Buy "ordinary" Experience or Coach what we have debate

[McFlash]

ENIC took over in 2001, 14 years ago. At the time, Mason, Townsend and Caulker were 9, Livermore was 11, and Kane was 7 - all of them were just joining Spurs, or had recently joined. The first generation of players that excels is the first generation that spent their entire academy career under ENIC. I doubt that's a coincidence.

Hopefully the first few off an increasing conveyor belt of youngsters.
It can only get better, I mean, how many players, both old and young, have mentioned our new training facilities as a big thing when signing for the club?
And when the new stadium comes along....

It's all coming together and the timing is pretty good.

 

[McFlash]

I would believe into this coach over buy philosophy if poch can keep Kane scoring at the rate he is and somehow instill confidence into soldado. I still have , very misguided and 100% stupidity , faith that soldado will come good . Please do not ask why I have this faith or I will have to state how old I am

Your user name is a hint at your age. I used to have one of those

 

[Stavrogin]

But surely the best way for us to stand a chance in bettering that is by buying top class players, where they may become available, but having slightly free wages and transfer fees to play with. In our planned squads people will say sell Paulinho, Capoue and Stambouli and use that money to buy someone like Schneiderlin. We took losses on all those players. Now if in teh future we chose to just not buy those players and saved that money and spent it all on Schneiderlin in the first place we may have improved.

Using MS as an example again, by all accounts he was happy to come to as and with our terms. However, we couldn't meet Southampton's asking price. Buy saving money we would have more flexibility to meet transfer fees for targets we want.

But Paulinho might be considered a Schneiderlin quality signing - ditto Soldado and Lamela. Perhaps that highlights the risk when we make these kinds of purchases. I know Schneiderlin has prem experience and is known by Pochettino but we're not guaranteed to get £25m value from him. There's a chance that he could flop and if he did it would have a worse effect on us than it would for Man Utd.

Obviously signing one Stambouli after another is not a solution either - but you could look at the past couple of years as a blip, as a period of upheaval. If we get a bit more character into the team and maintain a consistent style we may start to get more value from these lower priced purchases.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I have edited the title to better reflect my stance. As I also said on the first page, I have no problem, in fact I welcome us signing top quality players who will improve our team immediately or top potential with clear scope for development. My problem is buying what some of us perceive as decent but limited players or players who aren't a good tactical fit, wasting financial resources and often making losses when we have an excellent academy of players who are (or should be) coached to fit our tactical system, who can at the very least fill this remit, i some cases exceed this remit.

 

[voxy28]

Eamon Dunphy brands James McCarthy 'a terrible flop

Former Republic of Ireland international Eamon Dunphy has branded James McCarthy "a terrible flop" and believes that the Everton midfielder is "woegeously overrated".

Speaking on sports show 'Game On' on RTE radio, Dunphy, who earned 23 caps for the Boys in Green during his playing career, was highly critical of McCarthy in the wake of Ireland's 1-1 Euro 2016 draw with Poland.

The 69-year-old, who lists Millwall, Reading and Charlton Athletic among his former clubs, said that McCarthy does not change the tempo of games and dismissed the notion that the 23-year-old plays better for his club, suggesting that he merely has better quality players around him.

"McCarthy is really turning out to be a terrible flop," Dunphy said. "He doesn’t do anything. He could be a holding player perhaps doing what [Glenn] Whelan is supposed to be doing.

" I don’t agree with you that he’s a different player for Everton, he isn’t, he’s just got better players around him. But he still doesn’t really move the ball forwards. He never really changes the tempo of the game, this is the key.

"Wes Hoolahan changes the tempo of the game. He ups it, he passes the ball and then he goes for the next ball. He gets it again, he passes it again and he’ll go for the next ball if he can. He’s slipping little dangerous passes in and creating danger, you never see McCarthy doing that.

Dunphy went on to disregard the opinion of former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher, who rates McCarthy, and said that Hull City's Stephen Quinn should have played for Martin O'Neill's side against Poland instead.

"He is woegeously overrated," continued the Dubliner. "Jamie Carragher said last week that if there was one player he could take for Liverpool it would be McCarthy.

"He said the only thing that was missing from his game was goals, that’s nonsense. Jamie Carragher was a great player but he also thought Brazil would win the World Cup last year right until they were beaten 7-0 by Germany.

"The point about McCarthy is interesting. He’s a hyped player. He’s a player that everyone thinks is far, far better than he is.

"We haven’t got time to waste with Whelan and McCarthy. We have Stephen Quinn who’s a very, very good player, good young busy player looking for the game, looking to do things and he should have started

 

[dudu]

Eamon Dunphy brands James McCarthy 'a terrible flop

Former Republic of Ireland international Eamon Dunphy has branded James McCarthy "a terrible flop" and believes that the Everton midfielder is "woegeously overrated".

