Confirmed Signing Niels Nkounkou

[Nymzee]

They definitely do. People massively misunderstand how youth football works. Most teams want to put out a competitive team every week in the under 23s, but they also want players calling up to the senior squad and to go out on loan. With that in mind, clubs will regularly bring in squad fillers who can do a good job in junior football but they don't have massively high hopes for. The likes of Boris Mathis were absolutely not bought because we thought they were the next Dixie Dean. Of course they hope everyone can be a first teamer, but the coaches are fully aware that 90% of the lads in their team will never play a PL game, it's only fans who think it's a conveyor belt.

But doesn't that mean he was essentially signed for the first team if they see enough potential in him to make it for the first team? I can't see any club ever spending actual cash on a player solely for the U23 when we can just stick someone from the U18's in.

 

[Lanolin]

90% of the under 23s team is made up of academy players though. We could have an entire under 23 squad of players from the academy. If we’re actually bringing players into the club, of course it’s done with the intention of them playing for the first team.

Boris Mathis was brought in because our scouts saw potential in him that he might develop into a first team player, same as Bowler, same as Virginia, same as Markelo. I’m not having that any of these players were briefed upon signing for the club “by the way lads you’re just here to fill out the reserves for 3 years”.

You can not have it as much as you want mate but I can absolutely guarantee you that it's true. Some clubs have entirely separate budgets for the under 23s for this exact reason. If your under 23 right back gets fast tracked into the first team in pre-season, and you'd rather your next in line stayed with the under 18s for his development, then there's a good chance the club is going to sanction you going out and bringing in a right back to play for the under 23s. Again, they obviously don't want you to get someone rubbish, theoretically you get someone who could play first team later, but that is not the reason you're buying them. Keepers are a big one, you think its a coincidence we've signed so many young keepers? It's because a rubbish keeper in under 23s can undermine the whole team, so you go and get a decent one who will do a job for you.

 

[MikeH72]

But this is my point....there's a massive massive difference between u23 football and adult football at any club.

The majority of players playing week in week out for u23 sides in this country will never play a premier league game.

It's not a problem thats unique to Everton

There’s plenty of academy players breaking into Premier League teams. And teams much better than ours. United have McTominay, Greenwood and Williams playing regularly. Chelsea obviously have a bucketload. Liverpool with Arnold, City with Foden, Spurs have Winks, Kane, Tanganga. Arsenal have Saka, Nketiah, Willock and several more.

Further down the league we have West Ham with Rice and Ngakia, Southampton have always had absolutely loads, Newcastle have the Longstaffs. An absolute fallacy that clubs across the league aren’t littered with players that have come right through their own academies.

 

[Lanolin]

But doesn't that mean he was essentially signed for the first team if they see enough potential in him to make it for the first team? I can't see any club ever spending actual cash on a player solely for the U23 when we can just stick someone from the U18's in.

This is what I mean about fans misunderstanding. You don't always want to put under 18s in to under 23 football, it might not suit their development plan. Thought goes into these things, it's not just the really basic stuff that people talk about here. You're trying to build teams and get the best out of your main prospects. If you have a little striker who you have big hopes for you might think he needs a target man next to him to get the best out of him. But you don't have a target man, so what do you do? Bring one in, obviously. It's the same when people say 'iT doEsn't mATter abOUt tITLes at dat aGE do Lad'. It doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a 15 year old kid and his parents when they're deciding who to sign for. Saying we win loads of trophies at under age level is a massive selling point.

 

[Arteta10]

There’s plenty of academy players breaking into Premier League teams. And teams much better than ours. United have McTominay, Greenwood and Williams playing regularly. Chelsea obviously have a bucketload. Liverpool with Arnold, City with Foden, Spurs have Winks, Kane, Tanganga. Arsenal have Saka, Nketiah, Willock and several more.

