The Spurs Youth Thread - 2018/19

Blake Griffin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
12,310
sterling not even on the bench for sunderland today, i know it's still early days but it's shaping up to be another poor loan. i don't know why we don't use stevenage more, surely they're ideal and amos' loan there is one of few recent ones that actually worked out well for everyone.
 

bceej

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
1,619
sterling not even on the bench for sunderland today, i know it's still early days but it's shaping up to be another poor loan. i don't know why we don't use stevenage more, surely they're ideal and amos' loan there is one of few recent ones that actually worked out well for everyone.
We do need a trusted loan network. Stevenage and MK Dons we clearly have a working relationship with. Would like us to work with Luton Town too - not too far away and have a great record of bringing players through. Should be in the Championship next year too.

Otherwise we seem to have a good relationship with Swansea, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Southend and Peterborough. Shame Mark Warburton isn't knocking about any more. Good that Bielsa's with Leeds...
 

chinaman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
16,310
We do need a trusted loan network. Stevenage and MK Dons we clearly have a working relationship with. Would like us to work with Luton Town too - not too far away and have a great record of bringing players through. Should be in the Championship next year too.

Otherwise we seem to have a good relationship with Swansea, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Southend and Peterborough. Shame Mark Warburton isn't knocking about any more. Good that Bielsa's with Leeds...

How old is Bielsa? Is he near retirement? When he retires, would like him to join us and work with Poch in some capacity.
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,263
Thread starter #3,391
On the depth thing, and what makes this even more annoying is that Man City have 3 other wingers from this age group in Matondo, Poveda and Richards who stand no chance of coming through there but would likely be starting in other age groups. Along with Hudson-Odoi it's just talent being wasted. Also in the players you mentioned above Ampadu was also in this age group but not deemed good enough at u16s. Really is crazy depth
Meant to post this on deadline day, but I noticed Matondo got bought buy Schalke. To further point to the pros and cons of EPPP. As above Matondo is a top winger who would be a star in most academies. At City he was behind Foden, Sancho, Diaz, then according to their squad against Burton, Poveda and then Richards. Due to EPPP he was funnelled to City from Cardiff to continue his top quality coaching and development. He has earned himself a Welsh cap like Ampadu and was deemed by Schalke and their scouts worth buying for 8m and he got on the pitch the first game he was available. The downside of EPPP is he was never ever going to get a chance at City. Heck Sancho couldn't, Diaz got signed by Madrid and he would have been one of those considered not 'good enough' for top football as he would likely have found it impossible to get into the City team. This is the situation England has got itself in, and it's a simlar situation at Spurs.

There's a reason these German clubs with all their knowledge are dipping into the top 6 academies and paying for unproven talent rather than looking to spend money on Grealish and Bowen. And if the rumours were true but it came from The Sun so I doubt it, it doens't surprose me to see there is still interest in Onomah from Hoffenheim and Monchengladbach, and at 22 they wouldn't be trying to sign him for thier academy. These German clubs know what talent is out there and is currently being severly underappreciated and undervalued.

RB Lepizeig wanted to sign Lookman after he did so well, however Everton did not want to sell him. The stupid things is the PL have so much more money than other leagues, that Leipzeig couldn't afford to meet Everton's asking price, and Everton had enough money were they could afford to turn down their offer even though they won't play him, but they don't want to risk losing him and having egg on their face. In fact fans are the same, I see some fans of clubs, will play down or post any small example of a player doing badly when they have left to protect the club or their manager. I've seen a City fan calling Sancho overhyped I remember articles on Veljkovic were posted when he was still playing for the u23s, rather than giving him time to settle. It's a strange mentality. Lookman can't even get into a poor Everton team despite being MOTM in one of the games he played, sounds like a similar issue with one of ours actually. Yet if Lookman was at Leipzeig he'd probably be tearing it up, but I'm sure the Everton fans are dropping the 'Silva sees him in training' lines and he will no doubt stagnate just as he was starting to progress in the Bundesliga. Similarly I can see Chelsea going back to giving Hudson-Odoi scarce minutes as the risk of him leaving has gone, and they no longer need to give him any incentive to stay. All piss poor really.

Here's another article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-now-produces-better-youngsters-germany-says/

I've been saying this in this thread for the longest. I remember when fans would post about France and Germany's depth and how they could put out 4 top quality first elevens, and wonder why England can't. I have said multiple times we have more talent than them and if the players got chances we could and we would win a World Cup. But managers and fans have no incentive or care to play these players, and the end result is people claiming they were overhyped or just not 'good enough'. Ligue 1 and Bundesliga give them a chance if 'they're good enough'. There is no such privilege here. As I said the problem is a lot of the top quality kids are jammed in at the top clubs but it would help if just one or two came through per season as the top top clubs, but we're finding that isn't even the case, or if players do come through they are more of the clogger type that anyone can coach and be relied upon and not the proper talents who come with a bit more risk, but will have something that the reliable players. These don't come through here sadly unless there is incredibly fortune in the form of injuries. Sancho, Nelson, Matondo, Veljkovic, Smith-Rowe, Lookman did not need injuries to get opportunties or even incredible work-rate, they just needed talent and they were trusted. And the things is they don't have to be World Class, but none of these players would have played in the PL. England could have in the last few seasons had four top quality first elevens but the talent is wasted, this is why they need to go abroad as nothing will change here.

