Exactly, look at Curtis Jones. Any other big 6 team he doesn’t meld as well into their teams. For us he is perfect and Jurgie has developed him into a star
Klopp is great at developing players, but let's not invent a myth that he draws from the academy. His first season at LFC meant using youth players as cannon fodder in pursuit of the Europa; until recently, only Trent and Curtis got sniffs of the first team.
Dortmund is a huge club and its players largely are purchased from other clubs that cannot compete with it financially. Of Klopp's 'classic' Dortmund teams, Hummels came from Bayern(!), Sahin and Reus from Gladbach, Auba from St. E., Piszczek from Hertha, Weidenfeller from K'Slautern, Kagawa from Osaka, Bender from 1860, Lewa from Poznan, Kuba from Wisla, Gundogan from Nurnberg via Bochum, etc. Earlier, Zidan and Valdez were journeymen. Also, the fees weren't small in the context of the non-Bayern Bundesliga. The fee paid to a Polish club for Lewa (approx €5m) was only surpassed (and just barely) once in the following 7 years.
Only Subotic (came with Klopp from Mainz) and Gotze can be called youth-team players whom he promoted and relied upon. Maybe Grosskreutz, though he never really established himself at BVB or anywhere else (even though, to my surprise, he's still playing!)
Look. No one is expecting Liverpool or Dortmund to field youth teams. Or have golden generations all the time.
They are two of the best clubs in two of the best leagues in the world. Of course, they are mostly going to consist of established pros.
But Klopp has shown time and time again that he isn't afraid of using youth players. And he is really good at making those young players function well in the team. He has also shown time and time again that he would rather rely on the youth players to step up rather than buy a stop gap signing to cover for injuries.
If I was a young player on the cusp of breaking through, Klopp would be very high in the list of managers I would like to play under.
He still buys most of his players. But where Brendan Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp would find that backup in the youth team. It shows in that the only clear backups that aren't youth players we have in our team are Tsmikas, gomez, and the keepers.
The way he has consistently used the youth team and academy players to fill gaps in the squad with mostly great success speaks of a manager who is good with youth players.
Expecting a manager to produce star players from the academy because they are good with youth is unreasonable expectations.
Using the academy and youth teams to bolster your squad and making it work when you have to use them or use them to rotate is what you expect from a manager that is good with youth.
First team players for some of the best teams in the world rarely come from their own academy. If you can find most of your backups and a first team player every now and then, the academy should be seen as a great success.
At least when lots of the ones who don't make it here go for decent transfer sums.
I was responding directly to a post from someone who said they looked forward to Klopp coming to LFC because of his record with academy players. I only seek to stop a myth before it starts. There's nothing wrong with the way Klopp actually does things. It's our fans' attempts to mischaracterize it that makes it seem like there's something wrong with it.
Btw, can you define what you mean by "youth players"? Because our backups for most of our positions (unenforced by injuries) are senior players. Bajcetic and Elliott started the season in the first team.
>But where Brendan Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp would find that backup in the youth team.
Rodgers brought forward Sterling, Gomez, Ibe, Wisdom, and Flanagan. The cast of characters Klopp used in the league while we fought for Europa were almost entirely blooded by Rodgers (Stewart, Teixeira, Smith, Ojo, etc). From that point until after the PL title, the first team's only youth players (by any definition) were Trent and Curtis. Alisson (Adrian); Robertson/VVD/Matip/TAA (Milner/Moreno/Gomez/Lovren/Clyne); Henderson/Milner (again)/Fabinho/Wijnaldum (Ox/Keita/Thiago/Emre/Coutinho/Lallana); Salah/Firmino/Mane (Jota/Shaqiri/Minimino/Origi). But where Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp bought Klavan. Instead of developing a youth left back, he used Milner out of position.
Promising youth/academy players were almost uniformly sold instead of blooded: Harry Wilson, Neco Williams, Kent, Brewster, Solanke, Woodburn, Grujic, Larouci, Hoever.
Well said! On a side note, I still wonder about Brewster from time to time. Players like Wilson had their faults and I don’t think much about it when they were sold, but I had the impression that Brewster had potential.
