Author Topic: Youth and Under 23 Thread (Read 12373464 times)

srinath333 · « **Reply #32240 on:** October 20, 2011, 06:03:08 pm »

right now germany have the best youth setup .. so england should be looking at germany and not spain at youth development . if anyone follows the bundesliga they will know that the league is filled with many talented 18-23 year olds ..
and having 'B' squads is good but that would create a lot of complications ..

gazzathered · « **Reply #32241 on:** October 20, 2011, 09:58:10 pm »

Quote from: Juan Loco on October 20, 2011, 05:41:44 pm

Doesn't the new rulings effectively mean that someone at United (to use them as an example) could whisper in Sterling's ear (to use another example) and tell him that Ferguson would have him involved in the first team (or whatever)... Then, say that players head gets turned, the club doing the head-turning effectively only have to play some miniscule form of compensation in the low hundreds of thousands.

Seems like a fucking free-for-all for any kid not on a professional record. It's only a good thing for clubs who have reputations for bringing these players through into their first teams, and we don't yet.

Not good really, Small clubs exist by the bigger clubs paying for the youth players

Maldini · « **Reply #32242 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:34:21 am »

At the moment smaller clubs only get decent young players because they're deemed not good enough by the bigger clubs, this will still happen.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32243 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:38:46 am »

I can understand why from a purely fans/football club perspective removing the distance rules might seem appealing, however for the 95-99% of kids within the academy system, who are there to make up the numbers, it will only create problems.

Imagine you are a 13 year old lad (I use this age as U14 is really the start of "serious" academy football) and you live in lets say Nottingham. You are at a local academy, but suddenly Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd or even Chelsea show an interest in you. You are a very good prospect, but not one of the 1-2% of "certainties" that exist within the system, what do your parents do? Do they completely disregard your schooling and undertake the 2 hour plus journey 5 or 6 times a week, including maybe £20+ petrol costs each day, or maybe move house if this is financially possible (and yes this does happen). Remember most academies schooling option is only really set up for scholars, who have already done their GCSE's and even then it is poor, in the shape of BTEC's in sport. What a choice for a 13 year old's family, driven by the dream of fame and fortune, when the reality as we all know from this thread, even for the 18-19 year olds who have "made it" is sadly different.

The previous scenario is bad enough, but that is for the top 5-10% of kids within the 10,000 or so currently playing academy football every year. Imagine the problems and uncertainties it will cause for the other 90% who may not make it in football (thats roughly 9,000 kids every year), but who are still needed to enable the top kids to play what is a 16 player team sport. Where now they live in a world of uncertainty, where they or their parents are looking over their shoulder for the latest "local" kid to take their place, now it becomes a worldwide threat, with the inevitable comings and goings.

All this is without the previously mentioned threat to smaller clubs and their sometimes excellent academies, run on a shoestring budget, who have actually developed some of the talent that the big clubs will be poaching. As a lifelong red I obviously want the best team with the best players, but not at the expense of children who are already in most cases used like pieces of meat.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32244 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:56:16 am »

Blog on this subject below, again only from the clubs perspective though, not the kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2011/10/football_league_votes_in_favou.html#299200

keswick · « **Reply #32245 on:** October 21, 2011, 11:53:05 am »

Reds welcome Chinese trialists

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/reds-welcome-chinese-trialists

richiedouglas · « **Reply #32246 on:** October 21, 2011, 11:58:38 am »

Quote from: keswick on October 21, 2011, 11:53:05 am

Reds welcome Chinese trialists

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/reds-welcome-chinese-trialists

They look bloody thrilled

redbyrdz · « **Reply #32247 on:** October 21, 2011, 12:21:04 pm »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 21, 2011, 06:38:46 am

I can understand why from a purely fans/football club perspective removing the distance rules might seem appealing, however for the 95-99% of kids within the academy system, who are there to make up the numbers, it will only create problems.

Imagine you are a 13 year old lad (I use this age as U14 is really the start of "serious" academy football) and you live in lets say Nottingham. You are at a local academy, but suddenly Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd or even Chelsea show an interest in you. You are a very good prospect, but not one of the 1-2% of "certainties" that exist within the system, what do your parents do? Do they completely disregard your schooling and undertake the 2 hour plus journey 5 or 6 times a week, including maybe £20+ petrol costs each day, or maybe move house if this is financially possible (and yes this does happen). Remember most academies schooling option is only really set up for scholars, who have already done their GCSE's and even then it is poor, in the shape of BTEC's in sport. What a choice for a 13 year old's family, driven by the dream of fame and fortune, when the reality as we all know from this thread, even for the 18-19 year olds who have "made it" is sadly different.