And here in lies the main issue https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ays-offer-chances-young-premier-league-stars/. OPPORTUNITY. I can't find the Sancho article but what he says in it is the opportunity will come here, but he doesn't want people to get complacent and thing he doesn't have to work hard. No one would ever disagree with this, BUT the main thing is opportunity. Anyone who goes to Bundesliga and doesn't work hard is wasting the time, but the crux of the problem is that no matter how hard Sancho worked at City he would NEVER have got the opportunity he has at Dortmund. And this is why the 'the cream will always rise to the top' and 'if you work hard enough you will get a chance' cliches in England are nonsense. City have 6 talented wingers in their academy. I've never heard of any bad issues in their attitude, in fact it was Sancho who used to drive me cray at age group level as he was very selfish and would hold onto the ball and appear very cocky, which I liked but I knew it wouldn't work in England. However when City have Sane, Sterling, Silva, DeBruyne, Mahrez et al. One coming through is hard enough, however if none of them moved and none come through the narrative would have been they were all overrated. Opportunity is key. We struggle with it here ourselves. We have incredible talents, I've been watching our young players for ages and am able to compare them on an even playing field with all the other talents I've seen before they were given first team OPPORTUNITIES, actual run of games, and like other clubs we still manage to throw it away, expecting them to do things that is ridiculous for inexperienced players. Expecting our attacking players to be as astute defensively and put in shifts which would be fairly alien to them and hence we struggle to develop them. We take less talented but hard working individuals and hope they develop the skills to become quality players which they will not, and ignore the talent because we don't want to give them them time to develop the more mature, hard work side of the game.
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,263
Thread starter #3,392
Our subsequent reserve crop have quite a lot to live up to, with only Winks to date really having done enough to put himself high on that list, though KWP and perhaps CCV might also creep in.
Which is ironic considering the crop of players after them were more talent. Clearly the use of the loan system and the first team opportunities handed to them via the EL helped a lot of those players establish themselves as well as a year of Sherwood forcing the issue.

The current more talented crop of had none of that. The only year we have EL football was in 14/15 when Poch was learning about his squad so apparently could not give chanes, and 15/16 when Onomah got a couple of chances including the game against Monaco his only start in CM for us where we won 4-1. Since then, we've had CL football and only found an opportunity for one player in Winks, which IIRC he also got his initial chances via an injury crisis somewhat. I'm sure someone will correct me. Addiitonally under the current regime loans were forwned upon, which meant talented players were stagnating in u23 football and not developing, even on bad loans.

Every single player, I think, in the list above bar Bentaleb, Veljkoivc and Falque were out on loan at around 18/19, in some way or another to at least develop expereince.

In comparison by the time Onomah had turned 20 he had 793 first team minutes under his belt over 3 seasons and 31 appearances an average of 25 per game, I don't know wha tit would be if you took the sporadic 90 mins out.

Whereas Carroll has played played 2026 minutes of consistent first team football including 450 minutes for our first team in the Europa League, in his preferred position which was over 200 minutes more than Onomah had played at the same age.

I compare these 2 as they were both the most talented midfielders (CMs) in their age group, also because fans claim claim that Onomah wasn't physically ready for first team football despite him being a lot bigger and stronger than Carroll. In this time Carroll wasn't even playing for a decent England age group, whereas Onomah was a regular in what was at the time, England's strongest age group that had produced and had already won 2 international tournaments. Now while Carroll was talented I'm sure the consensus is Onomah was a better player, and some fans are starting to come round to the idea that even Carroll's development was handled poorly so what do we make of Onomah's?

And when you compared to the rest of Onomah's age group Onomah had more opportunities. As in those times he was trying to scrape together some first team appearances none of the others were even allowed to go out on loan. It's no wonder that Carroll's age group, with all the opportunities they have had, are doing or appear to be doing considerably better than any of the players born below 1995 as they have all been handled shoddily.

If we compare two similar types of players Pritchard had 2 great loans on the other hand Sahshoua by all accounts had to arrange his own loan to go out. As Vieira said he knows from managing the CIty u23s and seeing seeing the players out there and having managed in Ligue 1 that there are players stuck in the u23s who would be starting in Ligue 1. He also acknowledged that staying in the u23s actually causes regression. These are teh things happening to our players.