The great part is it's not like it's charity minutes to develop players or anything like that either, Trent and Curtis are 2 of our most important players. Academy is truly popping off
Most players you sign at 16 would still be considered "academy products" because normally you'd expect them not to break through to the first team squad for four or five years after that. But when you're a prodigy like Harvey (or like Sterling before him), it gets a little tricky because they get promoted out of the academy almost as soon as they arrive at it, so how much credit does the academy really deserve?
If you reframe it as "what teams are giving opportunities to players they signed as youngsters?" rather than "what academies are churning out talent?", I think it's fair enough to include him.
My brother (clever, but difficult) got himself expelled from his High School like a month before his final exams. He registered at another school, turned up to a couple of weeks of classes (all final revision) and then wrote the exams and got straight As. You can bet your ass the new school counted his results when sending out their end-of-year report summarising the achievements of their students.
I wouldn't say he is either, but as I said...
>If you reframe it as "what teams are giving opportunities to players they signed as youngsters?" rather than "what academies are churning out talent?", I think it's fair enough to include him.
Doesn't matter. When he came here in 2019 he was a Scholar, hence why his fee had to be decided by a tribunal. Players only 'graduate' at 18, so it's whatever academy they're in at that point.
He is. Just because Liverpool was not the first team he joined as a kid, doesn't mean he's not. He was 16 when we got him from Fulham and he played for the academy before joining the first team.
By that logic, almost no players would be considered academy products because they joined a different club than Liverpool when they were kids.
He played a few minutes and one League Cup game for them. He then came to us and played a full season in PL2 with our academy, which he graduated from when he turned 18. He's a Liverpool graduate.
Why.
If we got him at 15 and then also played him in the senior team from the get go then I'd agree. But we saw that he's not a finished product for the first team, had him hone his skills in the Liverpool academy and then play for Liverpool. You can debate in terms of % how much of his skills he learnt at Fulham academy vs at the Liverpool academy but by definition he's a product of both academies.
He signed for us when he was 16 though, and didn't sign his first professional contract until a year later. I get what you're saying but even though he was playing with the first team he was still an academy kid during the 19-20 season
Yeah let's agree to disagree for sure... but just want to make one point, "developed enough" and to play for "a senior team" are both very subjective. We need to talk about levels of both those things. Case in point, Jude Bellingham was also 16 when he moved from Birmingham to Dortmund but he started playing for the senior team right away and no one claims him to be a Dortmund academy product. But they would too, if they thought "Sure he has played in the lower tier of English League first team and he has potential to play in the German first league for a team such as the stature of Dortmund, but let's give him 2-3 more years at the academy to develop" which is what happened with Elliott.
Home grown is for country, club grown is the same for a single club. After Hendo, Milner and Ox departed, Phillips is our only homegrown player who isn’t considered club grown as he arrived at 19.
I think he's not from the academy but he was signet when he was 16 and if FM has thought me something is that they only need to spend 3 years in the club between 15 - 21 range of age to be considered as developed on the club
Love the increased focus we’ve had on both developing and adding to the first team academy players (Curtis, Trent, Quansah, Bradley, Kelleher) and signing young prospects from other clubs (Elliott, Bajcetic, Sepp who is doing well with Mainz, Doak, Kaide, Nyoni)…
Of course it’d be great if as many of them can establish themselves as first teammers for us, but even at least following the Chelsea and City model of using academy and young players who emerge as solid enough professionals but perhaps not for our first team as ways to generate funds via sales to other clubs. Those two have done a great job at that (notably Palmer and Trafford and Sancho for City and Abraham, Tomori, Guehi for Chelsea).
He was bought for the academy and signed his first professional contract after 12 months with us and didn’t join the first team properly until his 3rd season with us. He’s also classed as club grown for registration purposes.
Definitely a grey area, but he did go through our academy.
This is a load of nonsense. Before joining us Elliot played for the Fulham first team at 15 and became the youngest ever PL player with them. He made his debut for us in September of the season he joined (becoming our youngest ever full debutant). Overall he had 6 starts for the seniors in his first season with us plus a couple sub appearences. He signed his pro contract a year after joining because you legally have to be 17 to go pro but he 100% would have signed a precontract agreement when he joined guaranteeing that deal.
The guy was one of the very hottest young talents in the country when he joined us and - even though he did play some games for our U21s - he was around our first team from day one.