Further down the league we have West Ham with Rice and Ngakia, Southampton have always had absolutely loads, Newcastle have the Longstaffs. An absolute fallacy that clubs across the league aren’t littered with players that have come right through their own academies.

But the vast majority of players in the u23s league dont ever make it in the prem, like 90% of them I'd say.

Of course there are always going to be exceptions, and most of the players youve mentioned are exceptional talents. Do you really think we've had anyone in our u23 squad in the last few years with the same type of talent as Foden or Arnold?

If we had had players as talented as that then they would have made it to the first team, as Davies and Gordon have now done (not saying theyre as good as the other two but theyve made it to the first team).

It's not just down to the coaching, you need to have the talent to begin with to make it in the prem

 

[MikeH72]

This is what I mean about fans misunderstanding. You don't always want to put under 18s in to under 23 football, it might not suit their development plan. Thought goes into these things, it's not just the really basic stuff that people talk about here. You're trying to build teams and get the best out of your main prospects. If you have a little striker who you have big hopes for you might think he needs a target man next to him to get the best out of him. But you don't have a target man, so what do you do? Bring one in, obviously. It's the same when people say 'iT doEsn't mATter abOUt tITLes at dat aGE do Lad'. It doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a 15 year old kid and his parents when they're deciding who to sign for. Saying we win loads of trophies at under age level is a massive selling point.

But we’re not talking about 15 year old kids here, we’ve just brought in a 19 year old left back who was interesting Leipzig and Juventus, and people are claiming he’s been brought in for the under 23s? Why would a) we bother doing that when we could just promote one of the under 18s left back and b) he agree to come here to waste the most important development years of his career playing in a pisspot under 23s league under lard arse Unnnnnsy?

 

[Lanolin]

But we’re not talking about 15 year old kids here, we’ve just brought in a 19 year old left back who was interesting Leipzig and Juventus, and people are claiming he’s been brought in for the under 23s? Why would a) we bother doing that when we could just promote the under 18s left back and b) he agree to come here to waste the most important development years of his career playing in a pisspot under 23s league under lard arse Unnnnnsy?

Well with the 15 year old kid I was just expanding on the point that there's a big difference between how fans perceive youth football and how clubs do. I've already explained why 'just promote the under 18s left back' isn't necessarily a good solution, it's actually worrying that people don't realise that without it needing to be pointed out but there you go. I'm not saying we've bought Nkounkou to bolster the under 23s, I was just responding to the suggestion that we never sign anyone to bolster the under 23s. We do, and so do most clubs. We also sign players because their agents want us to, and there's a promise that sticking this kid in our under 23s for a year so he can put it on his CV will help when it comes to contract negotiations/purchases further down the line. All of this goes on.

 

[Zatara]

The question is Zat .... were Stones , Holgate and DCL bought for the under 21/ 23's ? Not sure - you may be right.

Im pretty confident that Unsworth was the one who wanted DCL. He used his Sheff Utd contacts there...

Stones and Holgate different kettles of fish.

90% of the under 23s team is made up of academy players though. We could have an entire under 23 squad of players from the academy. If we’re actually bringing players into the club at the age of 18+, of course it’s done with the intention of them playing for the first team.

Boris Mathis was brought in because our scouts saw potential in him that he might develop into a first team player, same as Bowler, same as Virginia, same as Markelo. I’m not having that any of these players were briefed upon signing for the club “by the way lads you’re just here to fill out the reserves for 3 years, enjoy your productive time at the club”.

You can not have it as much as you want mate but I can absolutely guarantee you that it's true. Some clubs have entirely separate budgets for the under 23s for this exact reason. If your under 23 right back gets fast tracked into the first team in pre-season, and you'd rather your next in line stayed with the under 18s for his development, then there's a good chance the club is going to sanction you going out and bringing in a right back to play for the under 23s. Again, they obviously don't want you to get someone rubbish, theoretically you get someone who could play first team later, but that is not the reason you're buying them. Keepers are a big one, you think its a coincidence we've signed so many young keepers? It's because a rubbish keeper in under 23s can undermine the whole team, so you go and get a decent one who will do a job for you.

