Why is it so hard for youth players to break into the first team?

[He's here!]

It's an age-old question and applies to pretty much all bigger football clubs, not just Hibs. However, I'm always curious as to why the overwhelming majority of young players who come through the youth system fail to make the grade. There are, of course, exceptions, most notably from a Hibs point of view when the likes of Riordan, O'Connor, Brown, Fletcher and Thomson came through - and looking further afield the Man Utd 'you don't win anything with kids' generation. Going further back one of the few bright spots of the 80s at ER was the emergence of kids like Collins, Hunter, Weir, Kane & co, but more often than not we're lucky to see more than a couple come through per decade.

Personally, I find the endless conveyer belt of lower league players from England who populate Scottish football teams rather uninspiring, particularly as it often seems like more of a 'safety first' policy from managers who are perhaps wary of putting their faith in untested kids. Taken to its nadir in 2012 with the number of loanees we had in the Scottish Cup final, it doesn't foster the bond between club and fans that bringing through a few more of 'our own' would do.

What I guess I'm asking is that when you look across Scottish football's top flight and see how few 'home grown' players play for each club is there really much benefit to having a youth system?

[Since452]

I don't think people realise just how good you need to be to break through at a club like Hibs and become a regular. Only the top ones will. A Josh Doig or Josh Campbell for example. There have been many that have broken through but not quite cut it. Think it's just the law of averages, if you keep bringing through youth players eventually you are going to find a couple of gems.

[Stubbsy90+2]

It’s just a huge jump.

You’ve got to keep in mind as well that we look at youth teams and expect them all to be able to make the jump if the youth team has been succesful (see our youth team last season). But you’ve got to remember that the next step for them is trying to break into a team with the very best of the last 15 years or so of youth teams playing in them. It’s a massive pool of players available at first team level compared to age group football and it’s the very best that have made it into that massive pool, so it stands to reason that the majority of youth players won’t make it.

With regards to your last point, I personally don’t think there appears to be any real benefit to having a full youth system, but I say that without knowing the figures involved. I’d be surprised if our youth system over the last 10 years or so hasn’t been running at a loss.

An under 20s side has its merits I think, but anything below that I struggle to see how it’s value for money.

[Onceinawhile]

Because the jump from talented youngster to talented professional is huge and relies on far more than your footballing ability. You have to mature physically and mentally as well to make it.

FWIW against Aston Villa, we started 3 players who came through the youth academy, that's not too shabby.

[Gus]

Because the jump from talented youngster to talented professional is huge and relies on far more than your footballing ability. You have to mature physically and mentally as well to make it.

FWIW against Aston Villa, we started 3 players who came through the youth academy, that's not too shabby.

2 of them were promoted 13 years ago though. Porto. Diog have moved on but other than that we haven't seen many come in and kick on

I imagine all supporters of their clubs say the same.

Agree with your first sentence for sure.

See when you look at says England under 21's to Scotland's there is defo a difference in physical statue and athleticism

[He's here!]

2 of them were promoted 13 years ago though. Porto. Diog have moved on but other than that we haven't seen many come in and kick on

I imagine all supporters of their clubs say the same.

Agree with your first sentence for sure.

See when you look at says England under 21's to Scotland's there is defo a difference in physical statue and athleticism

More than 13 years since Hanlon and Stevenson came through.

Re the maturity aspect I'd have thought a big part of today's youth coaching would focusing on mental as well as physical/athletic development and if you're part of a good club for a long number of years you'd hope they would instil a lot of that in you.

As I say I'm just surprised how relatively tiny the quota of successful youth players tends to be.

[Ryan91]

The small size of our leagues doesn't help matters IMO, managers are less willing to risk youngsters in league games, it's only if you've nothing to play for after the split that we tend to see youngsters making an appearance.

Physicality also plays a large part, a lot of these younger players aren't fully developed physically and there are certain sides within the league who tend to favour physicality over technicality.

The only time when you're going to be fielding youngsters these days on a regular basis is if you're strapped for cash or have a massive injury crisis

[The dalmeny]

The small size of our leagues doesn't help matters IMO, managers are less willing to risk youngsters in league games, it's only if you've nothing to play for after the split that we tend to see youngsters making an appearance.

Physicality also plays a large part, a lot of these younger players aren't fully developed physically and there are certain sides within the league who tend to favour physicality over technicality.