Speaking on sports show 'Game On' on RTE radio, Dunphy, who earned 23 caps for the Boys in Green during his playing career, was highly critical of McCarthy in the wake of Ireland's 1-1 Euro 2016 draw with Poland.

The 69-year-old, who lists Millwall, Reading and Charlton Athletic among his former clubs, said that McCarthy does not change the tempo of games and dismissed the notion that the 23-year-old plays better for his club, suggesting that he merely has better quality players around him.

"McCarthy is really turning out to be a terrible flop," Dunphy said. "He doesn’t do anything. He could be a holding player perhaps doing what [Glenn] Whelan is supposed to be doing.

" I don’t agree with you that he’s a different player for Everton, he isn’t, he’s just got better players around him. But he still doesn’t really move the ball forwards. He never really changes the tempo of the game, this is the key.

"Wes Hoolahan changes the tempo of the game. He ups it, he passes the ball and then he goes for the next ball. He gets it again, he passes it again and he’ll go for the next ball if he can. He’s slipping little dangerous passes in and creating danger, you never see McCarthy doing that.

Dunphy went on to disregard the opinion of former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher, who rates McCarthy, and said that Hull City's Stephen Quinn should have played for Martin O'Neill's side against Poland instead.

"He is woegeously overrated," continued the Dubliner. "Jamie Carragher said last week that if there was one player he could take for Liverpool it would be McCarthy.

"He said the only thing that was missing from his game was goals, that’s nonsense. Jamie Carragher was a great player but he also thought Brazil would win the World Cup last year right until they were beaten 7-0 by Germany.

"The point about McCarthy is interesting. He’s a hyped player. He’s a player that everyone thinks is far, far better than he is.

"We haven’t got time to waste with Whelan and McCarthy. We have Stephen Quinn who’s a very, very good player, good young busy player looking for the game, looking to do things and he should have started

Was this before, after or during is druken rant on RTE tat got him sacked?

Seriously man, Im not saying we should or should not get McCarthy but quoting Dunphy is not going to convince me of anything. He is a hysterical joke.

Dunphy on Mourinho -
'We’ll all see through Mourinho. We’ll find out he’s just a Bengal lancer.'

On Gerrard
'Found out! A nothing player.'

Platini
'Michel Platini has no bottle. He is not a great player.'

On United on 07
'O'Shea not good enough, Ferdinand and Brown dodgy, Ronaldo a puff ball, Fletcher and Carrick nothing players, Rooney has never done it on the big stage.'

 

[JimmyG2]

Good. No one will convince me though that Veljkovic is as good as McCarthy.

Veijkovc might if he is given the opportunity.

 

[HotspurFC1950]

Good. No one will convince me though that Veljkovic is as good as McCarthy.

We don't have to convince you Sir.

 

[van_Pommel]

Whilst I don't necessarily think McCarthy is the answer, I do think we need a more disciplined DM to play next to Bentaleb in the big matches. Milos could be that player but he's untested so it would be a big gamble to rely on him. Besides we have shifted 3 midfielders so have room for another with Milos playing EL and challenging for a PL place as Kane was this time last year.

I think Bentaleb has so much more to offer and if he had a more defensive player next to him he could get forward more and make an impact offensively.

 

[sloth]

I have edited the title to better reflect my stance. As I also said on the first page, I have no problem, in fact I welcome us signing top quality players who will improve our team immediately or top potential with clear scope for development. My problem is buying what some of us perceive as decent but limited players or players who aren't a good tactical fit, wasting financial resources and often making losses when we have an excellent academy of players who are (or should be) coached to fit our tactical system, who can at the very least fill this remit, i some cases exceed this remit.

It's a more complicated question than it at first seems.

My view is that we need a coach with a vision and a system, and that vision and system needs to be instilled through the DNA of the club from the first year scholars to the PL stars. Obviously it's far too big for one man to manage on his own, so we need a team of 'divisional' heads, working towards the Head Coach's philosophy and towards the over all strategy of the club. Each head of division needs to be talented in his own right, and has to be allowed a degree of autonomy. The strength of the system will lie in the degree to which they can bring their individual talents to bear, and work towards a goal and vision they, in its essence, share.

Looking at past managers it's clear we never had that bottom through to top approach. And/or didn't have managers who anyway were willing to buy into this approach (it's one reason TS was popular with the club hierarchy as he was seen as a man who bridged the gap, and who did get that there needed to be a unified approach.).