This is what I mean about fans misunderstanding. You don't always want to put under 18s in to under 23 football, it might not suit their development plan. Thought goes into these things, it's not just the really basic stuff that people talk about here. You're trying to build teams and get the best out of your main prospects. If you have a little striker who you have big hopes for you might think he needs a target man next to him to get the best out of him. But you don't have a target man, so what do you do? Bring one in, obviously. It's the same when people say 'iT doEsn't mATter abOUt tITLes at dat aGE do Lad'. It doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a 15 year old kid and his parents when they're deciding who to sign for. Saying we win loads of trophies at under age level is a massive selling point.

But we’re not talking about 15 year old kids here, we’ve just brought in a 19 year old left back who was interesting Leipzig and Juventus, and people are claiming he’s been brought in for the under 23s? Why would a) we bother doing that when we could just promote one of the under 18s left back and b) he agree to come here to waste the most important development years of his career playing in a pisspot under 23s league under lard arse Unnnnnsy?

Well with the 15 year old kid I was just expanding on the point that there's a big difference between how fans perceive youth football and how clubs do. I've already explained why 'just promote the under 18s left back' isn't necessarily a good solution, it's actually worrying that people don't realise that without it needing to be pointed out but there you go. I'm not saying we've bought Nkounkou to bolster the under 23s, I was just responding to the suggestion that we never sign anyone to bolster the under 23s. We do, and so do most clubs. We also sign players because their agents want us to, and there's a promise that sticking this kid in our under 23s for a year so he can put it on his CV will help when it comes to contract negotiations/purchases further down the line. All of this goes on.

I always think u23 signings are bought for any of 3 reasons:

1: Someone with potential to be in the first team

2: Someone as a squad filler while waiting for an u18 to progress to that level

3: Someone who can bring the best out of another player who is highly rated e.g if we have a young Andre Gomes type and no ball winner then we go out and bring in a ball winner to compliment the highly rated player and assist their development.

As for Niels, it appears as though Digne is undispued 1st choice, Baines is backup but 35 and could extend for a season.

Niels comes into the u23s with a view to taking over Baines position. Also even if Baines doesnt extend then Niels will be playing u23s football and also backup to Digne.

Clearly hes not seen to be ready from day 1 so we need to give him a settling in period.

 

[MikeH72]

Well with the 15 year old kid I was just expanding on the point that there's a big difference between how fans perceive youth football and how clubs do. I've already explained why 'just promote the under 18s left back' isn't necessarily a good solution, it's actually worrying that people don't realise that without it needing to be pointed out but there you go. I'm not saying we've bought Nkounkou to bolster the under 23s, I was just responding to the suggestion that we never sign anyone to bolster the under 23s. We do, and so do most clubs. We also sign players because their agents want us to, and there's a promise that sticking this kid in our under 23s for a year so he can put it on his CV will help when it comes to contract negotiations/purchases further down the line. All of this goes on.

What, because it’s not in their development plan? What about all the squad fillers we’re bringing in for the under 23s, what’s their development plan? Why does every single under 18s player have a development plan but the under 23s can be filled with no hopers?

With the greatest respect, you’re a good poster and I like you, but what you’re saying here doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. After the age of 18 you are no longer eligible to play for the under 18s, so the next progression is the under 23s, and a 16 year old will naturally take your place in the u18s.

We absolutely have enough players at the club in the 18+ age bracket to fill out the under 23s. Bringing in 19 year olds from outside the club specifically to play reserve team football is pointless and I still don’t understand why we’d do it. The view to them breaking into the first team simply has to be there.

