Sambou signs for Fortuna Sittard

All the best lad.

Maybe he wasn't good enough but after seeing the likes of Sandro, Tosun and Niasse one really wonders about the Everton scouting staff and the integrity of the recent managers.

I'll be having a little look at that team this year out of curiosity, to see how he fairs out.

Paul and Tom, I'm with you both.

It's a good point about what the U23 system achieves as based on watching this team quite a lot the last 4 seasons, it seems that bar one or two players it's not in my view a driver for enabling youngsters for the first team.

The Central League, will never come back, but may be I'm too old in my views, but maybe MB, will use his plans to make our youth players we don't retain, as good investments with transfer potential.

Onwards and upwards, with Everton.

Fortuna Sittard, that name brings back some memories, Andy Gray hattrick and all that.

When a kid sees Fortuna Sittard as a better place to be than Goodison I get worried.

This under 23 competition is nonsense. We do well in it simply because we keep a load of players on our books into their mid 20s who are not good enough for Premier League football but are collectively mature enough to outrun and outmuscle the younger teams fielded by everyone else we come up against.

Where are we in the FA Youth competitions? Absolutely nowhere. These are dominated by Chelsea and Man City. They have vastly talented youth squads, often inclusive of expensive signing of young players (like us).

The difference is, by the age of 20 they are out of the club or in the first team.

Big Unsy meanwhile takes the plaudits for a series of hollow achievements

I'm not sure you're right about the age of the U23 squads, Tommy... in fact, I think you'll find they're predominantly younger rather than older (with one or two exceptions) because most of the older ones have been farmed out on loan in recent seasons.

I think only Fraser Hornby is in his teens in terms of those who made more than a dozen starts for the U23s last season.

Thanks for arguing though.

Well off with your numbers and ages on the U-23 squad Tommy.

Mainstays of the team last season were overwhelmingly U-20.

Anthony Gordon, Manasse Mampala and Lewis Gibson all 18 (Gibson and Mampala just turned 19 a few days ago).

Fraser Hornby still 19, as were Dennis Adeniran, Nathan Markelo and Morgan Feeney for a large part of the season, the last three only turning 20 since the New Year.

Nathan Broadhead, Matty Foulds, Callum Connolly (all 21) and Joe Williams (22) are the 'oldies' in the U-23s - and the latter two were out on loan last season.

AND the U-18s had a good run in last season's FA Youth Cup to the quarter-finals, blowing a two-goal lead to lose 4-3 in extra time to WBA, a team they had twatted 10-0 in a league game earlier in the season.

So perhaps things aren't as bleak as you portray them. Every single PL club has very VERY few academy players make it through to the first team. Everton is no different. And already this summer we are seeing Brands being swift in offloading players - for a fee! - he doesn't see as having a future at Everton.

It's fine. The lad is trying to create a career for himself, at whatever level he is able to achieve. Everton have made a judgment on him, and collected a fee.

Next.

@10 Jay Wood

I understand you like to argue with any point I make.

But Jay, you are totally wide of the mark.

Mampala made just two starts for the u23s last season. Gibson just 10 in the league and Anthony Gordon 5.

Look back to my original point please instead of just disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

I did mention ‘a dozen starts' as a guide for what I was talking about.

I did also mention that the likes of Chelsea and Man City have either offloaded their youth aged 20-21. Or they have featured somewhat for the first team.

Players such as:

Feeney
Foulds
Adeniran
Evans
Connolly
Williams
Beningime

Are they realistically going to feature for Everton this season? No. Therefore they will all be 21 before they realistically report for next season with the hope of breaking into the first team.

If any of these lads are on our books in 3 years having made less than 5 starts for the club then it is nothing short of a disgrace.

"This under 23 competition is nonsense. We do well in it simply because we keep a load of players on our books into their mid 20s who are not good enough for Premier League football but are collectively mature enough to outrun and outmuscle the younger teams fielded by everyone else we come up against."