The only time when you're going to be fielding youngsters these days on a regular basis is if you're strapped for cash or have a massive injury crisis

Agreed, managers don't always want to take the risk, plus not all supporters are tollerant. Fine when things go well, but if they dont players and managers will get crucified

[The Modfather]

It's an age-old question and applies to pretty much all bigger football clubs, not just Hibs. However, I'm always curious as to why the overwhelming majority of young players who come through the youth system fail to make the grade. There are, of course, exceptions, most notably from a Hibs point of view when the likes of Riordan, O'Connor, Brown, Fletcher and Thomson came through - and looking further afield the Man Utd 'you don't win anything with kids' generation. Going further back one of the few bright spots of the 80s at ER was the emergence of kids like Collins, Hunter, Weir, Kane & co, but more often than not we're lucky to see more than a couple come through per decade.

Personally, I find the endless conveyer belt of lower league players from England who populate Scottish football teams rather uninspiring, particularly as it often seems like more of a 'safety first' policy from managers who are perhaps wary of putting their faith in untested kids. Taken to its nadir in 2012 with the number of loanees we had in the Scottish Cup final, it doesn't foster the bond between club and fans that bringing through a few more of 'our own' would do.

What I guess I'm asking is that when you look across Scottish football's top flight and see how few 'home grown' players play for each club is there really much benefit to having a youth system?

I think clubs have to actively want to use their youth academy and recruit managers with that remit. We hear that it’s difficult to blood youngsters when we’re aiming for 3rd, which is fair. However is it any harder to do so while scrapping for survival every season like Hamilton did for years?

I think Hibs fall into an unwanted middle ground. We spend lots on our academy but don’t have a club ethos, or hire managers with a view to bringing youngsters through. Either bring them through (which I would love) or strip back out spending on the youth academy.

[Purple & Green]

10% of players who sign a first full-time pro contract, sign a second one. I bet if you asked the players 60% of them believe they'll sign that second one. It's delusional, the players don't understand or aren't made aware the sacrifices and effort they have to make to progress.

That second contract is the real landmark, I think making a deal of the first one is probably the wrong message.

But generally, I'm uncomfortable with blaming the players. Plenty of other clubs across Europe integrate much greater numbers of youth players from smaller catchment pools of players


It’s just a huge jump.

You’ve got to keep in mind as well that we look at youth teams and expect them all to be able to make the jump if the youth team has been succesful (see our youth team last season). But you’ve got to remember that the next step for them is trying to break into a team with the very best of the last 15 years or so of youth teams playing in them. It’s a massive pool of players available at first team level compared to age group football and it’s the very best that have made it into that massive pool, so it stands to reason that the majority of youth players won’t make it.

With regards to your last point, I personally don’t think there appears to be any real benefit to having a full youth system, but I say that without knowing the figures involved. I’d be surprised if our youth system over the last 10 years or so hasn’t been running at a loss.

An under 20s side has its merits I think, but anything below that I struggle to see how it’s value for money.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I think clubs have to actively want to use their youth academy and recruit managers with that remit. We hear that it’s difficult to blood youngsters when we’re aiming for 3rd, which is fair. However is it any harder to do so while scrapping for survival every season like Hamilton did for years?

I think Hibs fall into an unwanted middle ground. We spend lots on our academy but don’t have a club ethos, or hire managers with a view to bringing youngsters through. Either bring them through (which I would love) or strip back out spending on the youth academy.

Have we had any youth players who should have been brought through but haven’t? I can’t think of any.

I’d suggest if we want to go down the route of youth then we need to invest a hell of a lot more to get the absolute best youth players we can get. And that then obviously needs to come out the first team.

It’s a balancing act and one that imo we’re kind of sitting at a level where we’ve made no real commitment either way whether it’s promoting youth or sacking it off completely and are potentially wasting money on the whole thing.

[McD]

It’s just a huge jump.

You’ve got to keep in mind as well that we look at youth teams and expect them all to be able to make the jump if the youth team has been succesful (see our youth team last season). But you’ve got to remember that the next step for them is trying to break into a team with the very best of the last 15 years or so of youth teams playing in them. It’s a massive pool of players available at first team level compared to age group football and it’s the very best that have made it into that massive pool, so it stands to reason that the majority of youth players won’t make it.

With regards to your last point, I personally don’t think there appears to be any real benefit to having a full youth system, but I say that without knowing the figures involved. I’d be surprised if our youth system over the last 10 years or so hasn’t been running at a loss.

An under 20s side has its merits I think, but anything below that I struggle to see how it’s value for money.