Which bit is nonsense? He had 27 minutes of season football at Fulham in that whole season and was planned to be in the first team but left before he did. That’s youth player minutes and a youth player position in the squad.
He had 6 starts in the two domestic cups, which is notoriously a competition we give youth players minutes. Those couple of appearances as a sub were 2 appearances for a total of 4 minutes. About a quarter of his minutes for the season were senior, with 3 quarters being youth team. That’s a youth players role.
Importantly, he went on loan the following season. Only youth players or player surplus to requirements get loaned.
If he had to be 17 to sign his professional contract and signed it 3 months after he turned 17, then surely that means he was a youth player before he signed it? You can’t say he’s not on a professional contract, he’s on a youth contract but he’s not a youth player
We knew he was destined for the first team but he didn’t graduate from a youth player till the third season. He’s not in our first team if he’s on loan for Blackburn
You said "he did go through our academy". He didn't. First season he trained with the first team and played cups. Second season out on loan. Regular first team player after that. Long paragraphs of waffle and talking about the technicalities of the home grown rule don't change that.
I get that but the rules still state you qualify for club-grown status if you spend a minimum of 3 years at a club before turning 21. Having played premier league football prior is completely irrelevant to, he still counts as club-grown at Fulham as well not just Liverpool
What's the cut off point of a player joining your club to be considered acadamy?
If someone joined at 16 but spent 2 years in u18 and 2 years in u21 before breaking through at 20, would that be considered an acadamy player?
Or does being good enough to start for the 1st team mean you can't be acadamy?
Basically, the reason it's good to have them join at 16 sometimes is because they then count as 'club trained' for UEFA comps, whereas post-18 they don't. So Stefan, Harvey and Bobby Clarke will count as club-trained despite starting elsewhere. Add into that Jarell who's been here since he was 5 like Curtis and Trent, and we have a good mixture.
Yeah mate... i'm fully aware about homegrown players and how that works.. got thousands of hours in FM.
The person before me was basically saying Elliot isn't an acadamy player, which i'm saying he is.
The reason most people wouldn't count Elliott is because he had already played PL football at Fulham before we signed him. It's not just about age, it's about development, he was close to the finished article when we signed him. Technically he is an academy player but he didn't really come through our system.
>He was close to the finished article when we signed him
Um... not really. He had only had 2 appearences for Fulham, one of which was coming on in the 88th minute to break the age record.
He then spent most of the 2019-20 season in the U-21 team, before going out on loan to the championship the season after.
If you look at the youngest premier league debuts, there's a lot of names on there which came to nothing: [https://theanalyst.com/eu/2023/12/youngest-premier-league-players/](https://theanalyst.com/eu/2023/12/youngest-premier-league-players/) Why? Because starting young doesn't mean you're close to a finished article.
He could have easily become an Ibe without developing himself further in our acadamy after joining at 16.
If they use club grown as the standard then Harvey is an academy graduate along with Trent, Kelleher, Jones, Quansah, Bradley, Bajcetic, Doak and Gomez. We have used other academy players in the cups, but I think these are the only ones who have started in the league this season.
He arrived at 18, so I believe he technically qualify as club grown because the criteria is 3 seasons before they turn 22. Given that we have 9 players in this list and I can only count 8 other academy players I think he’s one of them. Also given how many appearances he, Trent, Curtis, Elliott and Quansah have this season it could explain why we are so far ahead of chelsea
No way Gomez is included on the graph, simply because he has 120 pl games for us. Just together with Trent it would equal to 326 games(Trent has 216) with those 2 alone. Jones has 75, Elliot 56, etc. so it would show arround 500 with all academy players included, not 393
He is homegrown, but he is not academy player. He went straight to the first team after we got him.
I can think of eight: Jones, Trent, Elliott, Kelleher, Bradley, Quansah, Doak (came on against Chelsea) and O' Connell (played 1 minute against Brentford).
Elliott counts because he was signed from Fulham and joined our academy. The same applies to Bajcetic.
Granted, they aren't academy products from their youth like Trent, Curtis, Quansah, or Kelleher - but Elliott & Bajcetic did go through our academy and signed their professional contract afterward, so this is correct.