Utter nonsense, Tommy, but credit for sticking to it. What actually do you even know about the age of the teams they were up against, let alone our own?

"mid 20s" implies to me, funnily enough, about 25 years of age. Even being generous and calling it 23, you are so wide of the mark.

Jay points out that the bulk of players are actually u-20, or turned 20 during the season and you can't be bothered to address it, instead focusing on these SAME young players now being 21 by the time the season starts (the mind boggles).

Have you considered that some if not many of these mid-20s, 21 year-olds may go out on loan as their older teammates did before them?

First up Tommy, you flatter yourself.

I don't make a point of 'arguing' with any post you (or anyone else on TW) make.

I'm not even 'arguing' with you on the opinion you offered. I'm simply offering my opinion - an alternative one to yours - based on facts which counter your own claims.

It's allowed and really should be expected on TW.

You seem to have an issue if people have the audacity to not agree with, or accept, anything and everything you write at face value.

I think it's you who needs to read back your original post and what you actually said and implied, rather than the moving of the deck chairs you present in your latest post.

On the numbers game you are trying to play as to what 'legitimizes' a player based on performances in a season (arbitrarily setting it at a dozen), there are only 22 league games played by the U-23s. Some of those players move between the U-18s and U-23s as required, such is the random spread of the fixture list across the season.

As for your claims about the likes of City and Chelsea either playing their 20-21 years in the first team, or booting them out of the club, are you sure about that?

Putting aside their purchasing power and inclination to hoover up SCORES of talented youth players GLOBALLY, beyond Foden (and his appearances have been very sporadic), what young player has come through the City ranks in recent years?

Chelsea have a couple of youth players that emerged last season, but before that, who can you name that fit the model you claimed? I take it you've never heard of Chelsea having as many as 40 players out on loan every season. Again, it doesn't conform to the model you claimed.

So no, Tommy. I don't concur with your post @ 7. And I, not you, will decide for myself who, when and how I respond to on TW, or ignore, as I feel inclined, ta very much.

Carry on.

Tommy - granted the team at the start of the year had a number of older players, such as Browning and Galloway, however the team playing towards the end had a remarkably different feel about it. You could argue that it is more beneficial for the young players to have to oust the slightly older ones as this is what they would have to do in the first team.

Below is the line up for the final game and their ages at the start of the season (note I've put the start of the season as your argument was about players in their mid 20's, which would imply at least 21/22 at the start of the season

Virginia 18
Astley 16
Galloway 22
Markelo 19
Feeney 19
Gibson 18
Bowler 19
Adeniran 19
Hornby 18
Sambou 20
(69' Broadhead) 20
Evans 19
(72' Foulds). 20

Some you mention (Baningime, Connolly and Williams), played less than 8 games between them, hardly meets your “dozen” criteria. That's like mentioning McCarthy because he made an appearance!!

What Jay (14) said.

Apart from Rooney...(and that's not really apples Vs apples) anybody we've let go this century ever come back to bite us in the bum...No?

Next follow on topic...Is the Acadamy worth it, does it even break even, should we worry.

Derek (#17); Next on topic... the Academy was closed under Howard Kendall as, I think, some sort of cost cutting measure and we lost out on "Evertonians" like Owen, Macmannaman(?), Fowler and Carragher to the darkside and it took Joe Royle to get it open again and on two players alone it has raised a reported 43M.

My wonder is why the likes of Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Holland and South American countries seem to be able to produce (and play) players of greater individual skill and why we don't see more of their coaches at junior levels in England, it can't be because of a lack of money.

@14 Jay

You chose to disagree with me by naming, falsely a group of players who were ‘mainstays'. Your words.

Mainstays of last season include Brendan Galloway and Ty Browning. Both of whom are early to mid 20s and vastly experienced compared to a lot of the teenagers they were up against.

When I mentioned ‘mid 20s' I was referring to the age at which we keep the likes of these lads before they move on having played very little first team Football.

