The Spurs Youth Thread - 2017/2018

[alexis]

Unfortunately what will happen if young players keep going abroad (for very little) is that english teams will cut back how much they invest in developing youth.

It’s the worry except the sell on may function as revenue stream and if you have first option on buy back

A player who has a great experience at an academy who is then pursued to come back may just favor that club as a pro, perhaps

 

[Lilbaz]

It’s the worry except the sell on may function as revenue stream and if you have first option on buy back

A player who has a great experience at an academy who is then pursued to come back may just favor that club as a pro, perhaps

That's why i said "for very little". At the moment you are seeing youngsters refusing to sign a professional contract and going abroad for nothing (sancho is not one).

 

[johnbowel]

Unfortunately what will happen if young players keep going abroad (for very little) is that english teams will cut back how much they invest in developing youth.

Or actually start playing them/giving them opportunities.

If Sancho is followed by Gomes, Foden, and others - particularly that u17 year group, abroad - I think there’ll be a number of massive successes, and big money moves that might wake english clubs up. De bruyne (who had to go to Germany.. Wolfsburg?) and Lukaku play into this, imo, in terms of clubs being pushed to reassess their integration of youth. It would take a special kind of idiot not to see this. Unfortunately, english football has been that special kind of idiot.

 

[Lilbaz]

Or actually start playing them/giving them opportunities.

If Sancho is followed by Gomes, Foden, and others - particularly that u17 year group, abroad - I think there’ll be a number of massive successes, and big money moves that might wake english clubs up. De bruyne (who had to go to Germany.. Wolfsburg?) and Lukaku play into this, imo, in terms of clubs being pushed to reassess their integration of youth. It would take a special kind of idiot not to see this. Unfortunately, english football has been that special kind of idiot.

It isn't being idiotic. Managers jobs rely on results on the pitch. They are not going to risk their jobs to blood a 17 year old when they can buy a ready made international from abroad. Especially as they will be long gone before they mature.

I would like to see premier league squads limited to 22 players over the age of 21. It would give more chance to younger players. Also if you get a youngster from abroad you have to pay a development fee to the parent club.

 

[johnbowel]

It isn't being idiotic. Managers jobs rely on results on the pitch. They are not going to risk their jobs to blood a 17 year old when they can buy a ready made international from abroad. Especially as they will be long gone before they mature.

I would like to see premier league squads limited to 22 players over the age of 21. It would give more chance to younger players. Also if you get a youngster from abroad you have to pay a development fee to the parent club.

I don’t think that looks beneath the surface of the issue. It is idiotic to buy players in who are demonstrably as much of a risk as blooding some of those youngsters, as has proven to be the case where players brought in have failed, and young players have moved and flourished. I’m not saying this is the case in all examples, and what you’re saying is definitely one side of this issue, but the other, and the one I’m saying is idiotic, is the idea that your own youth players are terrifying unconscionable risks, and that these ready made internationals from abroad are dead certs, when the only reason they are ready made internationals is because their clubs gave them an opportunity. I don’t believe that the quality of those players was increased dramatically during their games after debut, until they were ‘ready’ for a big prem club. All that changed, was their ability managed to permeate the thick membrane of those clubs’ awareness. It’s all speculation, and among the factors that play into that speculation, the real world looking at and assessing of the ability and potential of academy players here, has been irrationally diminished, next to the symbolic false security of the established name imo. It’s what held our national team back for fifteen years.

The whole art of player acquisition has been shorn of its appreciation of potential and ability, in the uk, by the white noise of finance. There’s no such thing as being ahead of the curve in this way of thinking.