So there's two groups.

The apparently successful lot born before 1995. The had first team opportunities and lot of loans and experience, but not many England representatives and those England age groups had one successful age group.

Then those born after. We've had plenty in the England age groups. Those age groups have won tournaments, various coaches have admitted that England are producing the best in players in the world and with our players contributing and our players being hunted but for some reason, they have been less successful.

So despite a lot of evidence suggesting the 2nd group have more talent, why have the first lot been so successful. Well the first group got lots of loans and first team opportunities. I can only conclude that the development of the 2nd lot of players were handled really poorly.

It will be incredibly hard for those born after the year of 1995 to match up to those born pre 1995, when they haven't had the same amount of opportunities, but I await for the fingers to be pointed at the players, as a reason for their lack of development
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
444
Loans are so difficult - speaking to someone who worked for another club at a lower level his opinion was that taking boys from Spurs was a particular risk as Spurs worked on developing a certain type of player. Technically very able but sometimes lacking in the so called dark arts, the grafting and the battling aspects of football (which is kind of ironic as the current first team are proving masters of the latter two_.

Clubs are often not looking for a technician who is going to come in and create some special moments but then fade out of games or who are not able to cope physically. They are often looking for lads who can come in and cope with the physical aspects of football. You have to remember that clubs bringing in loans are often doing so because they are struggling or have injuries and that many sides down the league ladder are not going to play from the back.

With Kane and Carroll they both went out on loan as youth players really so had exposure to different ways of playing and competitive football. I am not sure that there is a one size fits all but the u23 League doesn't appear to have made things any better and unless you can get to work with another club or clubs then I think loans will continue to be difficult
 

alexis

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
775
Which is ironic considering the crop of players after them were more talent. Clearly the use of the loan system and the first team opportunities handed to them via the EL helped a lot of those players establish themselves as well as a year of Sherwood forcing the issue.

The current more talented crop of had none of that. The only year we have EL football was in 14/15 when Poch was learning about his squad so apparently could not give chanes, and 15/16 when Onomah got a couple of chances including the game against Monaco his only start in CM for us where we won 4-1. Since then, we've had CL football and only found an opportunity for one player in Winks, which IIRC he also got his initial chances via an injury crisis somewhat. I'm sure someone will correct me. Addiitonally under the current regime loans were forwned upon, which meant talented players were stagnating in u23 football and not developing, even on bad loans.

Every single player, I think, in the list above bar Bentaleb, Veljkoivc and Falque were out on loan at around 18/19, in some way or another to at least develop expereince.

In comparison by the time Onomah had turned 20 he had 793 first team minutes under his belt over 3 seasons and 31 appearances an average of 25 per game, I don't know wha tit would be if you took the sporadic 90 mins out.

Whereas Carroll has played played 2026 minutes of consistent first team football including 450 minutes for our first team in the Europa League, in his preferred position which was over 200 minutes more than Onomah had played at the same age.

I compare these 2 as they were both the most talented midfielders (CMs) in their age group, also because fans claim claim that Onomah wasn't physically ready for first team football despite him being a lot bigger and stronger than Carroll. In this time Carroll wasn't even playing for a decent England age group, whereas Onomah was a regular in what was at the time, England's strongest age group that had produced and had already won 2 international tournaments. Now while Carroll was talented I'm sure the consensus is Onomah was a better player, and some fans are starting to come round to the idea that even Carroll's development was handled poorly so what do we make of Onomah's?

And when you compared to the rest of Onomah's age group Onomah had more opportunities. As in those times he was trying to scrape together some first team appearances none of the others were even allowed to go out on loan. It's no wonder that Carroll's age group, with all the opportunities they have had, are doing or appear to be doing considerably better than any of the players born below 1995 as they have all been handled shoddily.

If we compare two similar types of players Pritchard had 2 great loans on the other hand Sahshoua by all accounts had to arrange his own loan to go out. As Vieira said he knows from managing the CIty u23s and seeing seeing the players out there and having managed in Ligue 1 that there are players stuck in the u23s who would be starting in Ligue 1. He also acknowledged that staying in the u23s actually causes regression. These are teh things happening to our players.

So there's two groups.

The apparently successful lot born before 1995. The had first team opportunities and lot of loans and experience, but not many England representatives and those England age groups had one successful age group.

Then those born after. We've had plenty in the England age groups. Those age groups have won tournaments, various coaches have admitted that England are producing the best in players in the world and with our players contributing and our players being hunted but for some reason, they have been less successful.

So despite a lot of evidence suggesting the 2nd group have more talent, why have the first lot been so successful. Well the first group got lots of loans and first team opportunities. I can only conclude that the development of the 2nd lot of players were handled really poorly.

