I was thinking of this the other day, reading a Sid Lowe piece about Barca. To take a piece:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sid_lowe/11/28/barcelona-youth-tito-vilanova/index.html

Pedro did not arrive at the club until he was 17, Sergio Busquets joined at the same age, and Cesc, Piqué and Alba were re-signed by the club from Arsenal, Manchester United, Arsenal and Valencia respectively. Together, they cost Barcelona almost 60 million euros. Alba was released by Barcelona at the age of 15. Piqué joined United at 17, Cesc made his Arsenal debut at 16. Some argue that makes them more a product of Highbury and Old Trafford than La Masía. Others suggest that Busquets and Pedro arrived already developed.

This got me thinking because players like Cesc, Busquets and Piqué are considered to have come through Barca, but many wouldn’t about Rafael at Manchester United even though he joined at the earliest he was allowed to or Phil Jones. Surely their progress will be altered by being at United? Or for another example, I saw someone on Twitter complaining of Lucas Anderson being called another product of Ajax when he joined them a little over three months ago.

So for you, at what point does a player become considered to have come through the club?

Maybe if they’re brought into play in the reserves rather than immediately or almost immediately become part of the first team. For example, I would consider Tim Krul or Shane Ferguson to be a product of Newcastle’s youth system but not Gael Bigirimana or Charles N’Zogbia.

Edit: Just realised I meant to put Vuckic not Ferguson as Vuckic was bought in from elsewhere unlike Ferguson.

If a player’s stay has been formative in the sense of adopting a club philosophy (in terms of play style), then it could be said about the player that he is a “product” of the club’s academy, regardless of how long was the formation period and at what age. It is obvious that Barcelona brought in certain youth players and has brought back former academy players exactly because they are interested in them not as just good players but as “Barca players”.
About Cesc I would say he has had a double formation, one at Barcelona and one at Barcelona. There have been a couple of interesting pieces on how these two formations came in conflict since Cesc has gone to Barca.

In the case of academies where there isn’t much focus on a particular style that defines the club’s identity, then it is more difficult to say whether a player has or has not been a “product” of that academy.

For me I think I’m quite vague on it, if you’ve been there for a few years before you’re 21 or similar. That means a player like Piqué can be considered for more than one team, but in a way that is true, one place doesn’t override the other.

Quite simple for me really. If they played in your youth set up then they are a product of your youth academy.

Football weekly made mention of Juan Mata being a Real Oviedo youth product last week. Basic Wikipedia searching has him down as being there between the ages of 10 and 15. If he counts for them then Fabregas and Piqué count for Barca.

Good question.

I suppose different players gain different things from different clubs. For example Pique didn’t really develop or change at Old Trafford so he is a Barcelona product but Ronaldo massively developed whilst at United so he’s as much an Old Trafford product as a Sporting CF one.

Jeremy Toohlalaan - 08 December 2012 11:05 PM

If a player’s stay has been formative in the sense of adopting a club philosophy (in terms of play style), then it could be said about the player that he is a “product” of the club’s academy, regardless of how long was the formation period and at what age. 

This is a good point, but on the other hand that doesn’t matter that much. Look at West Ham. On one hand they produced fleet-footed sexy football enthusiast Rio Ferdnand, and on the other hand they produced one-footed kick-and-rush purveyor James Tomkins. For me it’s all about the length of time. And it’s actually quite an interesting question.

If you’re there for, say, from 9 to 15, does that count? Were you an academy player at 9? Not really. I think if you played in the youth team (16-18) then you count. I think if you come back at 18 and stay until 21, then that just about counts. But before then it’s kind of a bit hazy.

Mr Booze - 08 December 2012 11:44 PM

Good question.

I suppose different players gain different things from different clubs. For example Pique didn’t really develop or change at Old Trafford so he is a Barcelona product but Ronaldo massively developed whilst at United so he’s as much an Old Trafford product as a Sporting CF one.

 

I’ve seen Ronaldo play for Sporting (mostly because the coach was Romanian back then) and he wasn’t a different player, only a different professional (lots of useless dribbles, sometimes lazy, very emotional). IMO he matured and became better at Utd, but didn’t become something else, just the better version of his previous self.