 

[Lilbaz]

I don’t think that looks beneath the surface of the issue. It is idiotic to buy players in who are demonstrably as much of a risk as blooding some of those youngsters, as has proven to be the case where players brought in have failed, and young players have moved and flourished. I’m not saying this is the case in all examples, and what you’re saying is definitely one side of this issue, but the other, and the one I’m saying is idiotic, is the idea that your own youth players are terrifying unconscionable risks, and that these ready made internationals from abroad are dead certs, when the only reason they are ready made internationals is because their clubs gave them an opportunity. I don’t believe that the quality of those players was increased dramatically during their games after debut, until they were ‘ready’ for a big prem club. All that changed, was their ability managed to permeate the thick membrane of those clubs’ awareness. It’s all speculation, and among the factors that play into that speculation, the real world looking at and assessing of the ability and potential of academy players here, has been irrationally diminished, next to the symbolic false security of the established name imo. It’s what held our national team back for fifteen years.

The whole art of player acquisition has been shorn of its appreciation of potential and ability, in the uk, by the white noise of finance. There’s no such thing as being ahead of the curve in this way of thinking.

Hopefully with prices being what they are for players clubs will give youngsters more chances.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It hasn't seemed to help Chelsea, I wonder how much having a partner abroad would really help us

Yeah I was just going to say the exact same thing. The only thing it seems to have really helped Chelsea with is the sell on fee for the players who do go abroad on loan. Otherwise they’re losing youth players as well.

It helps Chelsea retain the best players, it helps those players development enormously and then, worse case scenario, it ensures a much bigger fee.

That would seem better than the system we are currently employing, where the better players are stagnating in their development, and some are now starting to jump ship for relatively little/no fee.

If we are to continue with trying to foster an “elite” academy, then we really need to evolve the process, and actually offering the players some kind of opportunity to develop, and what better than sending them abroad to get good coaching and play competitive games in countries where a better tolerance of youth development is endemic.

 

[Spurzinho]

It helps Chelsea retain the best players, it helps those players development enormously and then, worse case scenario, it ensures a much bigger fee.

That would seem better than the system we are currently employing, where the better players are stagnating in their development, and some are now starting to jump ship for relatively little/no fee.

If we are to continue with trying to foster an “elite” academy, then we really need to evolve the process, and actually offering the players some kind of opportunity to develop, and what better than sending them abroad to get good coaching and play competitive games in countries where a better tolerance of youth development is endemic.

I think what sticks in the craw is that its really just a corporate fudge. We'd all rather that the Premier League, including us, learnt the lesson the hard way. Use it or lose it.

The problem is that football is run along market lines, not sporting lines. Business doesn't do long term. Long term isn't good for shareholders. Shareholders will screw a club far quicker than the fans ever will. Just look at the prolonged battle various sets of supports have waged against their clubs to little change. Then look how quick a club jumps when the investors get antsy.

Developing youngsters is small change. Its a vanity or at worst a box ticker for major clubs. In Chelski's case its even worse because their model has been about making sure other clubs don't have players more than wanting them themselves. They admitted three or four years back that they have signed young players to stop United or us getting them.

Youth development in this country will improve when the gravy train departs, not before.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Looks like Jaden Brown is staying...for now.



Jaden Brown has returned to Tottenham Hotspur today. The defender trained along this week, but the Englishman will not be followed up.

 

[Locotoro]

Time to get a Dutch link up I think.

 

[rabbikeane]

Time to get a Dutch link up I think.

What happened with Roda?

We should hire Martin Jol and place him in charge at a dutch club.

 

[Locotoro]

What happened with Roda?

We should hire Martin Jol and place him in charge at a dutch club.

Lol, im not sure Jol would take another job from levy

 

[Spurzinho]

Lol, im not sure Jol would take another job from levy

I'm not sure anyone would give Jol a job tbh. I loved him when he was with us but I think a lot of that was because (a) he talked a good game and knew how to schmooz the fans and (b) we'd suffered so much up to that point that he seemed a lot better than he was. His record since he left us has been less than stellar. I also started having doubts towards the end of his time with us about his ability to motivate and the level of discipline at the club. Those doubts seem to have been borne out subsequently from things ex-players have said and issues that have followed him at other clubs. Big Martin, it seems, is all bark and no bite. When Ramos and his fitness and nutrition experts arrived they were horrified by what they found. No professionalism, no discipline, everyone significantly overweight, big drinking culture, training was little more than a kick about. Very poor stuff.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think what sticks in the craw is that its really just a corporate fudge. We'd all rather that the Premier League, including us, learnt the lesson the hard way. Use it or lose it.