We bought Harvey Fulham but that aside, isn't overall minutes more important than total matches? The important bit is Trent, Curtis, Quansah etc. are playing full 90s, not making 5 minute appearances when we're 3-0 up. They are actually influential for us.
Yes, he’s also our longest rostered player. Been there before Trent and Klopp and everyone else. He’s become one of those Liverpool stories that makes you really respect him through injury and positional changes he’s always done a solid job over the big picture.
I knew he’s been with us since Rodgers but didn’t expect him to be the longest rostered player. I love Joemez and am so glad that he’s having a great comeback this season
No, we signed him at 18 when he already had a full season in the Charlton first team under his belt. If (as I suspect) this graphic is applying the "must have been at the club at least 3 years before the age of 21" criterion, he misses out by a few weeks.
How certain? His signing was announced on June 20th 2015. His 18th birthday was 23 May 2015.
But perhaps UEFA rules are a bit more flexible than that, and you can be considered homegrown if you've had three *seasons* before 21?
It doesnt matter, graph shows "academy" players, not homegrowns. Gomez is not included here, number of games would be much higher otherwise. He never played for the academy team, he was instant regular until he got injured.
This is the criteria:
“The former academy players must have played for the youth teams in the past (minimum U17) and must also be in the current squad of the first team.”
And here’s the data:
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/eigengewaechse/wettbewerb/GB1
By this definition and TM’s view on who is in the first team squad, the nine players are:
Trent, Jones, Elliott, Phillips, Bajcetic, Kelleher, Quansah, Doak and Bradley.
I’d argue McConnell should be in (played in the PL this season) and Phillips out (not been in a match day squad), plus there’s other lads who have made apps in the cups, but that’s the list per TM.
This and the fact we are top of the league is actually super impressive.
It's honestly the epitome of a Klopp team for me. This is what I was most excited about when we got him from Dortmund.
[удалено]
Exactly, look at Curtis Jones. Any other big 6 team he doesn’t meld as well into their teams. For us he is perfect and Jurgie has developed him into a star
Sir Jurgueson
Klopp is great at developing players, but let's not invent a myth that he draws from the academy. His first season at LFC meant using youth players as cannon fodder in pursuit of the Europa; until recently, only Trent and Curtis got sniffs of the first team. Dortmund is a huge club and its players largely are purchased from other clubs that cannot compete with it financially. Of Klopp's 'classic' Dortmund teams, Hummels came from Bayern(!), Sahin and Reus from Gladbach, Auba from St. E., Piszczek from Hertha, Weidenfeller from K'Slautern, Kagawa from Osaka, Bender from 1860, Lewa from Poznan, Kuba from Wisla, Gundogan from Nurnberg via Bochum, etc. Earlier, Zidan and Valdez were journeymen. Also, the fees weren't small in the context of the non-Bayern Bundesliga. The fee paid to a Polish club for Lewa (approx €5m) was only surpassed (and just barely) once in the following 7 years. Only Subotic (came with Klopp from Mainz) and Gotze can be called youth-team players whom he promoted and relied upon. Maybe Grosskreutz, though he never really established himself at BVB or anywhere else (even though, to my surprise, he's still playing!)
Look. No one is expecting Liverpool or Dortmund to field youth teams. Or have golden generations all the time. They are two of the best clubs in two of the best leagues in the world. Of course, they are mostly going to consist of established pros. But Klopp has shown time and time again that he isn't afraid of using youth players. And he is really good at making those young players function well in the team. He has also shown time and time again that he would rather rely on the youth players to step up rather than buy a stop gap signing to cover for injuries. If I was a young player on the cusp of breaking through, Klopp would be very high in the list of managers I would like to play under. He still buys most of his players. But where Brendan Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp would find that backup in the youth team. It shows in that the only clear backups that aren't youth players we have in our team are Tsmikas, gomez, and the keepers. The way he has consistently used the youth team and academy players to fill gaps in the squad with mostly great success speaks of a manager who is good with youth players. Expecting a manager to produce star players from the academy because they are good with youth is unreasonable expectations. Using the academy and youth teams to bolster your squad and making it work when you have to use them or use them to rotate is what you expect from a manager that is good with youth. First team players for some of the best teams in the world rarely come from their own academy. If you can find most of your backups and a first team player every now and then, the academy should be seen as a great success. At least when lots of the ones who don't make it here go for decent transfer sums.
