First of all, why are they called “under-21 teams” when they are really “21-and-under teams” or “under-22 teams”? I know I’m not the first to ask, but still, I’m asking. And Andy Carroll isn’t even under 22: he is 22. This highly official page lists forty players, of which only thirteen are actually, 
you know, under 21. Six of them are 23. Following this arithmetic, Jack Wilshere could play for the under-16 team, for which he would score about nine goals per game.
In fact, Wilshere could presumably be called up for—using the FA’s terminology—the U16s, U17s, U18s, U19s, U20s, Under-21s, and Senior teams. (Why does it go from “U” to “Under” at 21? Why not “U” all the way up?) Arsène Wenger could just hand him over to the tender mercies of Albion and turn to the challenge of trying to get Cesc Fàbregas and Aaron Ramsey on the pitch at the same time. But really, there ought to be a law: once a player gets called up to his country’s national side, he shouldn’t be eligible for the various JVs any more. The whole idea of the junior teams is to develop younger players, to get them ready for competition at the highest level—if indeed they prove capable of competing at the highest level, and regarding that the jury is very much in on young Jack. The dude can play. It’s time for the FA to find out who else of his age can.
What makes for a prodigy? It’s an odd word. In some fields it means extraordinary achievement at an early age. George Steiner had this definition in mind when he claimed that there are only three fields of human endeavor in which genuine prodigies happen: music, mathematics, and chess. The twelve-year-old Mozart wasn’t an exceptional composer for a twelve-year-old; he was just an exceptional composer. Bobby Fischer became a grandmaster at age fifteen. Not all such prodigies go on to become as great as they are expected to become; but they all accomplish a great deal, by any measure, in their art or discipline.
In soccer, though, and I think in other sports, we call players prodigies when they show extraordinary promise early on. They dominate players their own age, but we can’t be certain that they will be able to take the steps necessary to achieve as brilliantly when they’re playing against the best in the world. Freddy Adu was a prodigy in this sense of the word who failed to take those steps. Wesley Sneijder was a prodigy who took them.
Barney Ronay recently wrote a fine essay that focuses on the exploits of Liverpool’s Raheem Sterling but along the way argues that there are two different kinds of prodigy: those who mature physically ahead of schedule and dominate their peers with brawn and pace, and those who develop very high levels of skill before they could reasonably be expected to. Ronay thinks that the latter are more fragile: the skills won’t do them much good if they don’t develop the physical resilience to deal with angry strong men who wish to knock them about. Until this season, that was the worry about Wilshere: is the little guy tough enough? But no one seems to be asking that any more. Wilshere may have a slight upper body, but his legs are trunks, he has fantastic balance and burst, and he occasionally manifests something not unlike a mean streak.
So Wilshere isn’t a prodigy any more: he’s a superb player at the highest level. This is not to say that his career trajectory is complete or even inevitable, but (barring injury) he’s not going to be anything worse than one of the better players on a top team. I don’t think you can say anything that definitive for any of the other players on England’s Under-21 team: Andy Carroll, Micah Richards, Josh McEachran, Kieran Gibbs, Daniel Sturridge, Danny Welbeck—any of them could end up being just a decent Premier League player; any of them could be something more than that.
But it’s hard to imagine any of them becoming superstars, in part because none of them were really prodigies, just impressive teenage players. Among the truly great players—legends of the game—weren’t they all, in their early years, absolute and unquestioned prodigies?
It is very rare for soccer to produce prodigies in the first sense of the word, in the Mozart and Fischer sense of the word, but surely Pelé, who started to dominate Brazilian professional soccer at age fifteen, counts as one.
I have the highest hopes for McEachran.
Read More: Youth
by Alan Jacobs · May 9, 2011
[contact-form 5 'Email form']
Zidane maybe? Not sure he was quite the prodigy. There was that famous Jack Walker quote when he asked Ray Halford why he wanted to sign Zidane when Blackburn had Tim Sherwood in their midst.
Nice Piece.
I think they get picked for the Under 21’s for the experience of playing summer tournament football, which somone like Wilshire will not have experienced before. Also putting players like him in the team gives it a better chance of winning, which is also good experience for all.
