The Spurs Youth Thread - 2017/2018

nicdic said:

Yeah that wouldn't work, the original suggestion when moving from 5 to 7, was that the extra two would be youth.

Click to expand...

allpaths said:

Like any youth integration it ultimately comes down to how willing is the manager to do so. With the idea making two extra bench spots available solely for youth would at least get kids into the matchday squad and in certain circumstances given the managers preference give some lads an opportunity they wouldn't of had otherwise.

Click to expand...

beats1 said:

The PL homegrown rules are independent of UEFA, they differ from league to league but brexit wont make no difference to our UEFA membership

Click to expand...

IGSpur said:

I think the point BG was trying to make and I agree was that even if you increased it to 9 or 11 and had 2 compulsory youth players on the bench, in what circumstance would Poch for example turn to the youth player over an experienced player.

I think the general purpose is in the event that teams are running riot and can bring them on, but when Poch doesn't want to use them until 85 mins if at all when we are 3/4-0 up why would adding academy slots make a difference. Additionally if the games is a high pressure one he sin't going to bring on an academy player. He only brings them on for 5mins at a time regardless of the situation. I don't think many managers will be any different so it won't make a difference

One option could be to make it a rule that if you are to use 3 subs at least one as to be an academy player. That way when people make their benches they will take the strongest player from their academy in that position in the event they have to play. So looking at Palace for example Kirby is their best player in their u23s, so they would drop McArthur from the bench and put Kirby in. If they have to bring on a CM in the game they have to bring on Kirby. It is only one player, and if people felt they are disadvantaged then that should encourage them to improve their academies.

Click to expand...

spurs9 said:

The reason why UEFA (and the PL) has the home grown rules as "academy players playing for and an asscoiation for 3 years between 15 and 21", is because EU law states you can't discriminate against nationalities. If we are not held to EU rules, the English FA could put "eligable to play for England" quotas in the squad or even match day 11. It would give us much more flexibility around what we could define as home grown or have additional restrictions/quotas.They won't though.

Click to expand...

beats1 said:

The issue though isnt nationality of youth players but players actually getting a chance, even the foreign players from the academy arent exactly getting a big chance

Also the FA would want this change but the Premier League perhaps wouldn't

Click to expand...

nicdic said:

@WindyCOYS, just finished your article. Good piece. I broadly agree with everything, particularly your base points, that we should be seeking to maximise the academy, and look to bring through these players, and to not do so would be a failing of Pochettino.

I think like always it's nuances in this argument that are the issue. I love the enthusiasm you and others have the academy and the young players, and I share with you all the desire to see these players make it with us. I think what can often get lost though, is that it comes across that you don't believe Poche or the first team staff, or Levy want that too. It feels as though Poche gets cast as the baddie in this scenario which I think somewhat unfair, and misses the point. I'm sure you guys don't actually believe that, but I don't think it helps the discussion. I'm not saying don't question his decisions at any time, but sometimes it becomes overstated to a degree that comes across wrong.

I think one of my biggest frustrations in the ongoing debate is the dismissal of the training argument. The youth guys seem to take massive offence when it's suggested enough doesn't happen in training, because of how many games they've watched. Yet, I think when we're discussing what goes on in training, there's more to it than just performance in training matches. It's discipline, attitude, application and everything else. We don't know what's going on there, at all. As well as any of the kids may do in the U18s, U19s, U23s, if they're not proving themselves in that training environment for whatever reason (performance, application, etc.) then I fully get why Poche isn't throwing the chances. We know he is typically slow to go from training integration to game time, and I think the book explains some of that, stating how he wants the players to integrate themselves in the squad, and be accepted by the first team etc. Just because GK, or Sissoko performs badly or worse than we might think a youth player would, doesn't mean that in training the opposite hasn't been true.

I don't ever mean to use the training thing to shoot you guys down, or dismiss you, but to try and level things out slightly. Whether we agree on Poche's reasons, there must be reasons. And I think here is that nuance, for many there is an assumption that Poche must be stacking the deck unfavourably toward the kids, and I don't know so don't want to go to heavy either way. I get why, when you've watched these players an awful lot and can see the talent clearly want to push harder and harder though.

I'm 100% with you though on the size of the squad and how it could be better used with the youth. If anything I'd argue the squad could be smaller still and we could see more of these youth players seriously integrated.

I would have been very happy to stick with Trips and KWP as right backs, I was very glad we didn't sign a new CM in the summer, and wouldn't have brought in Sissoko or GK last season in order to give opportunities to Onomah (in the correct position), and players like Edwards and Shashoua.