If you see my point above, there are a number of players aged 20-21 who were definitely ‘mainstays' last season. Realistically they will not play for Everton in the next 12 months. At which point we will still be considering them aged 21-22.

Why keep them? They need to be offloaded.

I don't refer to City and Chelsea as teams that bring through lots of talent in the first team. I refer to them as clubs that when they do bring through a player, they are absolutely good enough.

They very rarely keep players within their squad up to the age of 22-25 which we have done regularly in the last 5 years.... wasting their time and ours.

Richard Mason #3

I keep an eye on the Dutch league as I have an affinity to Sparta Rotterdam (the older brother of two clubs in a port city and less successful than their city rivals - ring any bells?), having had a season ticket there 10 years ago.

They have just got promoted back to the Eredivisie after a few yo-yo years so I will be paying closer attention this year. I'll keep an eye on Sambou and see if he makes it. The Dutch league can be a hit-and-miss league. For every Suarez, Eriksen, van Nistelrooy there is an Afonso Alves, Klaassen etc.

Does anyone know how much we paid for Sambou? Wasn't it around the 2 million mark? Hardly money well spent.

Watched the U18s at Prescot Cables last night. They lost 2-0 in a poor performance. Most underwhelming. Was hoping to see a standout performance from at least one player but it never happened. Some workmanlike performances, but very little creativity and virtually no threat on goal for the whole 90 mins.

Another player to look out for this coming season, will keep you informed.

Andrew @5: Those were the days..

Strewth Tommy, you're all over the place, lad.

Let's look at the chronology of your posts and what you originally opined to what you are now saying.

Straight off the bat @ 7, you stated:

"This under 23 competition is nonsense." I'll come back to that at the end of this post.

Your next words explicitly stated "We do well in it simply because we keep a load of players on our books into their mid 20s who are not good enough for Premier League football but are collectively mature enough to outrun and outmuscle the younger teams fielded by everyone else we come up against."

This basic premise is a huge assumption on your part which your subsequent posts have failed to support in answer to challenges to your claim by myself and others. In truth, you could only 'prove' your claim if you studied and compared every single game every PL league U-23 team played last season to see if it holds water. Good luck with that research.

You very explicitly claim the U-23s success is based on playing players in the mid-20s (a reasonable person equates that as being aged 24-25-26), not good enough for PL football but at this level, "are collectively mature enough to outrun and outmuscle the younger teams fielded by everyone else we come up against."

This ignores that other than a few one-off games (eg James McCarthy) the U-23s did NOT regularly field anyone in the self-stipulated age range of your original post. Also, the overwhelming number of U-23 games last season WERE played by players sub-20, certainly sub-21.

You then move on from the U-23s to the U-18s, lambasting the club by stating:

"Where are we in the FA Youth competitions? Absolutely nowhere. These are dominated by Chelsea and Man City."

You are correct in saying that competition has been dominated by CHELSEA in the last decade. Last season was the first time in 10 years they didn't make the final, winning 6 of the last 7 trophies before that. City has made 4 of the last 5 finals, but lost every one of them.

If Everton is 'absolutely nowhere' in this competition, the same could be said of every other PL team outside of Chelsea and City.
But you portray it as an exclusively Everton failing. That both Chelsea and City are more ruthless in who they retain in the academy than Everton when you write:

"The difference is, by the age of 20 they are out of the club or in the first team [at Chelsea and City].

As already pointed out to you, both Chelsea and City hoover up and stockpile global talent, playing a numbers games in the hope that one or two of them come good. All clubs do.

As also already requested of you, in the 10 years that Chelsea has dominated the Youth Cup, other than Hudson-Odoi and Loftus-Cheek last season, who can you name in the last decade that has progressed through the ranks to secure a first team berth or be booted 'out of the club'? The latter also ignores the challenge made to you that Chelsea, year on year, have 40 players of all ages out on loan. That doesn't tally with your 'they get booted out of the club' claim, does it? The same applies to City. Who, other than Foden, has made the step up from their academy?