It will be incredibly hard for those born after the year of 1995 to match up to those born pre 1995, when they haven't had the same amount of opportunities, but I await for the fingers to be pointed at the players, as a reason for their lack of development
Loathed to dive in here given your knowledge but Carroll was given the chances that most others would want. He doesn’t fit your narrative.

Also I know There’s the potential for a ten paragraph answer.
 

eddiebailey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,887
Loans are so difficult - speaking to someone who worked for another club at a lower level his opinion was that taking boys from Spurs was a particular risk as Spurs worked on developing a certain type of player. Technically very able but sometimes lacking in the so called dark arts, the grafting and the battling aspects of football (which is kind of ironic as the current first team are proving masters of the latter two_.

Clubs are often not looking for a technician who is going to come in and create some special moments but then fade out of games or who are not able to cope physically. They are often looking for lads who can come in and cope with the physical aspects of football. You have to remember that clubs bringing in loans are often doing so because they are struggling or have injuries and that many sides down the league ladder are not going to play from the back.

There didn’t seem to be a problem arranging loans for those sort of lads back when Harry and Tim were working their address books…

Under Pochettino the aspiration for youngsters at the club seems to be for them hang out with the first team squad in the hopes that an injury crisis will hand them a sink or swim opportunity. For a few, such as Harry Winks this might work out, but even for the likes of KWP or Foyth a good performance is not immediately followed up by further outings, or if it is the next outing is strewn with errors while they learn on the job under relentless scrutiny. For most though it just means years of stagnation while they wait for the call that never comes.

I am not sure why Pochettino is so averse to the loan system, given that much of his success in bringing through youngsters has been with the likes of Kane and Mason who had been through the loan grind before his arrival, or with those such as Dier and Dele who had begun their football education elsewhere.

The Pochettino method of keeping youngsters close might ultimately be as effective as the more traditional approach in bringing through first team talent for Spurs, but the gulf in experience between the first team and the reserves weakens us in terms of strength in depth, and more importantly we are failing those youngsters who are being held back by lack of meaningful football. This won’t go unnoticed by agents and parents, and our ability to attract and retain talent could suffer.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,752
There didn’t seem to be a problem arranging loans for those sort of lads back when Harry and Tim were working their address books…

Under Pochettino the aspiration for youngsters at the club seems to be for them hang out with the first team squad in the hopes that an injury crisis will hand them a sink or swim opportunity. For a few, such as Harry Winks this might work out, but even for the likes of KWP or Foyth a good performance is not immediately followed up by further outings, or if it is the next outing is strewn with errors while they learn on the job under relentless scrutiny. For most though it just means years of stagnation while they wait for the call that never comes.

I am not sure why Pochettino is so averse to the loan system, given that much of his success in bringing through youngsters has been with the likes of Kane and Mason who had been through the loan grind before his arrival, or with those such as Dier and Dele who had begun their football education elsewhere.

The Pochettino method of keeping youngsters close might ultimately be as effective as the more traditional approach in bringing through first team talent for Spurs, but the gulf in experience between the first team and the reserves weakens us in terms of strength in depth, and more importantly we are failing those youngsters who are being held back by lack of meaningful football. This won’t go unnoticed by agents and parents, and our ability to attract and retain talent could suffer.
I suspect much of Pochettino’s mistrust of the loan system is to do with the general abysmal standard of coaching in the lower leagues, and the general reliance on physicality and “manning up”. What’s the point in sending them their if they’re learning so much rubbish?
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,549
I suspect much of Pochettino’s mistrust of the loan system is to do with the general abysmal standard of coaching in the lower leagues, and the general reliance on physicality and “manning up”. What’s the point in sending them their if they’re learning so much rubbish?
Are they though? I think it's healthy especially for players that have been reliant on their own physical superiority to realise that this may not be the case against seniors.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,752
Are they though? I think it's healthy especially for players that have been reliant on their own physical superiority to realise that this may not be the case against seniors.
Actually the thing about our academy is we take the players who aren't as physically dominant in their age groups. We focus on those born later in the school year, who tend to be smaller.
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,549
Actually the thing about our academy is we take the players who aren't as physically dominant in their age groups. We focus on those born later in the school year, who tend to be smaller.
Still, how do you want them to learn the senior game if you don't want them loaned up risking that they learn "rubbish"?
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
19,752
Still, how do you want them to learn the senior game if you don't want them loaned up risking that they learn "rubbish"?
There's obviously lots of good things about loans, learning to play infront of pressurised crowds, learning about pro dressing rooms, the physical nature of the game. However on the downside most lower league teams don't focus on pressing routines, or patterns of play in the style we play in, so our players won't be learning the way Poch wants them to play.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, here. I think loans can be beneficial, but I get where Poch is coming from too.
 
Top