There's nothing I'd love more than to see kids come through and establish themselves in the first team. I will always feel a far greater affinity to players like Kane and Winks, and for that matter someone like Mason, who I'm still gutted about selling, because they are ours. Poche and Levy have spoken at length about the desire to do this to, and I guess we're just finding the balance difficult.

I guess what's tricky is once you do have players like GK, Sissoko, Aurier, etc. in the squad when the dead rubbers and EFL games come around you have to keep the first team squad happy too.

I was disappointed with Poche's subs last week against APOEL, Dembele coming on was a waste, it should have been Amos, and Sterling should have got a lot longer. But I can understand not including more. Or rather, I can understand that there may be valid reasons for Edwards and others not being there.

Coming back to Edwards (in this horribly structured post, apologies), two things on attitude... 1) I love that he's captaining the U19s in the UYL. At the least I think this shows two things, he's not a problem with his attitude in general, and the club are seeking to show him that he's important and a leader. Positive things. 2) He was vocal on social media this week congratulating the kids who were involved on Wednesday night & GK on his goal. If he was throwing toys out all the time and miserable I doubt he'd be doing that. I think there are or were probably some issues with his attitude, but I'm less and less concerned that those exist in the same way any more. The issues spoken about by Poche in his book are from a season ago, and for all we know he's knuckling down now and getting on with it. The captaincy and his social posts are positive signs for me. If he continues to get his head down, maybe he can get himself a bench appearance in the FA Cup 3rd round, I'd love that.

Here's to recalling Onomah in January too by the way. *fingers crossed*

Thanks Windy, and the rest of you guys here. I love the effort you guys go to to watch the games and inform the rest of us, and know that if I come across as antagonistic from time to time, I don't ever mean that to belittle your views, or play down the lengths you guys go to.

Click to expand...

Hengy1 said:

View attachment 34617

Click to expand...

IGSpur said:

Nooo

Click to expand...

spurs9 said:

If you changed the rule to English (or British) Home grown players, It would have a knock on effect as the size of the pool of players you can pick from is diminished and with the lack of quality English players, making up the short fall from the academy looks a more attractive prospect for clubs.

Also, if European players have to meet the same criteria as non EU players to get a work permit, we would see slightly less of the cheap European dross and would be replaced by academy players. Not just in the PL either but the lower leagues.

Click to expand...

Blake Griffin said:

i still don't see any merit to it. poch and the vast majority of managers aren't going to bring on a youth player over an established first teamer.

our bench this weekend - vorm, aurier, foyth, rose, sissoko, lamela, llorente

now let's just say we can have kwp and sterling there as well, in what circumstances is poch ever going to bring either of those on ahead of the seven above?

Click to expand...

nicdic said:

@WindyCOYS, just finished your article. Good piece. I broadly agree with everything, particularly your base points, that we should be seeking to maximise the academy, and look to bring through these players, and to not do so would be a failing of Pochettino.

I think like always it's nuances in this argument that are the issue. I love the enthusiasm you and others have the academy and the young players, and I share with you all the desire to see these players make it with us. I think what can often get lost though, is that it comes across that you don't believe Poche or the first team staff, or Levy want that too. It feels as though Poche gets cast as the baddie in this scenario which I think somewhat unfair, and misses the point. I'm sure you guys don't actually believe that, but I don't think it helps the discussion. I'm not saying don't question his decisions at any time, but sometimes it becomes overstated to a degree that comes across wrong.

I think one of my biggest frustrations in the ongoing debate is the dismissal of the training argument. The youth guys seem to take massive offence when it's suggested enough doesn't happen in training, because of how many games they've watched. Yet, I think when we're discussing what goes on in training, there's more to it than just performance in training matches. It's discipline, attitude, application and everything else. We don't know what's going on there, at all. As well as any of the kids may do in the U18s, U19s, U23s, if they're not proving themselves in that training environment for whatever reason (performance, application, etc.) then I fully get why Poche isn't throwing the chances. We know he is typically slow to go from training integration to game time, and I think the book explains some of that, stating how he wants the players to integrate themselves in the squad, and be accepted by the first team etc. Just because GK, or Sissoko performs badly or worse than we might think a youth player would, doesn't mean that in training the opposite hasn't been true.