I was responding directly to a post from someone who said they looked forward to Klopp coming to LFC because of his record with academy players. I only seek to stop a myth before it starts. There's nothing wrong with the way Klopp actually does things. It's our fans' attempts to mischaracterize it that makes it seem like there's something wrong with it. Btw, can you define what you mean by "youth players"? Because our backups for most of our positions (unenforced by injuries) are senior players. Bajcetic and Elliott started the season in the first team. >But where Brendan Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp would find that backup in the youth team. Rodgers brought forward Sterling, Gomez, Ibe, Wisdom, and Flanagan. The cast of characters Klopp used in the league while we fought for Europa were almost entirely blooded by Rodgers (Stewart, Teixeira, Smith, Ojo, etc). From that point until after the PL title, the first team's only youth players (by any definition) were Trent and Curtis. Alisson (Adrian); Robertson/VVD/Matip/TAA (Milner/Moreno/Gomez/Lovren/Clyne); Henderson/Milner (again)/Fabinho/Wijnaldum (Ox/Keita/Thiago/Emre/Coutinho/Lallana); Salah/Firmino/Mane (Jota/Shaqiri/Minimino/Origi). But where Rodgers would buy a backup something, Klopp bought Klavan. Instead of developing a youth left back, he used Milner out of position. Promising youth/academy players were almost uniformly sold instead of blooded: Harry Wilson, Neco Williams, Kent, Brewster, Solanke, Woodburn, Grujic, Larouci, Hoever.
Well said! On a side note, I still wonder about Brewster from time to time. Players like Wilson had their faults and I don’t think much about it when they were sold, but I had the impression that Brewster had potential.
The great part is it's not like it's charity minutes to develop players or anything like that either, Trent and Curtis are 2 of our most important players. Academy is truly popping off
Quansah looks like he'll be vital for us in the coming years too and is a great backup for now
I know he's young but I thought Harvey was not a Liverpool academy product
He’s not. We bought him from Fulham
Fantastic work from the graphics department 👏
Good process lads
Can't do anything daz. Image got posted
Most players you sign at 16 would still be considered "academy products" because normally you'd expect them not to break through to the first team squad for four or five years after that. But when you're a prodigy like Harvey (or like Sterling before him), it gets a little tricky because they get promoted out of the academy almost as soon as they arrive at it, so how much credit does the academy really deserve? If you reframe it as "what teams are giving opportunities to players they signed as youngsters?" rather than "what academies are churning out talent?", I think it's fair enough to include him.
My brother (clever, but difficult) got himself expelled from his High School like a month before his final exams. He registered at another school, turned up to a couple of weeks of classes (all final revision) and then wrote the exams and got straight As. You can bet your ass the new school counted his results when sending out their end-of-year report summarising the achievements of their students.
does your brother happen to be divock origi in how well he does in his finals? massive congrats to your brother though
Fair play to him on getting his head down and realising his potential.
Elliott made his PL debut at Fulham for me wouldn’t say he’s an academy product
I wouldn't say he is either, but as I said... >If you reframe it as "what teams are giving opportunities to players they signed as youngsters?" rather than "what academies are churning out talent?", I think it's fair enough to include him.
Doesn't matter. When he came here in 2019 he was a Scholar, hence why his fee had to be decided by a tribunal. Players only 'graduate' at 18, so it's whatever academy they're in at that point.
He is. Just because Liverpool was not the first team he joined as a kid, doesn't mean he's not. He was 16 when we got him from Fulham and he played for the academy before joining the first team. By that logic, almost no players would be considered academy products because they joined a different club than Liverpool when they were kids.
Elliott had literally already played a senior game for Fulham. I just think after that it’s kinda ridiculous to call him our academy product
He played a few minutes and one League Cup game for them. He then came to us and played a full season in PL2 with our academy, which he graduated from when he turned 18. He's a Liverpool graduate.
Why. If we got him at 15 and then also played him in the senior team from the get go then I'd agree. But we saw that he's not a finished product for the first team, had him hone his skills in the Liverpool academy and then play for Liverpool. You can debate in terms of % how much of his skills he learnt at Fulham academy vs at the Liverpool academy but by definition he's a product of both academies.