The problem is that football is run along market lines, not sporting lines. Business doesn't do long term. Long term isn't good for shareholders. Shareholders will screw a club far quicker than the fans ever will. Just look at the prolonged battle various sets of supports have waged against their clubs to little change. Then look how quick a club jumps when the investors get antsy.

Developing youngsters is small change. Its a vanity or at worst a box ticker for major clubs. In Chelski's case its even worse because their model has been about making sure other clubs don't have players more than wanting them themselves. They admitted three or four years back that they have signed young players to stop United or us getting them.

Youth development in this country will improve when the gravy train departs, not before.

That's not strictly true. Many businesses do have some kind of medium/long term strategy and Spurs have always been run Levy in a very sustainable way with some long termism, building the academy, developing the training facilities, recruiting good people (McDermott), building a new stadium, these are not short term commitments.

Do you think fans would have run spurs any better? Jesus, fans are worse than owners when it comes to short termism and lack of tolerance.

And you could hardly call Chelsea's nurturing of youth footballers (from 8yo to 21yo) as short termism. It's probably the longest term commitment in football.

There's absolutely no point thinking like that because the gravy train is not going to depart any time soon. We can't keep blaming money for every single decision that's taken. Pochettino has had really good opportunities to integrate some of our best products and has chosen expensive options that weren't exactly much more holistically intelligent.

We are now about to buy Grealish for 25m. Three years ago we had a player here, playing a similar role, Pritchard, who'd had a much better season in the championship for a play-off team, who couldn't get a single minute, and was packed off to West Brom on loan as soon as he was fit. If you compare Pritchard's performances then (and stats - key passes, goals, chances created etc) with Gealish's now, Pritchard's were better, and we were worse as a team, so why does he want Grealish now but wouldn't give Pritchard a minute then?

I know Onomah is a long way from being top PL quality, but so is Sissoko, why chose - probably when other, higher priority targets were missed - to bring him in rather than give Onomah that time. Could he have seriously been any less competent? And Sissoko cost us 30m plus another 4.5m in salary per annum.

We already had Trippier here, a RB who'd proven over the latter part of our best ever PL season to be a worthy replacement for Walker, and a kid who'd been training with the first team for 2 years, won a WC, played exceptionally well on his debut, why chose to to make him third choice instead of second?

We aren't Chelsea or manC and Poch of all people should know - god knows he says it enough in his book - that sometimes what you can lack in experience you can make up for in attitude - Players like Kane, Mason and Bentaleb helped him start this revolution. Even this year, look at the role Winks played in our early CL campaign against the likes of Real Madrid. Poch seems to have forgotten an element of his own philosophy.

We are no Chelsea, manC, we don't expect to win the league any year, yet alone every. Why is Pochettino making these kinds of decisions? It's not just fear, or a lack of bravery, because even putting the money aside, just looking at them from a footballing perspective, they are not very smart.

 

[Locotoro]

That's not strictly true. Many businesses do have some kind of medium/long term strategy and Spurs have always been run Levy in a very sustainable way with some long termism, building the academy, developing the training facilities, recruiting good people (McDermott), building a new stadium, these are not short term commitments.

Do you think fans would have run spurs any better? Jesus, fans are worse than owners when it comes to short termism and lack of tolerance.

And you could hardly call Chelsea's nurturing of youth footballers (from 8yo to 21yo) as short termism. It's probably the longest term commitment in football.

There's absolutely no point thinking like that because the gravy train is not going to depart any time soon. We can't keep blaming money for every single decision that's taken. Pochettino has had really good opportunities to integrate some of our best products and has chosen expensive options that weren't exactly much more holistically intelligent.