I don't ever mean to use the training thing to shoot you guys down, or dismiss you, but to try and level things out slightly. Whether we agree on Poche's reasons, there must be reasons. And I think here is that nuance, for many there is an assumption that Poche must be stacking the deck unfavourably toward the kids, and I don't know so don't want to go to heavy either way. I get why, when you've watched these players an awful lot and can see the talent clearly want to push harder and harder though.

I'm 100% with you though on the size of the squad and how it could be better used with the youth. If anything I'd argue the squad could be smaller still and we could see more of these youth players seriously integrated.

I would have been very happy to stick with Trips and KWP as right backs, I was very glad we didn't sign a new CM in the summer, and wouldn't have brought in Sissoko or GK last season in order to give opportunities to Onomah (in the correct position), and players like Edwards and Shashoua.

There's nothing I'd love more than to see kids come through and establish themselves in the first team. I will always feel a far greater affinity to players like Kane and Winks, and for that matter someone like Mason, who I'm still gutted about selling, because they are ours. Poche and Levy have spoken at length about the desire to do this to, and I guess we're just finding the balance difficult.

I guess what's tricky is once you do have players like GK, Sissoko, Aurier, etc. in the squad when the dead rubbers and EFL games come around you have to keep the first team squad happy too.

I was disappointed with Poche's subs last week against APOEL, Dembele coming on was a waste, it should have been Amos, and Sterling should have got a lot longer. But I can understand not including more. Or rather, I can understand that there may be valid reasons for Edwards and others not being there.

Coming back to Edwards (in this horribly structured post, apologies), two things on attitude... 1) I love that he's captaining the U19s in the UYL. At the least I think this shows two things, he's not a problem with his attitude in general, and the club are seeking to show him that he's important and a leader. Positive things. 2) He was vocal on social media this week congratulating the kids who were involved on Wednesday night & GK on his goal. If he was throwing toys out all the time and miserable I doubt he'd be doing that. I think there are or were probably some issues with his attitude, but I'm less and less concerned that those exist in the same way any more. The issues spoken about by Poche in his book are from a season ago, and for all we know he's knuckling down now and getting on with it. The captaincy and his social posts are positive signs for me. If he continues to get his head down, maybe he can get himself a bench appearance in the FA Cup 3rd round, I'd love that.

Here's to recalling Onomah in January too by the way. *fingers crossed*

Thanks Windy, and the rest of you guys here. I love the effort you guys go to to watch the games and inform the rest of us, and know that if I come across as antagonistic from time to time, I don't ever mean that to belittle your views, or play down the lengths you guys go to.

Click to expand...

IGSpur said:

Lovely post mate, well written there's a reason you're admin, it's all fair, but there are just areas I think we will generally disagree on. For example I 100% agree that if a player isn't showing application and everything you said, they should not be given chances. I couldn't agree more, what I hope happens and where we disagree, is I don't believe that the rule is applied equally. As I say what is the baseline, who is meeting that baseline. There are 2 ways to manage. One you set a baseline and everyone has to meet that as a minimum, so it's the same treatment for everyone. Or you accept some people are different and ask that everyone reach their set target. If it is the first one, then we are to believe that all the players in the squad are consistently performing well (physical or actual game play) in training, and you know what I can't say whether or not they are, but there sometimes seems to be a different in effort in the matches sometimes so it wouldn't surprise me if something similar happened in training. Or two you adjust targets accordingly to each player, however if you did that while I agree with it, it surely becomes more ambiguous of what is expected of you compare to others and then these targets can be amended by the manager without question.There is no reason to suggest an academy player would suddenly give up, so why would a manager, choose to shoot themselves in the foot as some ask, and not choose them.

Well because they are not brave enough as the stigma attached to young players, as you can see in this thread, is that they are scared, weak minded, prone to error and a liability. That means far too much caution is given to these players and not given to experienced players, who can present just the same amount of risk as the academy players as we've seen ourselves. Poch has taken this first team performance wise and results wise to another level, but people can criticise that aspect, but regardless of how you want to spin what an academy player is, he is performing no better than other PL managers/teams when it comes to using the academy, and yet, that can't be criticised. Everyone and you will admit that their is a massive problem in England with academy players coming through and getting chances, when we know they're better than other countries', but we let managers get away with it. If we're happy to buy from them why won't we produce them. As we've seen Azzaoui has left suffered a major injury and is still further in his development than Edwards. Veljkovic is the same age group as Winks, has left had to take a step back and still found himself with as much top level league experience and heading to a World Cup, despite not being mobile enough. Where would they be were they to stay here?

