Everton home grown players (Moyes vs other managers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allezfan

Player Valuation: 1p
Because it's one of those arguments that never go away.

Around 200 players in the history of Everton FC have made 100 or more competitive appearances for the club so had really cemented themselves in the first team for a concerted period of time. Of those 200, 51 or about a quarter were home grown and weren't bought from another club. (Though many more like Mercer and Wilson got their first professional games here.)

Of those 51 players, here are the managers to give them their debuts.

William Barclay (1 year): 1 (Johnny Holt)
[Poor language removed] Molyneux (2 years): 1 (Samuel Wolstenholme)
William Cuff (17 years): 4 (Harry Makepeace, Sam Chedgzoy, George Harrison, Bob Balmer)
W.J. Sawyer (1 year): None
Thomas McIntosh (16 years): 5 (Ted Sagar, Charles Gee, Jimmy Cunliffe, Albert Virr, Jack Jones)
Theo Kelly (9 years): 3 (Eddie Wainwright, George Saunders, Tony McNamara)
Cliff Britton (8 years): 7 (Tommy Jones, Jimmy O'Neill, Jimmy Harris, Eric Moore, Mick Meagan, John Parker, James Tansey)
Ian Buchan (2 years): 3 (Brian Labone, Derek Temple, Albert Dunlop)
Johnny Carey (3 years): None
Harry Catterick (12 years): 10 (Mick Lyons, John Hurst, Colin Harvey, Tommy Wright, Roger Kenyon, Joe Royle, Jimmy Husband, Terry Darracott, Andy Rankin, David Johnson)
Tom Eggleston (0.08 years): 1 (Mick Buckley)
Billy Bingham (4 years): 3 (Mark Higgins, George Telfer, Dave Jones)
Steve Burtenshaw (0.08 years): None
Gordon Lee (4 years) : 3 (Kevin Ratcliffe, Billy Wright, Steve McMahon)
Howard Kendall (10 years): 4 (Gary Stevens, John Ebbrell, David Unsworth, Kevin Richardson)
Colin Harvey (3 years): None
Jimmy Gabriel (0.08 years): None
Mike Walker (0.92 years): None
Dave Watson (0.08 years): 2 (Michael Ball, Danny Cadamarteri)
Walter Smith (4 years): 1 (Tony Hibbert)
David Moyes (13 years): 3 (Jack Rodwell, Victor Anichebe, Leon Osman)

I don't think there's any doubt that the production line of young talent that was there in the 50s and 60s has slowed significently. Catterick and Moyes and Kendall have all managed for similar times and yet Catterick produced more players from the youth team than the other two put together.

Having said we're producing no fewer first team players from our youth under Moyes than we have at any point since Catterick left or indeed then we were pre WW2.
 
If those are not good enough what is the point of playing them just for the sake of it?
 

If those are not good enough what is the point of playing them just for the sake of it?

Exactly if they're good enough they got in the first team, if they don't they're not good enough. So how many got a decent amount of appearnces in the first team is a good way of judging the success of our academy/youth system. Which is the point.
 
Exactly if they're good enough they got in the first team, if they don't they're not good enough. So how many got a decent amount of appearnces in the first team is a good way of judging the success of our academy/youth system. Which is the point.

Rooney is the best of all, frankly speaking.
 

There isn't really a fair way of doing a comparison though.

You need to consider the availability of foreign players, the position of the team in the league etc

A fair comparison would be between the rest of the teams that have finished in the 4th-8th league position over the last 10 years. In that group are Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle.

Other than Villa's recent influx of youth teamers (which has seen them fall rapidly down the league) I can't think of that many first team players that any of those rivals have produced in that time either.

My conclusion is that it is much harder to ease youth team players into the first team squad when you are battling for European places rather than when you are mid-table and dropped points don't matter as much.
 
There isn't really a fair way of doing a comparison though.

You need to consider the availability of foreign players, the position of the team in the league etc

A fair comparison would be between the rest of the teams that have finished in the 4th-8th league position over the last 10 years. In that group are Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle.

Other than Villa's recent influx of youth teamers (which has seen them fall rapidly down the league) I can't think of that many first team players that any of those rivals have produced in that time either.

My conclusion is that it is much harder to ease youth team players into the first team squad when you are battling for European places rather than when you are mid-table and dropped points don't matter as much.

Surely there's no argument that Catterick's team were vastly superior to anything we've seen in the PL era, though?
 
There isn't really a fair way of doing a comparison though.

You need to consider the availability of foreign players, the position of the team in the league etc

A fair comparison would be between the rest of the teams that have finished in the 4th-8th league position over the last 10 years. In that group are Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle.

Other than Villa's recent influx of youth teamers (which has seen them fall rapidly down the league) I can't think of that many first team players that any of those rivals have produced in that time either.

My conclusion is that it is much harder to ease youth team players into the first team squad when you are battling for European places rather than when you are mid-table and dropped points don't matter as much.

Whilst I can certainly appreciate the merits of comparing us with our nearest rivals, if they're not doing a great job either that shouldn't be an excuse for us not doing so.

You only have to look at the national team to see how we do as a country in developing young players. It isn't exactly great. Whilst I appreciate that they have unique circumstances, you also have arguably the greatest club side ever with around 75% of their team from the youth system, so it is possible to embed young players into an already successful side.

I guess what I'm saying is we should be looking at the teams, from wherever they may be in the world, that are producing some great young players, and learning from those, rather than looking at Spurs et al and think we need not bother.

We don't have cash to spend, so a constant stream of first team players from the youth ranks would improve the first XI, it'd add depth to the squad, and it'd also give us some income from any we sold on. I mean at United even relatively average players like Richardson earnt the club a good few million in transfer fees.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top