We are now about to buy Grealish for 25m. Three years ago we had a player here, playing a similar role, Pritchard, who'd had a much better season in the championship for a play-off team, who couldn't get a single minute, and was packed off to West Brom on loan as soon as he was fit. If you compare Pritchard's performances then (and stats - key passes, goals, chances created etc) with Gealish's now, Pritchard's were better, and we were worse as a team, so why does he want Grealish now but wouldn't give Pritchard a minute then?

I know Onomah is a long way from being top PL quality, but so is Sissoko, why chose - probably when other, higher priority targets were missed - to bring him in rather than give Onomah that time. Could he have seriously been any less competent? And Sissoko cost us 30m plus another 4.5m in salary per annum.

We already had Trippier here, a RB who'd proven over the latter part of our best ever PL season to be a worthy replacement for Walker, and a kid who'd been training with the first team for 2 years, won a WC, played exceptionally well on his debut, why chose to to make him third choice instead of second?

We aren't Chelsea or manC and Poch of all people should know - god knows he says it enough in his book - that sometimes what you can lack in experience you can make up for in attitude - Players like Kane, Mason and Bentaleb helped him start this revolution. Even this year, look at the role Winks played in our early CL campaign against the likes of Real Madrid. Poch seems to have forgotten an element of his own philosophy.

We are no Chelsea, manC, we don't expect to win the league any year, yet alone every. Why is Pochettino making these kinds of decisions? It's not just fear, or a lack of bravery, because even putting the money aside, just looking at them from a footballing perspective, they are not very smart.

Because the guy has taken us to our highest league finishes since god knows when and he still gets criticised because we haven't won a trophy.

You haven't different types of fans at any club. Fans that want big signings, fans that want trophies, fans that want it done the right way, fans that want it done now, fans that just want to moan. Unfortunately we have a lot of all of them and they are all very loud when they don't get their way

 

[Spurzinho]

That's not strictly true. Many businesses do have some kind of medium/long term strategy and Spurs have always been run Levy in a very sustainable way with some long termism, building the academy, developing the training facilities, recruiting good people (McDermott), building a new stadium, these are not short term commitments.

You're confusing a few things here. Building a new stadium, training ground and academy are not a means of improving on pitch resources (primarily) they are attempts to increase the asset value of the club. An increased asset value benefits the shareholders.

Do you think fans would have run spurs any better? Jesus, fans are worse than owners when it comes to short termism and lack of tolerance.

No, because Tottenham Hotspur is a business and you can't run a business as a sports club. I don't see how that invalidates my point, if anything it demonstrates it.

And you could hardly call Chelsea's nurturing of youth footballers (from 8yo to 21yo) as short termism. It's probably the longest term commitment in football.

Chelsea run their academy (a) because its mandated & (b) because it adds to the asset value of the club thus inflating share price.

[

There's absolutely no point thinking like that because the gravy train is not going to depart any time soon. We can't keep blaming money for every single decision that's taken.

So, because change is not imminent the analysis is invalidated, gotcha.

[

]Pochettino has had really good opportunities to integrate some of our best products and has chosen expensive options that weren't exactly much more holistically intelligent.

Agreed. The reasons for this would be a discussion of its own. Here we are discussing the business model.

We are now about to buy Grealish for 25m. Three years ago we had a player here, playing a similar role, Pritchard, who'd had a much better season in the championship for a play-off team, who couldn't get a single minute, and was packed off to West Brom on loan as soon as he was fit. If you compare Pritchard's performances then (and stats - key passes, goals, chances created etc) with Gealish's now, Pritchard's were better, and we were worse as a team, so why does he want Grealish now but wouldn't give Pritchard a minute then?