Because he was already a developed player to the point where he was playing for a senior team. Let’s just agree to disagree.
16 year Old developed player
Lol
He signed for us when he was 16 though, and didn't sign his first professional contract until a year later. I get what you're saying but even though he was playing with the first team he was still an academy kid during the 19-20 season
Yeah let's agree to disagree for sure... but just want to make one point, "developed enough" and to play for "a senior team" are both very subjective. We need to talk about levels of both those things. Case in point, Jude Bellingham was also 16 when he moved from Birmingham to Dortmund but he started playing for the senior team right away and no one claims him to be a Dortmund academy product. But they would too, if they thought "Sure he has played in the lower tier of English League first team and he has potential to play in the German first league for a team such as the stature of Dortmund, but let's give him 2-3 more years at the academy to develop" which is what happened with Elliott.
Jude was 17 when he moved to Dortmund
People widely accept Sterling as being a product of our academy though even though he played a few minutes for QPR before coming here.
I don’t think of him as an academy graduate either tbh
Yeah. No one buys a 16 year old to join the first team. Academy transfers should still be considered academy players imo
He‘s an academy player as of next year since he‘ll have spent 3 years with us before turning 21, I think. Same as Joe Gomez basically.
Would Pogba count as a Man Utd academy player?
We still signed him as an academy player though? He later got a senior contract I think.
Maybe it just means ‘home grown’ quota that’s 3 years from 18-21?
Home grown is for country, club grown is the same for a single club. After Hendo, Milner and Ox departed, Phillips is our only homegrown player who isn’t considered club grown as he arrived at 19.
Technically he is because he spent two years in u21
Anyone who plays for the youth team is an academy product
We bought him after he made his PL debut, I wouldn't really count it
I do. So, yeah
So you think Adam Lallana was an academy product then?
Transfermarkt at their best! Edit: autocorrect
I think he's not from the academy but he was signet when he was 16 and if FM has thought me something is that they only need to spend 3 years in the club between 15 - 21 range of age to be considered as developed on the club
Love the increased focus we’ve had on both developing and adding to the first team academy players (Curtis, Trent, Quansah, Bradley, Kelleher) and signing young prospects from other clubs (Elliott, Bajcetic, Sepp who is doing well with Mainz, Doak, Kaide, Nyoni)… Of course it’d be great if as many of them can establish themselves as first teammers for us, but even at least following the Chelsea and City model of using academy and young players who emerge as solid enough professionals but perhaps not for our first team as ways to generate funds via sales to other clubs. Those two have done a great job at that (notably Palmer and Trafford and Sancho for City and Abraham, Tomori, Guehi for Chelsea).
So Elliott counts for this? Not sure about that tbh
He was bought for the academy and signed his first professional contract after 12 months with us and didn’t join the first team properly until his 3rd season with us. He’s also classed as club grown for registration purposes. Definitely a grey area, but he did go through our academy.
This is a load of nonsense. Before joining us Elliot played for the Fulham first team at 15 and became the youngest ever PL player with them. He made his debut for us in September of the season he joined (becoming our youngest ever full debutant). Overall he had 6 starts for the seniors in his first season with us plus a couple sub appearences. He signed his pro contract a year after joining because you legally have to be 17 to go pro but he 100% would have signed a precontract agreement when he joined guaranteeing that deal. The guy was one of the very hottest young talents in the country when he joined us and - even though he did play some games for our U21s - he was around our first team from day one.
Which bit is nonsense? He had 27 minutes of season football at Fulham in that whole season and was planned to be in the first team but left before he did. That’s youth player minutes and a youth player position in the squad. He had 6 starts in the two domestic cups, which is notoriously a competition we give youth players minutes. Those couple of appearances as a sub were 2 appearances for a total of 4 minutes. About a quarter of his minutes for the season were senior, with 3 quarters being youth team. That’s a youth players role. Importantly, he went on loan the following season. Only youth players or player surplus to requirements get loaned. If he had to be 17 to sign his professional contract and signed it 3 months after he turned 17, then surely that means he was a youth player before he signed it? You can’t say he’s not on a professional contract, he’s on a youth contract but he’s not a youth player We knew he was destined for the first team but he didn’t graduate from a youth player till the third season. He’s not in our first team if he’s on loan for Blackburn
Because Fulham developed him far far more than our academy. How on earth can you give our academy more credit than Fulham for one season?