 

[Nymzee]

This is what I mean about fans misunderstanding. You don't always want to put under 18s in to under 23 football, it might not suit their development plan. Thought goes into these things, it's not just the really basic stuff that people talk about here. You're trying to build teams and get the best out of your main prospects. If you have a little striker who you have big hopes for you might think he needs a target man next to him to get the best out of him. But you don't have a target man, so what do you do? Bring one in, obviously. It's the same when people say 'iT doEsn't mATter abOUt tITLes at dat aGE do Lad'. It doesn't matter to you, but it matters to a 15 year old kid and his parents when they're deciding who to sign for. Saying we win loads of trophies at under age level is a massive selling point.

To me if a player is 'signed for the U23' then he's a player signed that the club don't feel can make it into the first team.

If he's a player they think could make it in the first team then he's not signed for the U23's he's signed for the first team.

No club does the first thing with money.

 

[jazzy]

Regarding signing a young player and development plan / pathway , here are some very interesting quotes from the lad's agent;

“Niels did not get a minute to play. We therefore considered that Niels’ chances of playing at Marseille are slim. Especially since Marseille is looking for a left-back to compete with Amavi. This is the reason we chose Everton.”

Yvan Le Mée further stressed the sporting plan proposed by the French club wasn’t convincing for the defender and his future development.

“What the club proposed was fine [with regards to finances]. The problem was of a sporting nature. We were asked to sign and go out on loan. It was of no interest to us,” Nkounkou’s agent explained.

“We had the possibility of going to Juventus or Leipzig, but these clubs did not present the possibility of arriving quickly in first team. The choice of the Nkounkou clan is purely sporting.

“We did not want to find ourselves in the situation similar to that of Alexandre Phliponeau, who after two years of professional contract is in the reserves. Unfortunately, the player’s interest was not to stay at Marseille.”

Everton currently have Lucas Digne and Leighton Baines as the two recognised left-backs in the squad.

Yvan Le Mée stressed the prospect of being Digne’s understudy, and a conversation with Ancelotti, convinced Nkounkou to join the Premier League side.

“Today there is a strong holder, it’s Lucas Digne, and there is Leighton Baines who extended, but plays less. If Niels is strong enough, he could be Digne’s understudy. If he’s not strong and he has trouble adapting in England, he will be third choice in his position,” Yvan Le Mée added.

“Today, the possibility is stronger for Niels to be on the pitch at Everton than at Marseille. There is also a coach named Carlo Ancelotti who called the player, who spoke to him, and who knows the player’s potential.

“He says that by working with the player, he can make him a top player. It is also important for us to have a coach who wants the player. If we add the club’s infrastructure and the next arrival of the new stadium, the project presented is attractive.”

 

[Lanolin]

What, because it’s not in their development plan? What about all the squad fillers we’re bringing in for the under 23s, what’s their development plan? Why does every single under 18s player have a development plan but the under 23s can be filled with no hopers?

With the greatest respect, you’re a good poster and I like you, but what you’re saying here doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. After the age of 18 you are no longer eligible to play for the under 18s, so the next progression is the under 23s, and a 16 year old will naturally take your place in the u18s.

We absolutely have enough players at the club in the 18+ age bracket to fill out the under 23s. Bringing in 19 year olds from outside the club specifically to play reserve team football is pointless and I still don’t understand why we’d do it. The view to them breaking into the first team simply has to be there.

Honestly it makes perfect sense. Maybe it's hard to explain properly without writing a full blown essay but i'll try. Apologies if any of this sounds condescending, it's not meant to it's just that if you don't think it makes sense i'm trying to break it down so it does.