The previous scenario is bad enough, but that is for the top 5-10% of kids within the 10,000 or so currently playing academy football every year. Imagine the problems and uncertainties it will cause for the other 90% who may not make it in football (thats roughly 9,000 kids every year), but who are still needed to enable the top kids to play what is a 16 player team sport. Where now they live in a world of uncertainty, where they or their parents are looking over their shoulder for the latest "local" kid to take their place, now it becomes a worldwide threat, with the inevitable comings and goings.

All this is without the previously mentioned threat to smaller clubs and their sometimes excellent academies, run on a shoestring budget, who have actually developed some of the talent that the big clubs will be poaching. As a lifelong red I obviously want the best team with the best players, but not at the expense of children who are already in most cases used like pieces of meat.

Excellent post.

There are other, rather practical problems associated with longer distances. This is from personal experience in other sports, so maybe modern top-class academies have solutions to some of these problems, I don't know.

The amount of travelling time can take its toll - basically, if you only travel 90 minutes to and from training, you'll probably spend 5-6 hours of the day on a single training session. Include school in the morning and matches at the weekend, and there's no time for recovery, for mates, or for developing any interests outside of football. That can't be good for your mental health, and as a result, your performance in training sessions might suffer.

How about getting enough sleep? The longer you travel, the later you will be home - probably close to midnight in some cases. And these are kids, not adults, and they need enough sleep.

What about food? There is nearly no time for decent food, neither for the kids to eat it, or for the parents to cook it, so you'll probably end up with lots of fast food, regardless of what the club say you should be eating. And can you really have your last meal at 5 when you go to bed around midnight?

All of that puts a lot of stress onto both the kids and their family, and all for very limited chances of success.

gazzathered · « **Reply #32248 on:** October 21, 2011, 04:12:12 pm »

Just had a look at the training pictures, can't be 100% sure but it looks like the young keeper belford is there training with Steve g

Kochevnik · « **Reply #32249 on:** October 21, 2011, 04:27:59 pm »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 21, 2011, 06:38:46 am

I can understand why from a purely fans/football club perspective removing the distance rules might seem appealing, ...

Top post, and a very interesting perspective.

It would seem to me, as a complete outsider to the whole thing, that the scenario you mention would most likely lead to parents choosing simply to stay at the academy their son currently attends. Obviously, this must not be the case, which surprises me. I mean to say that I can understand if you see that your child is one of the "certainties," in that top 1% who is almost guaranteed to make a living off football in the future, that it might be worth considering. However, if the odds are 50-50 or thereabouts, I wouldn't understand why a parent would even consider going through such a hardship to place their son in a "top" academy such as ours. A 2-hour drive? How can it possibly be worth that 5 times a week?

My question to you really would be: what is the perceived value to parents and youngsters of attending one of these top academies, versus a smaller local academy? Is there a perception among parents that if their son is in Liverpool's/Everton's/United's academy as opposed to a smaller one, that his chances of making it as a footballer increase measurably? I would have thought that the cream will rise for the most part, no matter what the training and coaching during that 13-16 age period, in the vast majority of cases. Or is it the case that the coaching at such academies is of such higher quality that it makes a big difference to the ability of the child in the end?

zabadoh · « **Reply #32250 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:14:03 pm »

This removal of the 'Golden Hour' rule could be an acknowledgement that the effort to raise coaching standards throughout the entire Football League and in particular the small clubs has failed.

Maybe by allowing the better players to train at big clubs, they will receive more professional coaching in fundamentals, and raise the level of play at the highest level.

To go along with this, they should also raise the standard of coaching throughout the nation.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32251 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:37:02 pm »

This myth that coaching is necessarily better at the likes of Liverpool is false in my experience especially in the age groups below U16. The facilities are undoubtedly better, however the coaches are not and that is from first hand experience. As I said earlier Blackburn have beaten Liverpool this season in every age group from U13 and have just as many talented kids. Parents choose Liverpool and the other big clubs because they think that bigger is better. Blackburn at U14 level had a far tougher game last week against Crewe than a few weeks ago against Liverpool and indeed Huddersfield was tougher than both. Strange but true.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32252 on:** October 21, 2011, 06:59:30 pm »

Just to say regarding my previous post I appreciate results aren't everything at younger ages, however they do tell a story about team strength and quality of coaching as at any level.