Not really on topic but okay, Pritchard had bad luck with the timing of injuries. By the time he was fit he was facing stiff competition for a place ( and would have needed to be patient) and a joint decision was made that, whilst he was maybe good enough to get there eventually, his development wouldn't be served best by staying and waiting his turn. He was allowed to leave so he could establish himself immediately. Its worth noting that he wasn't snapped up by a Premier League team. He had to go to the Championship to guarantee himself a start. That's not a knock on Pritch, who was a player I very much liked, but its just a fact. He wasn't ready to start for a Premier League side and starting games was what he needed at that stage. Had his injuries worked differently he may well still be here, maybe.

I know Onomah is a long way from being top PL quality, but so is Sissoko, why chose - probably when other, higher priority targets were missed - to bring him in rather than give Onomah that time. Could he have seriously been any less competent? And Sissoko cost us 30m plus another 4.5m in salary per annum.

Again, not on the topic I was discussing but we can go there if you want. Poch has a philosophy and a system of play that he abides by. He needs certain players for certain roles. The gap in the squad that apppeared was for a box to box player, someone with tons of power and energy who could get the team up the pitch quickly. As you can probably see from my signature I am not a Sissoko fan but I understand the logic behind the move, even if I think the choice of player was a mistake. Onomah's problem is that he hasn't consistently demonstrated that he's capable of that role. Poch's played him further forward to test him out and clearly hasn't seen enough of what he wants. Sissoko for all of his limitations approximates Poch's requirements, Onomah, in my opinion isn't that kind of player. I don't think his first thought when he gets the ball is to make powerful, direct runs up the pitch. I think Onomah likes to pick his moments, which is why sometimes he can seem to be piddling about in the middle not looking fussed. Onomah just doesn't see himself in the Sissoko role. I think he's like to be a Yaya Toure. Knocking it about from deep and occasionally making long strides up the pitch. Its a very different role and one that Poch has no use for.

We already had Trippier here, a RB who'd proven over the latter part of our best ever PL season to be a worthy replacement for Walker, and a kid who'd been training with the first team for 2 years, won a WC, played exceptionally well on his debut, why chose to to make him third choice instead of second?

Again, not the point of my post. I agree that the KWP situation is frustrating.

We aren't Chelsea or manC and Poch of all people should know - god knows he says it enough in his book - that sometimes what you can lack in experience you can make up for in attitude - Players like Kane, Mason and Bentaleb helped him start this revolution. Even this year, look at the role Winks played in our early CL campaign against the likes of Real Madrid. Poch seems to have forgotten an element of his own philosophy.

We are no Chelsea, manC, we don't expect to win the league any year, yet alone every. Why is Pochettino making these kinds of decisions? It's not just fear, or a lack of bravery, because even putting the money aside, just looking at them from a footballing perspective, they are not very smart.

Again, not the point of my post.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

You're confusing a few things here. Building a new stadium, training ground and academy are not a means of improving on pitch resources (primarily) they are attempts to increase the asset value of the club. An increased asset value benefits the shareholders.



No, because Tottenham Hotspur is a business and you can't run a business as a sports club. I don't see how that invalidates my point, if anything it demonstrates it.



Chelsea run their academy (a) because its mandated & (b) because it adds to the asset value of the club thus inflating share price.

[

So, because change is not imminent the analysis is invalidated, gotcha.

[

Agreed. The reasons for this would be a discussion of its own. Here we are discussing the business model.



Not really on topic but okay, Pritchard had bad luck with the timing of injuries. By the time he was fit he was facing stiff competition for a place ( and would have needed to be patient) and a joint decision was made that, whilst he was maybe good enough to get there eventually, his development wouldn't be served best by staying and waiting his turn. He was allowed to leave so he could establish himself immediately. Its worth noting that he wasn't snapped up by a Premier League team. He had to go to the Championship to guarantee himself a start. That's not a knock on Pritch, who was a player I very much liked, but its just a fact. He wasn't ready to start for a Premier League side and starting games was what he needed at that stage. Had his injuries worked differently he may well still be here, maybe.



