I think in theory the youth team model would work if all the clubs played ball, while I'm for what we are doing I do think you have a point insomuch as closing their academy worked ok for Brentford back in the day didn't it.
They closed because the EPPP compensation rules delivered tiny fees when bigger clubs poached their best teens. They replaced it with a B-team model for ages 17–21, recruiting released Premier League prospects and overseas talent, organising their own high-level friendlies. It worked out for them (Premiership rules meant that they had to restart an academy and now they have an Category 1 academy)
However, by the same token, the same approach didn't work out for Wycombe Wanderers or Bolton Wanderers.
I also think you have a point about an identikit approach in the Premiership and with coaching.....not that I think this actually happened in Zaha's case. In fact I think Palace's record in terms of keeping an individual player's flair while helping them professionalise other facets of their game does stand up.
I do think the Cat 1 academy approach is the better option for Palace.....I could bore you with reasons for why but I think you probably know why. I'll only do so if you ask but others have probably already mentioned them.
That said I think the question about academies is always a question worth the asking.
The recent posts on here have confirmed my long held views that:
Firstly: It is possibly a mistake to view a Cat A academy as
inherently more likely to produce better players than an old school youth team used to be. If you were somehow able to put the best ten kids in South London through a modern academy, and then repeat the experiment and put them through a 1990's youth team, its not obvious to me that the first process would certainly produce better players.
Fundamentally, getting the best kids to train with each other and play against other good kids is the best education possible. It's hard to say whether a certain kid might have fared better in one set up or the other. Perhaps some would wilt under the worst of the old-school semi-bullying (as and where it existed) or struggle without the tactical micro-management that seems common now. Then again, perhaps others would be far better for having proved themselves, or far more resourceful, creative, and street-wise on the pitch having not had it all coached out of them. Hard to tell. What is obvious is that the number coming through at Palace hasn't increased, nor changed much over the years.
Secondly, and ultimately, it doesn't matter as Palace have no choice but to play ball. We must have an all-singing all-dancing academy set up even if only to secure the benefits that used be derived from an old-fashioned youth team (i.e. somewhere to develop talented kids, including having them play against other talented kids). In fact, we must have one even if it doesn't do those things.
I suppose I would advise against any hopes that the investment has significantly improved the chances of a youth player making it here. It might not even produce better players than have been produced in the past. Different, but perhaps not better. That's perhaps not what one would instinctively expect from such a significant investment.