YorkieT · « **Reply #32253 on:** October 21, 2011, 07:29:33 pm »

Interesting article about how the academies run by the top clubs aren't producing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2051541/Former-Chelsea-starlet-Taiwo-I-let-down.html

Kochevnik · « **Reply #32254 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:32:35 pm »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 21, 2011, 06:37:02 pm

This myth that coaching is necessarily better at the likes of Liverpool is false in my experience especially in the age groups below U16. The facilities are undoubtedly better, however the coaches are not and that is from first hand experience. As I said earlier Blackburn have beaten Liverpool this season in every age group from U13 and have just as many talented kids. Parents choose Liverpool and the other big clubs because they think that bigger is better. Blackburn at U14 level had a far tougher game last week against Crewe than a few weeks ago against Liverpool and indeed Huddersfield was tougher than both. Strange but true.

Interesting. That would have been my guess as well. Liverpool and United and the like may be able to offer better facilities, and I presume access to better physios as well, but in the end most of what makes a footballer a footballer will come from a combination of genetics and desire. Those are going to be a constant whether he's at a small academy or a large one, so I can't see why any parent would be driving their child more than an hour to an academy somewhere else.

If anything, I think that as a parent I would prefer that my son be at a slightly smaller club's academy, especially if they have a reputation for bringing through youngsters to the first XI. Unless my son was someone like Sterling who everyone just knows is going to be very good, or unless there were some serious financial incentives, I'd rather him come through at Blackburn or possibly even Tranmere, at least until he was 16 and we started to have a better idea of his ultimate level of potential. Obviously not all parents agree, but if I were local I'd probably discourage my son from coming to Liverpool where he'll have to face the best of Hungary and Mexico in addition to the best Merseysiders. As a fan, I love to see us bringing in those players because the more top youth players we have, the higher the likelihood that a few will make it, but as a parent I'd think exactly the opposite.

JP-65 · « **Reply #32255 on:** October 21, 2011, 08:42:36 pm »

I don't think it's all that cut & dried.

To give an example from what I know best, the business world, is it better to be "trained up" in a small business unit where you get to do a wider variety of tasks, and be more exposed multi-functionally, or to be "trained up" in a large business where you are in a "functional stovepipe" but as a consequence, exposed to greater functional expertise, but at the offset to limited multi-functional exposure?

Clearly, there are benefits to both approaches.....the best "fit" is situational to the individual's capability & desires, and that is probably true for the young football "trainee".

babraham · « **Reply #32256 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:28:22 pm »

Quote from: Kochevnik on October 21, 2011, 08:32:35 pm

Interesting. That would have been my guess as well. Liverpool and United and the like may be able to offer better facilities, and I presume access to better physios as well, but in the end most of what makes a footballer a footballer will come from a combination of genetics and desire. Those are going to be a constant whether he's at a small academy or a large one, so I can't see why any parent would be driving their child more than an hour to an academy somewhere else.

If anything, I think that as a parent I would prefer that my son be at a slightly smaller club's academy, especially if they have a reputation for bringing through youngsters to the first XI. Unless my son was someone like Sterling who everyone just knows is going to be very good, or unless there were some serious financial incentives, I'd rather him come through at Blackburn or possibly even Tranmere, at least until he was 16 and we started to have a better idea of his ultimate level of potential. Obviously not all parents agree, but if I were local I'd probably discourage my son from coming to Liverpool where he'll have to face the best of Hungary and Mexico in addition to the best Merseysiders. As a fan, I love to see us bringing in those players because the more top youth players we have, the higher the likelihood that a few will make it, but as a parent I'd think exactly the opposite.

It reminds me of the Connor Wickham thing. I think he's made the cleverer decision in going to a smaller team where he can get game time.

If you're a top youngster, you may be better off playing for a League 1 first team at a very young age and moving up to Championship and then Premier League. If I'm a top youngster with no favourite team, I'd probably go where I can maximise playing time in someone's first team rather than trying to get into a better team/league to sit on the bench or play reserves.