I think most great players are prodigies, the question comes as they step up levels, will they cope etc. Some great players have taken a while to reach the summit, Zidane & Henry. Others reach it almost instantly as they step up, Ronaldo & Pele.
Theo Walcott: overwhelming evidence of “the latter” as explained above. Then again, his skill is/was simply running really, really quickly.
@Suhrith Zidane is an excellent counter-example.
Drogba is another example. No one paid attention to him until he was in his mid-20s.
First of all, why are they called “under-21 teams” when they are really “21-and-under teams” or “under-22 teams”?
Because FIFA, like Dionysius Exiguus, starts the count at 1.
@Kári Tulinius Any blog comment that seeks to explain the behavior of international football authorities by appealing to the example of Dionysius Exiguus wins my instant and unwavering assent.
“First of all, why are they called “under-21 teams” when they are really “21-and-under teams” or “under-22 teams”? ”
Because qualification starts two years prior to the finals tournament. A player must be 21, or younger, at the time of the first qualifying game. In this case qualifying started in March 2009 so a player would have to be born in 1988 or later to be eligible.
“Why does it go from “U” to “Under” at 21? Why not “U” all the way up?”
AFAIK it is consistent. UEFA run three under-age tournaments: Under-17s, Under-19s and Under 21s. Other confederations have their own competitions, which may use the U shorthand, but that’s them and their foreign ways
@Fast Eddie I think the point isn’t that these questions are unanswerable so much as that there are a lot of disorienting conventions around youth national teams.
@Brian Phillips You really think so? The terminology is slightly counter-intuitive when comparing between federations but hardly baffling. At least not when compared to, say, figuring out why Ronaldinho featured in an Under-23s tournament in 2008 (the Olympics) or getting to grips with the Argentinian league system. Perhaps there could be more standardisation of the under-age format across the world, but I don’t really see why there should be
I believe any football article about youth, particularly those using the word “prodigy” (and not in reference to the mid-90s “online services company”) are required to include at least three references to Gareth Bale and his mercurial, prodigious skills. The PFA will be in touch soon.
@Fast Eddie I don’t mean to suggest that it’s baffling, only that it’s not really sensible to have an “Under 21” team featuring players who are barely under 24. Not quite a tragedy, but one of those comical little eccentricities of modern life. Me, I would either change the name or change the age policy, in the interests of consistency, but then I don’t belong to the noble guild of sports administrators.
perhaps xavi is another example? he didn’t really become the player he is considered these days until his mid- to late-20s.
and another would be henrik larsson. my judgement may be colored slightly by this one, but i think he can pretty much go down as one of the best pure strikers in the history of the game, and he didn’t cause any great ripples until he joined celtic a few months shy of his 26th birthday.
2¢ and all that.
@Alan Jacobs Fair enough. But do look at it from UEFA’s perspective as well. If the age cap is set at the finals (ie, you have to be under 21 to play in Denmark this June) then you’d have to play the previous ten qualification games with players no older than 19. Whether its the naming or age policy, you can’t get away from the fact that this is a two year competition and that players have the inconvenient habit of ageing of the course of this.
But then, like most things in football, its best not to think about it too hard
The only youth prodigy I know is that 1 year old who’s been signed by VVV-Venlo. Chicharito, Messi, Bale, Wilshere cower in comparison.
Why didn’t you mention Bojan? I thought this was a Barca blog!
*walks off in a huff*
@dgm Interesting thought, because it’s hard for me to assess Xavi’s overall quality as a player. I mean, he’s great, but will he be one of the greats? It’s so hard to disentangle his achievement from that of Barça. Messi would be Messi anywhere, but what would Xavi be if he played for Chelsea? Or even if he played for Real Madrid? I find it hard to say. The Barça system seems to be made for him, and he for the system.
mario gotze is a prodigy through and through
@Alan Jacobs – I’m not sure that Messi would be Messi anywhere. Sure, he’d be brilliant, but it’s hard to quantify how much Barca’s fluid style has helped him. Do you think if he went to RM for example that he’d be the same player?
