den

Excellent thread FLB. IMO it's all about getting the best young lads into the club, academy or not. No doubts that the academy improves players, but what use is that if you are only improving them to Nationwide standard as in the last few years? The original question was, "would the money required to run the academy [last time I spoke to JW it was around £2.5m/year], be better spent going into proven prem class players?

West Ham have an excellent record over the years of bringing in young quality players. Also FLB, ignoring your rubbishy football cliche , using Ronnie Clayton as an example is valid IMO, - he was as good as he was, even though, or in spite of being brought up on "little wembley". For anyone that doesn't know, little wembley was a cinder training ground, behind the BBE. Worse facilities you couldn't imagine.

The clubs above are big clubs with a tradition of bringing through youth players, even before the academies were set up. Being big clubs gives them an advantage in picking up the best talent. What we are trying to judge is whether these players would have come through without the academy system being introduced. I think they would. As for the Man Utd link you give, Giggs, Scholes and the Nevilles weren't part of the academy. They didn't need an academy did they, they were talented enough. That's the key word for me - TALENT. Not academy.

Picking them up at 9yrs of age and training them well, will undoubtedly improve them. Can it improve them enough if the talent isn't there? Can the players likely to make it, be picked up so young? I doubt it. It's obviously much easier to judge whether a player is going to make the grade, the older he is. If they can be identified so young, where are they at Ewood?

Yes training and coaching improves a player. Training and coaching was still given under the old youth system.

Great post Speeedie. That explains it far better than I did. That last sentence says it all to me.

No, it's nothing like. The old system was simply to ask 15/16 year olds down for a trial with the "B team". If they showed promise, they would be asked back again. The coaching at that stage was very limited. With the academy system, they are picked up as young as 8 yrs old [might be slightly out there, I'm sure Lee might be able to clear that one up], and are then coached full time. A lot of money is spent on their upbringing. The basic idea is that the training and coaching of these youngsters over a number of years will improve them, beyond what they would otherwise would have done. I ask again, the best youth team I remember was that of the likes of Pickering, Newton, England. Add onto that Douglas and Clayton, - would they have been better players if they had been through an academy system? Most definately not. They had the talent. At 8yrs old, who can tell if they will be good enough? I aint seen anything to suggest that academies make youngsters into better players than they would have been otherwise. I'd love to think that rovers academy is going to produce more superstars, but where is the evidence that it will?

Well, you can't expect the manager to play youngsters that aren't talented enough to play prem football. [mind you, it seems you do] The question [to avoid going off topic] is whether the academy system works better than the old youth team set up? Evidence anybody?

Nope disagree, the single most important factor is talent. It's all down to the scouts. Academy or no academy, without the talent there is no end product.

They were the products of the youth team, not the academy. Sort of proves my point. Rover6, you are talking about youngsters in general. The question is about academies.

Duff didn't come through the academy, he was brought over from Ireland by KD, around the age of 15. I have yet to see any proof that the academy system works at any club. youngsters don't make prem players unless they have natural talent in the first place. Would Duggie, Clayton, England, Newton have been better players under an academy? - NO. We're also back at the stage where all the top clubs have all the top youngsters, so what's the point in rovers having an academy? We are simply paying for their footballing education, then giving them to Nationwide clubs.

Fife, if you go back to the picture in question, right click on it, then click on "properties" - you will get the answer.

Thing is - if the worst was to happen and rovers were to go down, would Mokoena be a regular for rovers in the championship? We all know the answer to that, so why extend his contract?

Easiest free kick you've ever seen. Massive gap to shoot at.

Berts hamstrings gone.

Booked for winning the ball on the half way line.

Yep, soon as I say that, we come under pressure right down the middle. rovers 61% possession

Rovers started well, playing some good football.

It's just a stupid question, with no answer.

Her answers are within the quotation box.

Strange post. So why are you so interested in what's happening?

Well what's a bob hat called, that doesn't have a bob?

I went in for a Rovers bob hat on Saturday. Couldn't believe it, - they don't sell them. So I bought one from a guy outside the ground, something I've never done before.

Absolutely FLB. Unfortunately as I said before, we'll have to wait until OT is feeling the squeeze, before anyone in a position to do something about it, actually does.

Not while we were within range, which was up until Chris's interview.