This however may be a comment on how shitty the reserve league is with how little football they play?

redbyrdz · « **Reply #32257 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:31:41 pm »

Can money be an issue? I haven't go a clue, but are clubs allowed to pay, e.g. 13 year olds? Could some parents be tempted to 'sell off' their kids at such a young age for the money a club offers them?

Coolie High · « **Reply #32258 on:** October 21, 2011, 09:50:27 pm »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 21, 2011, 06:37:02 pm

This myth that coaching is necessarily better at the likes of Liverpool is false in my experience especially in the age groups below U16. The facilities are undoubtedly better, however the coaches are not and that is from first hand experience. As I said earlier Blackburn have beaten Liverpool this season in every age group from U13 and have just as many talented kids. Parents choose Liverpool and the other big clubs because they think that bigger is better. Blackburn at U14 level had a far tougher game last week against Crewe than a few weeks ago against Liverpool and indeed Huddersfield was tougher than both. Strange but true.

And to be honest i feel Crystal Palace now have the best academy in England right now, before them it West Ham who were renowned to produce quality players, i to don't buy the notion that the coaching is better in bigger clubs.

cyador · « **Reply #32259 on:** October 21, 2011, 10:08:16 pm »

Do people think with the new rules we'll try to incorporate on site teaching and accomodation now to increase contact time with the kids?

Interesting to see which acadamies make use of the new rules, or just continue as is.

DanA · « **Reply #32260 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:04:56 am »

Ultimately the parents and kids themselves decide where they go. Long term I can't see how having more options available too them can be a bad thing. Scouting becomes less important, while doing all you can to retaining talent becomes more. Now more than ever unhappy parents will vote with their feet. Less about getting the initial signature and more about keeping people happy can't be a bad thing.

DanA · « **Reply #32261 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:06:44 am »

Quote from: cyador on October 21, 2011, 10:08:16 pm

Do people think with the new rules we'll try to incorporate on site teaching and accomodation now to increase contact time with the kids?

Interesting to see which acadamies make use of the new rules, or just continue as is.

I think if you want to keep the top talent you now have to offer more and that means doing as much for the kids as possible. To me it makes sense for top clubs to have smaller academies concentrated on the top talent. Giving them what they want/need in terms of education and development rather than the hoover approach. The downside being it'll be harder to get a spot at a good academy and even harder to keep it.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32262 on:** October 22, 2011, 07:00:21 am »

Agree with quite a few of the recent posts which all put good points forward, however for me the saddest thing in the whole academy process is that in 6 years of watching U9-U14 academy football, 10 months of the year I have probably seen less than a dozen kids who actually stood out and maybe half a dozen who had a wow factor.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32263 on:** October 22, 2011, 08:25:38 am »

For those who are interested here is a possible reason why we don't produce as many top players as we should in this country.

My son as some of you know has been playing local football since he was 6 and academy football since he was 8, he is know approaching his 14th birthday at Christmas. He has in this time played 340 proper games of organised football, including 167 academy games (yes I am a sad statto). He was recently asked to represent Merseyside, but was told by Sefton, the district where we live that he would have to commit to a further 20 games per season for them before they would ok it for him to play for Merseyside. He has already played 8 school games and 15 academy games (friendlies and tournaments) this season, which makes 23 games by the middle of October, yet they say the pros have it hard. If he represented his school, his district, his county and his club, he would play at my calculation 72 games this season. 30 for his club, 20 for his district, about 18 for his school and maybe 4 for the county. Add to this training on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, day release on Wednesday, training on Saturday morning and a game on Sunday, plus friendlies and tournaments for his club.

These are the demands on academy kids in the 11-16 age range who are still at school and whose loyalty is constantly questioned by schools/districts/counties and to be fair to a lesser degree clubs. If you don't play for your school/district/county you are a billy big bollocks who is elitist, if you play for them all you are fucked by the time you are 18.

Ryan M · « **Reply #32264 on:** October 22, 2011, 08:31:48 am »

Absolutely quality post Stanfo.

I totally understand what you are saying. As a football coach I have my own opinions on how we should be developing youth. Personally I don't see the point of travelling 2 hours on a coach, play for half an hour to an hour, then 2 hours back. With them 5 hours surely it would make more sense to train on various aspects. In England competition is introduced to early and needs consideration.