It sounds like you're coming to it with the view that every single player we have on the books, from under 12 to under 23 is viewed by the coaching staff as a potential first teamer. That's your first mistake. They aren't. At all. Obviously you will always get the odd bolter but in the main, the coach of the under 18s will know on day one of the season who is and isn't likely to be given an extended contract at the end of the year. So take right back as an example. Let's say next seaon, hypothetically, Kenny is our first team right back, and we want to put Kyle John out on loan. We have a couple of options then on what to do at right back in the under 23s. We can move a centre half from the under 23s to play there (and people on here will say 'typical Unsworth moving people out of position') we can keep John (and people will say 'typical Unsworth more bothered about winning games John should be out on loan so he can develop) or we can bring in the under 18 right back. Now it's possible that the under 18 right back is a 5ft 2 weakling who the under 18s coaches rate as the least likely player in the set up to make it, and was pencilled in to be released. Maybe the coaches think the right winger in front of him and the right sided centre half next to him will see their performances suffer massively if he steps up, and their development will be stunted because they're constantly covering for him. Is that a good way to develop your players? I would say no. So the other possibility is that Unsworth says we have a bit of a problem at right back I want to bring someone in, and the club say yeah no worries but they have to be free and on under £3k a week because we're perfectly happy that Kenny and John will sort us at right back for the next 10 years. He then goes and gets a lad who's being hawked round by his agent after being released by FC Koln or whoever, specifically to fill a gap in the under 23 squad. If he turns out to be great then obviously they'll be made up and he'll progress, but that isn't why they're buying him.

That's just one hypothetical scenario. There are loads of other reasons for it to happen too. Player development is a pretty complicated process, it's really not just as simple as is being made out.

 

[Lanolin]

To me if a player is 'signed for the U23' then he's a player signed that the club don't feel can make it into the first team.

If he's a player they think could make it in the first team then he's not signed for the U23's he's signed for the first team.

No club does the first thing with money.

Without wanting to sound crude... it's like saying every girl you take home after a night out is potential marriage material. Technically it might be true, but that is not why you're taking her home.

 

[jazzy]

Honestly it makes perfect sense. Maybe it's hard to explain properly without writing a full blown essay but i'll try. Apologies if any of this sounds condescending, it's not meant to it's just that if you don't think it makes sense i'm trying to break it down so it does.

It sounds like you're coming to it with the view that every single player we have on the books, from under 12 to under 23 is viewed by the coaching staff as a potential first teamer. That's your first mistake. They aren't. At all. Obviously you will always get the odd bolter but in the main, the coach of the under 18s will know on day one of the season who is and isn't likely to be given an extended contract at the end of the year. So take right back as an example. Let's say next seaon, hypothetically, Kenny is our first team right back, and we want to put Kyle John out on loan. We have a couple of options then on what to do at right back in the under 23s. We can move a centre half from the under 23s to play there (and people on here will say 'typical Unsworth moving people out of position') we can keep John (and people will say 'typical Unsworth more bothered about winning games John should be out on loan so he can develop) or we can bring in the under 18 right back. Now it's possible that the under 18 right back is a 5ft 2 weakling who the under 18s coaches rate as the least likely player in the set up to make it, and was pencilled in to be released. Maybe the coaches think the right winger in front of him and the right sided centre half next to him will see their performances suffer massively if he steps up, and their development will be stunted because they're constantly covering for him. Is that a good way to develop your players? I would say no. So the other possibility is that Unsworth says we have a bit of a problem at right back I want to bring someone in, and the club say yeah no worries but they have to be free and on under £3k a week because we're perfectly happy that Kenny and John will sort us at right back for the next 10 years. He then goes and gets a lad who's being hawked round by his agent after being released by FC Koln or whoever, specifically to fill a gap in the under 23 squad. If he turns out to be great then obviously they'll be made up and he'll progress, but that isn't why they're buying him.

That's just one hypothetical scenario. There are loads of other reasons for it to happen too. Player development is a pretty complicated process, it's really not just as simple as is being made out.

Very interesting.
You sound as if you know what you are talking about.
I'd never thought of it in those terms.

 

[Lanolin]

Very interesting.
You sound as if you know what you are talking about.
I'd never thought of it in those terms.

Yeah I used to be involved in youth development in a different sport where the same principles apply. I've been to development coaching seminars with PL clubs and talked about this type of thing so I know it definitely happens.