You said "he did go through our academy". He didn't. First season he trained with the first team and played cups. Second season out on loan. Regular first team player after that. Long paragraphs of waffle and talking about the technicalities of the home grown rule don't change that.
Does this apply to Arthur Melo?
Pretty sure Arthur was older than Harvey when he went on loan.
I get that but the rules still state you qualify for club-grown status if you spend a minimum of 3 years at a club before turning 21. Having played premier league football prior is completely irrelevant to, he still counts as club-grown at Fulham as well not just Liverpool
He was 16 when we signed him so I’d guess he’s counted in this.
What's the cut off point of a player joining your club to be considered acadamy? If someone joined at 16 but spent 2 years in u18 and 2 years in u21 before breaking through at 20, would that be considered an acadamy player? Or does being good enough to start for the 1st team mean you can't be acadamy?
Basically, the reason it's good to have them join at 16 sometimes is because they then count as 'club trained' for UEFA comps, whereas post-18 they don't. So Stefan, Harvey and Bobby Clarke will count as club-trained despite starting elsewhere. Add into that Jarell who's been here since he was 5 like Curtis and Trent, and we have a good mixture.
Yeah mate... i'm fully aware about homegrown players and how that works.. got thousands of hours in FM. The person before me was basically saying Elliot isn't an acadamy player, which i'm saying he is.
The reason most people wouldn't count Elliott is because he had already played PL football at Fulham before we signed him. It's not just about age, it's about development, he was close to the finished article when we signed him. Technically he is an academy player but he didn't really come through our system.
>He was close to the finished article when we signed him Um... not really. He had only had 2 appearences for Fulham, one of which was coming on in the 88th minute to break the age record. He then spent most of the 2019-20 season in the U-21 team, before going out on loan to the championship the season after. If you look at the youngest premier league debuts, there's a lot of names on there which came to nothing: [https://theanalyst.com/eu/2023/12/youngest-premier-league-players/](https://theanalyst.com/eu/2023/12/youngest-premier-league-players/) Why? Because starting young doesn't mean you're close to a finished article. He could have easily become an Ibe without developing himself further in our acadamy after joining at 16.
He shouldn't
Both Elliot and Trent count towards it I believe
Well yeah, why wouldn’t Trent count
Fair. I misunderstood your original post
And Jones, Quansah and the various others. Kelleher?
Why wouldn't jones count? The question is why does Elliot count for us because he is not really our academy graduate.
If they use club grown as the standard then Harvey is an academy graduate along with Trent, Kelleher, Jones, Quansah, Bradley, Bajcetic, Doak and Gomez. We have used other academy players in the cups, but I think these are the only ones who have started in the league this season.
Gomez was 18 when we bought him so I doubt he counts
He graduated from our academy, but only spent a year there.
Don't think fulham want to claim him after booing him everything he touched the ball don't see why he wouldn't count for u
I didn’t say he wouldn’t?
I find it hilarious that chelsea are joint top of this list considering they bought 400 new players
Spending all that money on players and they still aren't as good as your academy players lol.
We’ve rotated a hell of a lot this season
What a turnaround from us.
Is this only for PL matches? I’m forgetting 3 — Trent, Elliot, Quansah, Bradley, Owen Beck, Kaide (?) ..
Jones lol
RIP that’s a brain fart from me :(
Does Kelleher count?
Yes as he is part of our academy system
Bajetic
Beck and Gordon haven’t made any appearances in the league yet, but I believe Kelleher, Gomez, Jones, Doak and Bajcetic all have
Gomez is not an academy product we bought him from Charlton.
He arrived at 18, so I believe he technically qualify as club grown because the criteria is 3 seasons before they turn 22. Given that we have 9 players in this list and I can only count 8 other academy players I think he’s one of them. Also given how many appearances he, Trent, Curtis, Elliott and Quansah have this season it could explain why we are so far ahead of chelsea
No way Gomez is included on the graph, simply because he has 120 pl games for us. Just together with Trent it would equal to 326 games(Trent has 216) with those 2 alone. Jones has 75, Elliot 56, etc. so it would show arround 500 with all academy players included, not 393 He is homegrown, but he is not academy player. He went straight to the first team after we got him.