Hope your son keeps developing though and more importantly, and this sometimes gets lost with kids now, I hope he he is still enjoying his football.

soberphobia · « **Reply #32265 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:25:27 am »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 22, 2011, 07:00:21 am

Agree with quite a few of the recent posts which all put good points forward, however for me the saddest thing in the whole academy process is that in 6 years of watching U9-U14 academy football, 10 months of the year I have probably seen less than a dozen kids who actually stood out and maybe half a dozen who had a wow factor.

Are you speaking about all academies or just ours? You are much closer to the scene than me and i always think with so many young players that realistically are playing for a very few spots at the elite level that youngsters that are going to make it at the highest level will for the most part standout at youth level. Its sad if what you describe of the youth system is in fact true.

I always think there is far far too much emphasis put on winning at youth level and egos of clubs and coaches rather than the development of players. Clubs academies etc should be a benefit in the development of a youngster not the youngster develop in spite of them.

Stanfo · « **Reply #32266 on:** October 22, 2011, 09:29:35 am »

That is all the academy football I have seen in those 6 years. Don't get me wrong most of the lads at academies are very good but to be a top player and make a living in the game you need to stand out.

babraham · « **Reply #32267 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:06:05 am »

Quote from: DanA on October 22, 2011, 01:04:56 am

Ultimately the parents and kids themselves decide where they go. Long term I can't see how having more options available too them can be a bad thing. Scouting becomes less important, while doing all you can to retaining talent becomes more. Now more than ever unhappy parents will vote with their feet. Less about getting the initial signature and more about keeping people happy can't be a bad thing.

That's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered.

Kind of like how in business a monopoly is great for the company but the consumer gets screwed and conversely how in a completely open market, it's very difficult for the companies but brilliant for the consumer.

If there's only a couple decent academies in your area, then your options are limited and they can hoover up all the talent. Within reason, winning the initial signature is more important than trying to retain them. In a free for all however, with endless options, you can move if you're not satisfied. Clubs will really have to deliver if they want to retain their youngsters.

DanA · « **Reply #32268 on:** October 22, 2011, 11:35:51 am »

Quote from: Stanfo on October 22, 2011, 08:25:38 am

For those who are interested here is a possible reason why we don't produce as many top players as we should in this country.

My son as some of you know has been playing local football since he was 6 and academy football since he was 8, he is know approaching his 14th birthday at Christmas. He has in this time played 340 proper games of organised football, including 167 academy games (yes I am a sad statto). He was recently asked to represent Merseyside, but was told by Sefton, the district where we live that he would have to commit to a further 20 games per season for them before they would ok it for him to play for Merseyside. He has already played 8 school games and 15 academy games (friendlies and tournaments) this season, which makes 23 games by the middle of October, yet they say the pros have it hard. If he represented his school, his district, his county and his club, he would play at my calculation 72 games this season. 30 for his club, 20 for his district, about 18 for his school and maybe 4 for the county. Add to this training on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, day release on Wednesday, training on Saturday morning and a game on Sunday, plus friendlies and tournaments for his club.

These are the demands on academy kids in the 11-16 age range who are still at school and whose loyalty is constantly questioned by schools/districts/counties and to be fair to a lesser degree clubs. If you don't play for your school/district/county you are a billy big bollocks who is elitist, if you play for them all you are fucked by the time you are 18.

Jesus I never realised they played so much, that's just rediculous. I guess you son is in a better position than most because he's a GK and the physical demands are quite so high but that a hell of a lot of time to committ for both child and parent.

In a perfect world I don't think you'd want to be playing more than once a week would you?

redbyrdz · « **Reply #32269 on:** October 22, 2011, 12:34:23 pm »

What I find weird is the amount of match time compared to training time. It should be the opposite, imo - a lot more time spend in training sessions than with matches.

Playing matches might be more fun, and probably better for fitness, but you have no time to work on technical skills. The margin for error is so much smaller, and the pressure to get it right first time so much higher. As a result, you're likely to stick to what you know, and don't dare trying anything new for fear of fucking it up.

Maldini · « **Reply #32270 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:21:54 pm »

Jerome Sinclair (forward) and Niall Heaton (defender) have been named in the England u16 squad to face Wales on Thursday. Harry Wilson (I think he's a midfielder) is in the Wales squad.