Again, not on the topic I was discussing but we can go there if you want. Poch has a philosophy and a system of play that he abides by. He needs certain players for certain roles. The gap in the squad that apppeared was for a box to box player, someone with tons of power and energy who could get the team up the pitch quickly. As you can probably see from my signature I am not a Sissoko fan but I understand the logic behind the move, even if I think the choice of player was a mistake. Onomah's problem is that he hasn't consistently demonstrated that he's capable of that role. Poch's played him further forward to test him out and clearly hasn't seen enough of what he wants. Sissoko for all of his limitations approximates Poch's requirements, Onomah, in my opinion isn't that kind of player. I don't think his first thought when he gets the ball is to make powerful, direct runs up the pitch. I think Onomah likes to pick his moments, which is why sometimes he can seem to be piddling about in the middle not looking fussed. Onomah just doesn't see himself in the Sissoko role. I think he's like to be a Yaya Toure. Knocking it about from deep and occasionally making long strides up the pitch. Its a very different role and one that Poch has no use for.



Again, not the point of my post. I agree that the KWP situation is frustrating.



Again, not the point of my post.

But the point of your post was to say “this is all the fault of the short term business model of the industry that is football” and I was trying to counter that by saying I don’t agree, often it’s not just about the "money in football", or the short termism of the business model, it's about a manager making poor, short term, decisions. And you actually make my case for me by arguing supposed football reasons for why Poch made decisions of buy over integrate, and further make my case by being a "fan" who is supporting that rationale. Rationale, which I think is flawed and has nothing to do with business models or a short term business strategy, but are about flawed management and short term football strategy.

This whole "Poch has a philosophy that he abides by" is wearing extremely thin. The philosophy he talks, isn't the one he always walks.

A technically piss poor Sissoko, who'd rarely played in CM2 systems was a poor fit for a Pochettino's spurs system. When Pritchard was sent on loan to WB, we had no real back up for Eriksen or Lamela in the back end of a busy season. Aurier/KWP you agree.

None of these are about football's gravy train, or shareholder greed, they are about middle management short termism and lack of imagination.

I don't think the culture of poor integration is entirely founded in economics, I think's it's evolved partly due to the terrible coaching standards in English football for decades. This is now changing, at every level, we have some great academies, producing really god footballers.

I also don't agree with yo that owners/shareholders are to blame for failed integration. I would imagine most owners would much rather managers can turn academy products - produced at a fraction of the cost - into successes. Levy has made it abundantly clear that he wants head coaches that integrate. Managers like Ferguson were never forced to buy players and was happy to use academy players throughout his 20 odd years, despite being manager at one of the world's richest three clubs.

And I strongly disagree about owners being more short sighted than fans. Fans are much worse, generally, IMO. They want success now, they want clubs to spend money to get it, not take time with academy integration.

 

[therhinospeaks]

What is Brown doing at Tottenham Hotspur if that mob don't want him? The second tier in Holland is about league 2 standard.

 

[Sweech]

What is Brown doing at Tottenham Hotspur if that mob don't want him? The second tier in Holland is about league 2 standard.

We’re trying to find him a new club.

One of the things I’m proud of this team and academy for is the fact we tend to stick by these young men and help them towards a footballing path whether that’s in the lower leagues or even to get into coaching. A lot of clubs just cut the players and let them flounder.

Also while I don’t really rate Brown going off of the judgment of one club who did a trial doesn’t really mean the player isn’t any good. Plenty of our own top players have been cut from trials and other academies before. It’s often an unfortunate way of life for a young footballer.

 

[therhinospeaks]

We’re trying to find him a new club.

One of the things I’m proud of this team and academy for is the fact we tend to stick by these young men and help them towards a footballing path whether that’s in the lower leagues or even to get into coaching. A lot of clubs just cut the players and let them flounder.

Also while I don’t really rate Brown going off of the judgment of one club who did a trial doesn’t really mean the player isn’t any good. Plenty of our own top players have been cut from trials and other academies before. It’s often an unfortunate way of life for a young footballer.

I'm all for us having a duty of care to our younger players but when does it end? We've extended his contract...why?