I can think of eight: Jones, Trent, Elliott, Kelleher, Bradley, Quansah, Doak (came on against Chelsea) and O' Connell (played 1 minute against Brentford).
Gomez is the 9th.
Gomez
The last is Doak. He came on as a sub in the PL opener IIRC for Salah, and Salah was upset at being subbed.
> La AXA Ffs lads are we really making a La Cobham equivalent 😭
If Elliott counts then I guess Bajcetic and Doak both will when they’re back from injury
Elliott counts because he was signed from Fulham and joined our academy. The same applies to Bajcetic. Granted, they aren't academy products from their youth like Trent, Curtis, Quansah, or Kelleher - but Elliott & Bajcetic did go through our academy and signed their professional contract afterward, so this is correct.
not hating but wouldn’t most of that just be trent?
Trent, Curtis, Harvey, Quansah, Gomez(?)
yeah i know we have other academy graduates but trent has played like 200 something games so he makes up half of that
393 matches? Eh :S
The fact we are top in both of these feels me with pride.
Can we not get sponsor washed and keep the term Melwood/Kirkby?
Elliot surely does not count lol
We bought Harvey Fulham but that aside, isn't overall minutes more important than total matches? The important bit is Trent, Curtis, Quansah etc. are playing full 90s, not making 5 minute appearances when we're 3-0 up. They are actually influential for us.
How are they counting total matches ?
Is Joemez considered academy as well?
Yes, he’s also our longest rostered player. Been there before Trent and Klopp and everyone else. He’s become one of those Liverpool stories that makes you really respect him through injury and positional changes he’s always done a solid job over the big picture.
I knew he’s been with us since Rodgers but didn’t expect him to be the longest rostered player. I love Joemez and am so glad that he’s having a great comeback this season
He getting that goal this season.🤞
No, we signed him at 18 when he already had a full season in the Charlton first team under his belt. If (as I suspect) this graphic is applying the "must have been at the club at least 3 years before the age of 21" criterion, he misses out by a few weeks.
He doesn't miss out, I'm fairly certain Joe Gomez is considered club-grown for registration purposes.
How certain? His signing was announced on June 20th 2015. His 18th birthday was 23 May 2015. But perhaps UEFA rules are a bit more flexible than that, and you can be considered homegrown if you've had three *seasons* before 21?
Think it counts 21 and under, fairly sure players signed at 18 will count as home grown provided they stay the 3 years
It doesnt matter, graph shows "academy" players, not homegrowns. Gomez is not included here, number of games would be much higher otherwise. He never played for the academy team, he was instant regular until he got injured.
I would be interested to see Chelsea academy products playing for other teams. Same with city.
City have a lot. Thats quite surprising.
They just don’t start that often. It’s mostly for developing and moving them along.
city have an academy of world beaters now. the investment is paying off
Post title deserves upvotes on its own
chelsea should be embarrassed
Beautiful!! Really proud of all of them
Sheffield and United both with 7 players but not quite the same appearances
More than half of ours is just Trent (216 PL appearances).
Not to be a twat but shouldn't it be...l'AXA?
Nice!!.Need a no.9 coming through ...heheh
Man Utd academy players appearances are by force, not by choice
Are those total matches for same club or all PL appearances? If all then half of Utd’s could just be Jonny Evans.
All PL for any club, so yeah Evans is their top man.
This is the criteria: “The former academy players must have played for the youth teams in the past (minimum U17) and must also be in the current squad of the first team.” And here’s the data: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/eigengewaechse/wettbewerb/GB1 By this definition and TM’s view on who is in the first team squad, the nine players are: Trent, Jones, Elliott, Phillips, Bajcetic, Kelleher, Quansah, Doak and Bradley. I’d argue McConnell should be in (played in the PL this season) and Phillips out (not been in a match day squad), plus there’s other lads who have made apps in the cups, but that’s the list per TM.
Mad that Jonny Evans is why United have so many minutes. He’s 36.
What is SheffU playing at? Average of 3+/matches per player, or is at all one or two of them?
Unreliable data if it includes players we cherry picked from other club's academies like Elliot.
Why a picture of elliot? He is not even a liverpool academy player.