The headline in the Guardian says Arsenal look to finalise PS42m signing of Italy defender Riccardo Calafiori from Bologna. The headlines in most papers and blogs most of the time is that Arsenal need new forwards - particularly a big bustling new centre forward, and should be giving more chance to the younger players.

Indeed a recent story in the New York Times (and hence in the Athletic) is that Arsenal's academy graduates are stagnating because they are not getting enough chances of playing.

Indeed although it is admitted that Arsenal have the "fourth-youngest team on average in the Premier League last season ... opportunities have not been easy to come by for those stepping up from the youth ranks."

In short Arsenal are getting it all wrong - and as we heard last season that Arteta was a failure because he was not rotating players and he should be replaced.

There is evidence to back up these claims in the sense that Arsenal used only "two players aged 21 or younger in the league last season," Manchester City used six such players knocking up a total of almost 4000 minutes between then compared to 372 by Saka before his 21st birthday, and around 28 by Nwaneri.

Indeed only one club used under 21s for less time than Arsenal last season in the Premier League - the mighty Fulham. It all sounds pretty shocking.

Except for one thing. If we look at the clubs that used their youngest players the most last season and compare that figure with the league table we don't find any correlation...

Players aged 21 and under under 21s position 1 Manchester City 91 6 15 2 Arsenal 89 2 19 3 Liverpool 82 11 4 4 Aston Villa 68 7 11 5 Tottenham Hotspur 66 7 10 6 Chelsea 63 16 1 7 Newcastle United 60 9 6 8 Manchester United 60 10 5 9 West Ham United 52 3 18 10 Crystal Palace 49 6 14 11 Brighton and Hove Albion 48 13 2 12 AFC Bournemouth 48 6 13 13 Fulham 47 1 20 14 Wolverhampton Wanderers 46 7 9 15 Everton 40 6 12 16 Brentford 39 5 16 17 Nottingham Forest 32 7 8 18 Luton Town 26 3 17 19 Burnley 24 7 7 20 Sheffield United 16 11 3 The simple fact is there is no relationship between the number of under 21 players used and the success of the club.

In response to this it might be argued that there is a relationship but it is longer term - you don't see it at once, but it comes later. OK maybe, but nobody has put forward any figures to show that, and generally where there are figures that prove something (especially if it is to Arsenal's detriment) then those figures are all over the media.

For some reason the use of academy graduates became something of a topic in the Athletic last season, with talk of knock-on effects (although there is no evidence there are any.)

But there is a simple question not being asked. What is better for the club? To come second two seasons running and with goal-scoring and defending records, or to have lots of youngsters coming through?

Or it could be argued that the key issue is not the number of young players but the average starting age of the players across a season that is the issue? The Analyst did this and gave us the fact that the teams with the youngest average starting age last season were Burnley, Chelsea and Arsenal, Manchester City were 11th. Age it seems doesn't relate to performance.

Now of course it could be argued that Arsenal are in a particularly strong position having a young team who now have experience of playing together and we can hope for even better things next season. But there is nothing to show that Arsenal have suffered in any way by not using the young players.

Of course, it could be argued that the problem will arise in the future, as these young players will leave for the clubs - but that is pure speculation. And you would have thought that if there was even the slightest hint of that being the case they would be onto it.

Selling young players on is often not just a case of an immediate modest transfer fee, but rather that mostly it involves a percentage of the next fee if the player makes good. So it is also a case that there is a good financial reason for adopting Arsenal's approach, rather than knocking it.

The media might be full of tales of Arsenal losing out on player X who they "let go" aged 18 and is now playing for Manchester United or whoever, but what is generally missing is just how much Arsenal made out of the add-ons when he went on to Manchester United - and who came in to take his place in the Arsenal team.

And all this is before we consider how many young players plateau and having had a fortune spent on their development while taking up a place that another player might have used, become just average players. Or more sadly, have a career destroyed by injury.

In reality, football is about winning, becoming financially viable and attracting young players to the club. And in the latter regard I suspect most young players realise that even if they don't make it at Arsenal, the training and development they get with the club, will help them secure a position elsewhere.

Arsenal have come second to the biggest money factory football has ever seen for the last two years. Are we really to accept that this has happened with an entire process of youth development has been utter rubbish?