@Pete Maybe not the same, but close, because he has every skill. With his pace and passing ability, he can create for others or for himself. But he certainly benefits from having so many teammates who are so positionally aware. My guess is that for another team his assists would drop a lot more than his goals.
@Alan Jacobs – His assists dropping would make sense. You’re right, with his positioning/technique he’d probably lead any league in scoring. It would never happen, but how fascinating would it be to see how he’d fare in the PL.
@Alan Jacobs i see your point – it’s a bit like the “system quarterback” in college football. the difference being, of course, that a great college quarterback who is actually not that skilled usually gets found out in the pros.
however, can you blame a player for the system his club plays? what i mean is – xavi has had a pivotal role in the amazing success of both his club and national team, which is all you can really ask of a player to become a “great.” xavi playing for the same club his entire career should not be held against him, just as the fact that ryan giggs having played for man united his entire career won’t be held against him when people consider his place in the all-time pantheon – if he’d played for an italian team that didn’t use wingers, we would have never heard of giggs.
perhaps xavi is a product of his system. but would a less-skilled player have made that system work quite as well as it has? i tend to think not.
NB: i’m an espanyol supporter, so it does pain me a little to devote this much energy to praising xavi.
@dgm Sorry to put you in the situation of having to praise Xavi! — but I have praised him too, on this very blog. He’s an amazing talent, and one of my favorite players to watch — ever. But . . . when you ask me whether Xavi is one of the all-time greats, my honest answer is that I just don’t know. I find it hard to say.
Hah! Pele reckons Chicharita could be the next Messi. (This, from a man who figured El Hadji Diouf as one of the greatest living footballers.)
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/917759/pele:-javier-hernandez-can-be-the-next-lionel-messi?cc=3436
There seem to be many things wrong with this. I’ll ignore that they are completely different types of player, one a scorer/playmaker, the other a poacher (Michael Owen had it right that Chicharita is a better version of himself).
Chicharita is 20 yrs old, Messi is 22. Messi’s narrative has barely reached the second act. The media keep looking for the next thing before we’re done with the last one. It’s like putting two gobstoppers in yer mouth and comparing the flavours of each.
@Pete
If Di Maria, Ozil, C. Ron and co. can be themselves at RM, I don’t see why Messi could not?
@dgm
I don’t think many outside Glasgow and Sweden will remember Larsson in ten years time. He was a good player but hardly an historic one, IMO.
@Alan Jacobs @Pete Leo Messi wouldn’t have been Leo Messi in the USA. He would have been Derrick Rose.
@A fairly sure people in barcelona and manchester would disagree with you there.
Most great players were prodigies. But as an ACC basketball fan and Chicagoland resident since the early 90’s you must be familiar with the story about Michael Jordan – the greatest basketball player of all time or at least a certifiable superstar/legend of the game – not making the cut for his high school basketball team in what was it, 10th grade? Surely in addition to Zidane there have been other relative late-bloomers in soccer, players who showed solid, maybe even potential pro-level talent at an early age but who nobody would have guessed would rise to the stardom they eventually achieved?
I remember then-18 year old prodigy Michael Owen’s appearance for England in the 1998 World Cup and his electrifying goal vs. Argentina like it was yesterday.
Interesting article. In my view, for a prodigy to become a great player, he needs to show a level of consistency that is far above his peers. A great player becomes great when he is able to maintain an extremely high level of consistently great performances in whatever position he plays in.
If a 16-year-old prodigy is the best in his age group and you are able to see a distinct improvement each time he steps up, then he is on the right path.
Footballers are also human beings, and some will take longer than others to get to the top.
Look at Adebayor, for example. He had one brilliant season for Arsenal where scored 30 goals I believe, but since then he hasn’t been able to replicate that level of performance elsewhere.
I read an interesting quote somewhere that said, “the mark of a great player is shown through how good he is when he has a bad performance”.
With some players, you can immediately tell when they are performing badly, it’s apparent. With others, when they play bad they are still performing better than the majority of players so that makes it harder to tell.
My two cents.