By contrast, although Everton hasn't made waves in the Youth Cup you apparently demand, the likes of Tom Davies and Jonjoe Kenny HAVE broken through to the first team, aged 18 and 19, with Tom closing in on 100 first team appearances and JJK 50. In the decade of Chelsea's Youth Cup domination, you could stretch that to include the likes of Coleman, Barkley, Stones and Holgate, although I acknowledge we paid (relatively) serious money for two of those, rather than nurture them through the different age groups of the academy.

Your closing words in your opening post are in keeping with the rest of it, a gratuitous swipe at David Unsworth: "Big Unsy meanwhile takes the plaudits for a series of hollow achievements."

Having been challenged on your claims by one of the Eds, you came back and rather limp-wristedly offered: "I think only Fraser Hornby is in his teens in terms of those who made more than a dozen starts for the U23s last season."

THAT is the post I originally challenged myself. It's simply not true, but you accuse me of stating falsehoods when I list the AGES of the players who regularly featured for the U-23s last season. Why you arbitrarily chose 12 games as relevant and then list Fraser Hornby as the only player to meet that criteria only you know (but I can hazard a guess...). And why you quote PL2 games only when the U-23s competed in FOUR competitions - the PL2, the PL2 League Cup, the EFL trophy and the PL International Cup - again, only you know.

Here are (just some) of the U-23 players who were teenagers going into the start of last season and who made more than 12 appearances for the team across ALL competitions, by name, age (start of season and now) and appearances:

Virgina - 18/19 - 13
Anthony Gordon - 17/18 - 15 (14 in the league alone; you use a sleight of hand by listing this as only 5 STARTS)
Lewis Gibson - 18/19 - 12
Fraser Hornby - 18/19 - 17 (out injured for some games also)
Dennis Adeniran -19/20 - 25
Nathan Markelo -19/20 - 22
Morgan Feeney - 19/20 - 19
Josh Bowler - 19/20 - 19 (out injured for some games also)

I could go on, but that's plenty to seriously torpedo one of your claims.

And what did you come back with @ 12? Nothing, really. The 'dozen starts' as a guide for what you were 'talking about' formed no part of your original post. It was added retrospectively and, as I demonstrate above, you were totally inaccurate in stating only Hornby qualifies on your randomly selective criteria.

You then list players (many still only 20, WELL short of your original claim that the U-23s is packed full of mid-20s players), such as Feeney and Adeniran (see above), and Anthony Evans (loaned to Blackpool in January), Callum Connolly (season long loans to Ipswich and both Wigan and Bolton in the last two seasons), Joe Williams (also season long loans in the last two seasons to Bransley and Bolton) and Beni Beningime (out with a long term injury AND loaned to Wigan from January).

In an attempt to justify your original post, you then burble on as if you've produced a knock down argument to posts contesting your view when - again as I've just demonstrated - the majority of the players YOU chose to reference were not even available to the U-23s as they were out on loan!

You repeat this same trick @ 19, adding Brendan Galloway and Ty Browning to your earlier list. Galloway broke into the 1st team aged 19 THREE SEASONS ago - and looked good! However, he didn't kick on. He had loans to WBA and Sunderland in the hope he would pick up again. He didn't. No takers to loan him last season. Now let go to Luton.

Tyias Browning a similar path. Showed promise. Suffered injuries. Went out on loans to Preston and Sunderland. Sold to China for a fee in February. Isn't that what you want the club to do..?

No Tommy, in your haste to 'disprove' the claims of others, you've only succeeded in further exposing your original claims.

Surely it's a GOOD thing to have so many 'senior' academy players out on loan, rather than louching around Finch Farm, possibly blocking an even younger prospect's path to the U-23s? Both the player and the club can see how they measure up in very competitive men's leagues, whether they've got 'IT', or whether they should be let go?

