 10, 2013 18:16:46 GMT
Sheiks had a 'mare these past few days. Dear oh dear Keep on the drugs Swansea. |
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on May 10, 2013 18:18:38 GMT
I believe that children are the future....
|
|