I think what’s sometimes also forgotten is that at youth level, they’re broadly playing against similarly sized competitors, and similarly experienced competitors.
To progress into the first team, suddenly they’re playing against fully grown men, who are muscular, battle hardened (in the football sense :greengrin), probably been doing physical training and weight work for years. These competitors are also much more worldly aware, they know what little tricks there is to foul/put off/off balance/take advantage of their opposition, they know what professional referees will and won’t let you away with, they’re more aware of positioning themselves on the field.

Someone like Josh O’Connor for example, looks a good prospect. But if we put him into the first team and expected him to play every week, he’d probably struggle to cope with the physicality of playing against lumps like Hackett, Goldson, etc, who would be walloping him every chance they got. Putting him out on loan doesn’t remove those challenges, but it does give him a chance to get used to some of that against a lesser level of player.


That all said, I do feel that there’s a general feeling around a Hibs just now where there’s a lack of desire to really give one or 2 young players a decent chance in the first team. Even keeping 2 or 3 with our first team, and giving them regular time (if earned) on the pitch, but right now it doesn’t seem there’s really much appetite for that. McAllister got what, 15 minutes against inter, and Megwa got the game against raith, although I think that was more forced on Johnson than him choosing to do it.

[tamig]

I keep going back to Sam Stanton. A gifted player and looked a real prospect when he first broke through. I expected to see him bulk up a bit over that relegation summer but it never happened. If he’d added some muscle to his frame, I’m sure it would have given him a much better chance of making it with us. As someone else mentioned above, the physical side has a lot to do with it for the players who aren’t quite at the very top end of the technical scale. Good to see Sam still playing senior football - but I can’t help feeling with a bit more work on his part when he was younger, it could have been at a much higher level.

[Torto7]

In the past you could put kids in and their natural energy would allow them to handle that side of it. Nowadays kids at 16,17 or 18 are rarely fit enough to handle the demands of the game physically. You get the odd one but it's extremely difficult now. There's actually an argument that Hibs and similar clubs shouldn't bother with academies.

[Pretty Boy]

I don't think our small league is conductive to blooding youngsters. There is so much pressure pretty much across the entire season. If you are anywhere between 3rd and 7th with 6 or 7 games to go chances are you have something to play for at the top end of the table, conversely anywhere from 6th to 12th could also leave you with something to play for albeit at the other end of the table. There's an overlap there because the difference between 6th and 7th is a potential run at Europe for 5 games or getting dragged into a dogfight to avoid the play offs.

That's a tricky environment to bring youngsters into because, as with last season, the games can really matter right up until the last day for almost every team. In a 16, 18 or 20 team league there is a big chunk of middle ground in which a season can be all but over by early March, there are issues with that of course but it does provide breathing space to give youngsters a chance for an extended period and see how they handle it. The nature of Scottish football also means clubs like Hibs can't just write off the League Cup in the way some bigger English clubs do for example. We simply can't win the league so we have to take both cups seriously. We played a massively changed team v Falkirk last season and it arguably cost Johnson any goodwill before he had even got started.

I'm not sure there is an easy answer. Are fans forgiving enough if we miss out of Europe because we played a bunch of youngsters? Would people accept 2 months of meaningless games to expand the league?

[Smartie]

I think it's physicality and a numbers game.

It's relatively easy to stand out when you're younger age levels but it's never really known how the best players will develop physically.

Nowadays an incredibly high standard of strength and pace is required to "make it" and those are the grounds upon which most will fall short.

There's also pot luck and opportunity. A player may or may not get an opening when they're at absolutely the right stage in their development and they may or may not be allowed a run in the team depending on injured players coming back. Paul Merson talks about it in one of his books, about what led to him getting his chance and what led to him taking it. Those fleeting chances sometimes just happen to pass players by. I sometimes wonder what might have become of our "golden generation" had they come through at a different time, when we didn't have to chuck them all into the first team pretty much through necessity. A few years earlier they might not have got a look in past Sauzee, Latapy and co and ultimately been moved on (a bit like Paul Hartley was).

[King conrad]

To me the league's need to be bigger,We may not like it but having meaningless games would give you the chance to test young players. Having a 12 team league in which 2 can go down will never allow young talent to flourish.
The quote in an earlier reply i agree with is the second contract counts more.
I am saying that as i don't agree with contracts being handed out to 16 year olds, They have too much growing to do at that age, Technically gifted players might not stand out nearly as much if their physically behind. Once at 18 and beyond it pretty much gets evened out physically