If you had simply said we shouldn't give academy players 3-4 year contracts too early UNLESS they are clearly destined for great things; if you had said we need to release some academy players earlier AND get a fee for them, I would agree with you. Park the Finch Farm gravy train. DON'T keep academy players on out of sentimentality, or a vain hope they will eventually 'come good'. Take a decision on them. Brands certainly seems to be doing that this summer AND offering short one year contract extensions only.

In recent weeks I've said the very same thing with regard to the Antonee Robinson transfer to Wigan and Josh Bowler's carrot and stick deal with Hull: before going out on loan, the club extended his contract by a single year to include the 2020-21 season. Effectively, they are saying to him 'go and do it and Hull and you have a year to break into the 1st team on your return. If not...bye-bye'.

And as promised in my opening, I'll just return quickly to your very first words in this thread:

"This under 23 competition is nonsense."

Okay. So what are the alternatives you propose, Tommy? Do we simply forgo the whole academy structure and invest the monies elsewhere?

I would be interested if someone could show a breakdown of the value of the academy to Everton. The cost of maintaining it against the monetary value and return we get on players who make it through to the end of the sausage machine.

DOES it pay for itself?

IS it cost effective in the money we save on recruiting a player at youth level, rather than pay his fee as a fully mature and developed player later in life?

DO any fees we receive on letting players go cover the monies invested in their (and others) 'failed' development?

The floor is all yours, Tommy.

Shit not arguing with our South American friend!

I can do a long and well researched piece on new UK prime minister Jay but suspect it it may be wrong forum!

Hats of to you folk who care so much and know "stuff". Inspiration.

Anyone wanna help me row this boat out to pluck Tommy from the sea and get him back to good old Blighty for his next sortie?

@24 Jay

Quite a comprehensive reply Jay. You shouldn't let my opinions trouble you so much.

I like things to be uncomplicated and non-complex.

The youth system and competition is essential and always will be.

Quite simply, U23 appears to me to be a state of limbo that no good comes from.

Reserve fixtures used to be an ideal way of blooding youngsters (teenage players) into the men's game. Add to this a few fringe first-team players and players returning from injury.

The U23 regime has simply encouraged us to stockpile players from the age of 20 at which point they should be making their way in the game and keeping them into their mid-20s. It's not a system that serves us or the player.

Meanwhile because Unsworth saw some ‘success' at this level, he was given the top job on an interim basis.

He was embarrassingly out of his depth at Premier League level.

I'd rather we didn't hang onto players in the hope that they ‘might' come good. Ruthlessness is required.

Sambou and Ledson were offered new deals and both chose to leave the club. Good on them. Had Ledson signed he'd still be rotting away at U23 level with the odd loan stint under his belt.

The likes of Dowell and others, I'm sorry but you need to be outstanding on your loan period to show any indication that you can make the step up at Everton.

Once upon a time it worked with Osman and Coleman going out on loan and showing us what they could do. But financially we were in dire straits during those times and their breakthrough was less congested. They are the only two really who the keep and loan regime has worked with. There are countless others (the remainder) who it hasn't worked for.

Personally I don't think it's worth 2 players in however many years.

It's times like this, that I wish this was Twitter!

And once again you flatter yourself, Tommy.

"Quite a comprehensive reply Jay. You shouldn't let my opinions trouble you so much."

Two things Tommy:

1) you're opinions don't 'trouble' me in the slightest. Nor does the name of a poster concern me in the slightest. What interests me is the validity of the claims made by any poster. If my interest is sufficient enough, I may pen a reply offering my own opinion. That is what I've done in this thread.

2) you, on the other hand, seem troubled by my opinions. Besides myself, three other posters have also contested your views in this thread - Michael Kenrick, Peter Gorman and Kevin Prytherch. And yet you only address me. Who is 'troubled' by who again..? Go figure.