Raheem Sterling played in our academy when we signed him in 2010 but had spent 7 years in the QPR youth set up. While he’s been ‘finished off’ by us he’s really a tribute to the QPR academy (and a hell of a lot of natural talent).

Doesn’t the paying of a fee come into this too?

Most people would consider Jack Wilshere to be an Arsenal product but Arsenal shelled out a significant 6 figure sum to acquire him from Luton at the age of 9. However, does that not do Luton a disservice considering they were the ones that found him in the first place?

Welwyn - 09 December 2012 01:29 AM

Doesn’t the paying of a fee come into this too?

Most people would consider Jack Wilshere to be an Arsenal product but Arsenal shelled out a significant 6 figure sum to acquire him from Luton at the age of 9. However, does that not do Luton a disservice considering they were the ones that found him in the first place?

I’d say at that age his still more likely to not make it as a pro than make it. Being the nest at 9 isn’t a guarantee of making it as a pro- that credit must goes to Arsenal.

Vegard Heggem’s Caveat - 09 December 2012 01:32 AM

Welwyn - 09 December 2012 01:29 AM

Doesn’t the paying of a fee come into this too?

Most people would consider Jack Wilshere to be an Arsenal product but Arsenal shelled out a significant 6 figure sum to acquire him from Luton at the age of 9. However, does that not do Luton a disservice considering they were the ones that found him in the first place?

I’d say at that age his still more likely to not make it as a pro than make it. Being the nest at 9 isn’t a guarantee of making it as a pro- that credit must goes to Arsenal.

Not saying that you can’t say he isn’t a product of Arsenal’s youth academy. He is, but Luton derserve some credit for finding him in the first place.

Interesting question; Is Christian Tello a VBarca player?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristian_Tello

BlueRich - 09 December 2012 03:53 PM

Interesting question; Is Christian Tello a VBarca player?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristian_Tello

That’s an interesting one, he was a Barcelona lad right through to 17, and was back by the age of 19. Then again, I suppose there’s an argument that Espanyol played a significant part in the development of him, and that between 17 and 19 is a crucial time for a young player. For me, he is a Barcelona product, because he would have been learning the philosophy and system for the best part of 6 years. Espanyol finished him off.

Seriously, why can’t two teams claim responsibility for a player ‘s development?

Dance Vegard Dance - 09 December 2012 10:01 PM

Seriously, why can’t two teams claim responsibility for a player ‘s development?

Indeed. I think this especially rings true when a player starts out at a lower league club. Take someone like Nick Powell for example, he’s come through the excellent Crewe academy and breaks into the first team at 16. However as good as Crewe’s academy is the level they will be playing at will only ever be League 1 at best which means that someone like Powell won’t be able to develop fully. Now moving to United at 18 he should develop far more as a player in those surroundings playing and training at a much higher level even if he’s probably will mainly be playing for the reserves and their under 21’s this season.

Anyway enough rambling, in a few years I’d consider the guy to be just as much a product of the Man U academy as well as the Crewe one.

It depends on how you define the term “product of the youth academy”.

If you mean a player who was scouted and signed by a club then Defoe qualifies as a product of Charlton’s youth academy. If you define the term as merely someone who has played for a youth team them you could apply the term to most players.

Jeremy Toohlalaan - 08 December 2012 11:05 PM

If a player’s stay has been formative in the sense of adopting a club philosophy (in terms of play style), then it could be said about the player that he is a “product” of the club’s academy, regardless of how long was the formation period and at what age. It is obvious that Barcelona brought in certain youth players and has brought back former academy players exactly because they are interested in them not as just good players but as “Barca players”.
About Cesc I would say he has had a double formation, one at Barcelona and one at Barcelona. There have been a couple of interesting pieces on how these two formations came in conflict since Cesc has gone to Barca.

In the case of academies where there isn’t much focus on a particular style that defines the club’s identity, then it is more difficult to say whether a player has or has not been a “product” of that academy.

Would be quite interested to read those if you can remember where they were

^ shoddy memory isn’t helping… One of them must have been something by Sid Lowe, I’ll look it up.

Seen this on another forum, thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/12/13/revealed-barcelona-no1-for-producing-players-for-clubs-in-europes-elite-leagues-131201/