There are a few rumours floating about of us being interested in Mason Bennett from Derby as well, he's the 15-year-old who's supposed to be making his debut this weekend for them.

Maldini · « **Reply #32271 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:29:43 pm »

Just as an aside, does anyone know what category our academy falls under in the new EPPP rules? I imagine it's category 2 but what do we need to do to get to Category One?

MBL? · « **Reply #32272 on:** October 22, 2011, 01:55:39 pm »

Quote from: Maldini on October 22, 2011, 01:21:54 pm

There are a few rumours floating about of us being interested in Mason Bennett from Derby as well, he's the 15-year-old who's supposed to be making his debut this weekend for them.

Saw him play against Northern Ireland, he was by far the best player on the pitch. He got two goals but the most impressive thing about him was his passing with either foot.

MBL? · « **Reply #32273 on:** October 22, 2011, 02:27:17 pm »

That Bennett kid is starting for Derby today. If he does well there will be a free for all.

SteLFC91 · « **Reply #32274 on:** October 22, 2011, 02:42:30 pm »

Quote from: Martin Broughton's Lovechild on October 22, 2011, 02:27:17 pm

That Bennett kid is starting for Derby today. If he does well there will be a free for all.

Especially with these new rules. He could be snapped up in January and Derby would only get a few hundred thousand pounds for their efforts. 15 is too young to be playing professional games IMO though.

trembles97 · « **Reply #32275 on:** October 22, 2011, 04:36:56 pm »

Bennett is starting for Derby? Madness.

I think its a little troubling that football is the only sport where a 15 year old could play professionally. I'm from the US so maybe its a little different in Europe, but there are literally NO sports where that could happen. Its so disturbing how someone so young and immature is given so much responsibility. I think its the biggest hurdle for prospective young players, and why so many young players fail.

revelationx · « **Reply #32276 on:** October 22, 2011, 04:56:01 pm »

Quote from: trembles97 on October 22, 2011, 04:36:56 pm

Bennett is starting for Derby? Madness.

I think its a little troubling that football is the only sport where a 15 year old could play professionally. I'm from the US so maybe its a little different in Europe, but there are literally NO sports where that could happen. Its so disturbing how someone so young and immature is given so much responsibility. I think its the biggest hurdle for prospective young players, and why so many young players fail.

Some young female tennis players are playing Professionally at age 14. They are limited to the amount of tournaments they can play though until they are a bit older. I agree with your overall point though.

Kochevnik · « **Reply #32277 on:** October 22, 2011, 05:08:22 pm »

I went on a Derby forum to see what they made of him when it came out that he'd made the squad for the weekend, and they seemed surprised. I guess they know even less than we do about the 15 year-olds at the academy, but several suggested the names of two or three others that most thought would be ahead of him to play (players that were already in the reserves and doing well, etc).

I suppose Derby might be taking advantage of their youngsters before the new rules come into play? With the press interest and hype that will come in when he plays at this age, there's no doubt there will be some sort of bidding war for him now.

Juan Loco · « **Reply #32278 on:** October 22, 2011, 05:19:44 pm »

Quote from: trembles97 on October 22, 2011, 04:36:56 pm

Bennett is starting for Derby? Madness.

I think its a little troubling that football is the only sport where a 15 year old could play professionally. I'm from the US so maybe its a little different in Europe, but there are literally NO sports where that could happen. Its so disturbing how someone so young and immature is given so much responsibility. I think its the biggest hurdle for prospective young players, and why so many young players fail.

Doesn't the same thing happen all over the place in gymnastics (and Tennis as mentioned). Does it happen in diving/swimming too or was that just Tom Daley?

Cpt_Reina · « **Reply #32279 on:** October 22, 2011, 05:30:53 pm »

Quote from: trembles97 on October 22, 2011, 04:36:56 pm

Bennett is starting for Derby? Madness.

I think its a little troubling that football is the only sport where a 15 year old could play professionally. I'm from the US so maybe its a little different in Europe, but there are literally NO sports where that could happen. Its so disturbing how someone so young and immature is given so much responsibility. I think its the biggest hurdle for prospective young players, and why so many young players fail.

Didn't Freddy Adu make his debut in the MLS at 14/15?