The rest of your post is a nice body swerve which fails to acknowledge - by your own admission - my comprehensive reply that rather dismantles a number of your claims.

Furthermore, recalling your own deep research into JJK a few weeks back in which you offered a very subjective, 'confirmation bias' analysis which strived to demonstrate (but failed to do so) how culpable the young full back was in goals conceded for the first team, I thought you might appreciate such a detailed and comprehensive response. Evidently not.

The rest of your latest post, like those that came before it, kinda mangles a number of issues and attempts to present them as a single coherent whole, but again fails. So much for your declared liking for things to be 'uncomplicated and non-complex.'

Boiling it down, you seem to be expressing a nostalgic view for a bygone age and a return to the Central League and a distinctive reserve team. Putting aside the fact it is nearly a quarter of a century - 23 years - since the league ceased to be, the game has evolved from that era and is structured in a completely different way. Today, young players benefit by evolving within their own age group, overseen by top quality coaches, housed in facilities undreamt of 23 years ago.

The better players are, however, not confined to whatever age group they belong. The U23 regime you decry regularly fields players from the U18s. Those who show capable remain with the U23s (Virginia, Gibson and Gordon the season just gone). Those who don't, get sent back down (Ellie Simms last season. A beast at U-18, found wanting at U-23).

Unlike your good self, I acknowledge points on which we agree, such as not giving academy players 3-4 year contracts unless they are evidently exceptional; not holding onto them in the hope they come good, but rather, cutting them loose earlier - preferably earning a fee, rather than letting them go for free.

As I have commented in more than one thread in recent weeks, the above appears to be a model Brands is now applying, a model I fully endorse.

I must also correct you on yet another post in which you offer Ryan Ledson as some kind of 'exemplary case', in which he was offered a new deal but chose to leave to get 1st team football. Wrong. As this link shows, he didn't choose to leave. He was (surprisingly for many on TW at the time) let go by the club, for the reasons the article states.

Link

He was let go for the very reasons you advocate: his development had stalled and a new wave of promising young players had usurped him. Given the level at which Ryan plays, the club made the right call.

Nor are you saying anything new Tommy when you say "there are countless others [for who the academy and loan system] hasn't worked for." It's EXACTLY the same at every club in the world that runs youth academies. There will always, always, ALWAYS be a higher failure rate than success rate. You present it as if it is exclusively an Everton failing.

It's not.

"Unsworth was embarrassingly out of his depth at Premier League level."

Ay, there's the rub.

You may see it that way Tommy but personally I thought it was the players themselves that embarrassed him. With the weird exception of those he promoted from the U23s.

Leaving aside the lack of truth in your original claims, I actually agree with you that we should be seeing more graduates making their way into the first team, it would warm me cockles more than any bought success ever could.

But that is not going to happen in a month of sundays and nor should it be some criticism laid solely at Everton's door when no other club in the league has a better rate of success of developing players, IMO.

As for whether or not it is 'worth it' - I reckon the academy has barely made any inroads into the Barkley millions and is probably still operating well within those of Anichebe.

Tommy Carter, "Unsworth was embarrassingly out of his depth at Premier league level". Fuck me. Tommy, Jay utterly demolished your argument, instead of admitting it or lying low you come back with that. Have a cup of tea and a fig roll and then plead with the editors to delete that post.

Unsworth had some awful signings to integrate and loads of injuries, he didn't stand a chance. Plonked in the middle of a mess. Weve spent a fortune since then, completely reshaped the defence... and may be a couple weeks away from finally bringing in a striker (ahem).

I think its time we looked into having B teams playing in the lower leagues. (with a ceiling of league 1) Players would have much better competition and players out of form not fitting in, or returning from injury could go and get the experience they need. Surely Klaasen, Sandro to name just a couple could of really benefited. Then theres the likes of McCarthy who needed games.

I often wonder what attributes does a kid need so as to earn a place in an academy.