All mangers theoretically would want to strengthen their team and if it was as objective as people believe, then we should be seeing comparable rates of players coming through as other countries or moreso, and they're not so clearly something else is at play. Money as some have identified is a reason in terms of loss of income for bad performance which can affect judgement and also being able to take 'less risk' by buying elsewhere, despite it not improving the league. So they aren't objective decisions. There is this fear and risk averse nature affecting all managers which lead to settling on average players for minimal reward and eventually the talented players miss their chance. Call it putting obstacles in their way, making them jump through more hoops or just making more excuses to cover their back so people can't ask them any hard questions, but something is surely happening that is affecting academy players which is making it more difficult for them in England.

I really appreciate what you're saying and appreciate that you've said in a very cautious way not to patronise which is great and comes across, but I just do believe that the deck is stacked unfavourably against academy players including by Poch. What people are essentially saying is to have blind faith that Poch and other managers will do the right thing, and I just can't do that in the face of evidence that suggests otherwise. As ever my opinion will be the first to change if I see change, but I can't just believe something as they're the manager. We both believe that nothing should be handed on a plate but you believe that if they're not playing they're not working hard enough, I believe there is something else at play. I'm sure we're both facepalming each other but it's the way it is.

If Poch left today, how would you look back at his use of the academy resource?

I agree with you in everything else you have posted, and believe me hope I am the one with egg on my face as Poch brings through more players, but until then I will be skeptical. As always appreciate your balanced an excellent posts. I'm sure a lot of this debate is boring for most but its hard not to bite

Click to expand...

WindyCOYS said:

Thanks @nicdic, for a great post.

I think @IGSpur has summed up a number of the counter-points I'd make, but just to really touch on the idea of Poch as a baddie... He's the best manager we've had in my lifetime (or second best if not the best) and I think he's absolutely great. I do, however, think that one of his key objectives - to bring through academy players - should be so much easier to tick-off than he is making it seem. That's it, really. He's not a baddie, I'm not holding it against him, I'm not saying he should be less highly respected -- I'm just fustrated, and if I were his boss I'd be putting in his appraisal as a 'developmental' point.

I totally understand that training is the be all and end all for Poch; the fact that Amos and Sterling were in the APOEL squad shows that training > matches in his opinion, because neither is deserving of their place based on match performances (though I like both and have done since they were 15/16). And, of course, we dont get to see what happens behind closed doors. To some extent we have to take his views on who performs best in training as entirely correct because we trust him. But when you accept that training is *everything*and then Walker-Peters doesn't get chances -- because, presumably, he's not training as well as Aurier/Trippier -- but then he comes in and gets MOTM on debut and performs at a level which both Trippier and Aurier have dipped below in certain games, then you do start to wonder if training *should* be the be all and end all for making these decisions. That's his philosophy, but it's very open to interpretation, perception, subjectivity and if he's judging players on their aura rather than their ability we've got a problem! Okay, that last point was a little facetious!

Click to expand...

WindyCOYS said:

Thanks @nicdic, for a great post.

I think @IGSpur has summed up a number of the counter-points I'd make, but just to really touch on the idea of Poch as a baddie... He's the best manager we've had in my lifetime (or second best if not the best) and I think he's absolutely great. I do, however, think that one of his key objectives - to bring through academy players - should be so much easier to tick-off than he is making it seem. That's it, really. He's not a baddie, I'm not holding it against him, I'm not saying he should be less highly respected -- I'm just fustrated, and if I were his boss I'd be putting in his appraisal as a 'developmental' point.

I totally understand that training is the be all and end all for Poch; the fact that Amos and Sterling were in the APOEL squad shows that training > matches in his opinion, because neither is deserving of their place based on match performances (though I like both and have done since they were 15/16). And, of course, we dont get to see what happens behind closed doors. To some extent we have to take his views on who performs best in training as entirely correct because we trust him. But when you accept that training is *everything*and then Walker-Peters doesn't get chances -- because, presumably, he's not training as well as Aurier/Trippier -- but then he comes in and gets MOTM on debut and performs at a level which both Trippier and Aurier have dipped below in certain games, then you do start to wonder if training *should* be the be all and end all for making these decisions. That's his philosophy, but it's very open to interpretation, perception, subjectivity and if he's judging players on their aura rather than their ability we've got a problem! Okay, that last point was a little facetious!

Click to expand...

spursfan77 said:

Paid to train, not to play...

Poch is definitely sticking by that

Click to expand...