In Pochettino it seems like we have finally got the head-coach we need. His is the key-stone position without which the whole edifice comes tumbling down. He has a vision, and a bottom to top philosophy, he believes in the academy and tries to ensure all parts of the club are working together. He works with other heads of division and with the CEO in a collaborative and constructive fashion. He is a club-builder in the mould of an Arsene Wenger or SAF.

All of which is positive stuff, a step forward on what has happened before. The problem comes however when we look at execution. We have to ask ourselves whether Pochettino has the skills to implement his philosophy, whether the player recruitment team is good at identifying the correct players, whether the negotiating team can secure the talent at the correct value etc., etc? In a way that's what this thread is about.

I argue that it's far too early to judge, we employ them because we hope they can put a team together which can be successful in the competitions we enter, that can excite the fans, and which can also manage the inevitable transitions and churn which comes from having a successful team in a world when there are other teams who will then step into poach our stars. We need the players to serve as investments as well as success in the here and now, so that when we sell them on we have additional income to invest back into the team and the stadium project, and that if they don't turn out so good don't stick around like bad smells wafting from the changing rooms. There are so many facets to the enterprise that it becomes difficult to judge our achievements.

Into the mix we have to throw the fact that as avid watchers of football we all have our opinions about the players and the targets we should be setting ourself. But we're also excellent at dreaming up counter-factuals, worlds in which if only this other player had or had not been signed then this failure would not have occurred, or this success might have.

I realise that this forum only exists because we like debating this kind of stuff, on the other hand I think that as long as the underlying signs are positive (which I believe they are), then we should try to give the benefit of the doubt, we should try to give the new team time to bed in, and to see what they achieve. If after a TW or two the mid-level signings turn out to be mediocre, and the kids turned out not to be given a chance and moved onto pastures new where they have massive success, then that's the time to complain. In the meantime I think we should try and be patient.

 

[sundanceyid10]

BC, I think the really relevant bit of your initial post is this bit:



Despite Poch's reputation for being very keen on bringing through youth, the only one we really saw make the jump is Mason, Arguably, Kane too. Are our youth so much poorer than the ones at Soton that he didn't feel they were capable? Probably not.

I'd argue that that, in making the jump from Soton to us, there's a certain shifting in levels of expectation and patience. Whilst Levy may have been very impressed with whatever Poch presented at interview - making use of the academy, developing an integrated playing style, etc, etc - the reality is that there's probably little wiggle room. What would happen if we didn't reinforce key positions this summer, played youth products, fell behind our rivals and finished 8th or similar? I'd imagine that, no matter the potential of any long-term ideas, the reality of a struggling team would halt any 'project'.

So it's little wonder to me that we're looking to bring in signings, rather than develop from within. If you've got high expectations on your shoulders and can't expect job security, it's just safer to play the percentages game of established players.

Agree with the expectation

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It's a more complicated question than it at first seems.

My view is that we need a coach with a vision and a system, and that vision and system needs to be instilled through the DNA of the club from the first year scholars to the PL stars. Obviously it's far too big for one man to manage on his own, so we need a team of 'divisional' heads, working towards the Head Coach's philosophy and towards the over all strategy of the club. Each head of division needs to be talented in his own right, and has to be allowed a degree of autonomy. The strength of the system will lie in the degree to which they can bring their individual talents to bear, and work towards a goal and vision they, in its essence, share.

Looking at past managers it's clear we never had that bottom through to top approach. And/or didn't have managers who anyway were willing to buy into this approach (it's one reason TS was popular with the club hierarchy as he was seen as a man who bridged the gap, and who did get that there needed to be a unified approach.).

In Pochettino it seems like we have finally got the head-coach we need. His is the key-stone position without which the whole edifice comes tumbling down. He has a vision, and a bottom to top philosophy, he believes in the academy and tries to ensure all parts of the club are working together. He works with other heads of division and with the CEO in a collaborative and constructive fashion. He is a club-builder in the mould of an Arsene Wenger or SAF.

All of which is positive stuff, a step forward on what has happened before. The problem comes however when we look at execution. We have to ask ourselves whether Pochettino has the skills to implement his philosophy, whether the player recruitment team is good at identifying the correct players, whether the negotiating team can secure the talent at the correct value etc., etc? In a way that's what this thread is about.

I argue that it's far too early to judge, we employ them because we hope they can put a team together which can be successful in the competitions we enter, that can excite the fans, and which can also manage the inevitable transitions and churn which comes from having a successful team in a world when there are other teams who will then step into poach our stars. We need the players to serve as investments as well as success in the here and now, so that when we sell them on we have additional income to invest back into the team and the stadium project, and that if they don't turn out so good don't stick around like bad smells wafting from the changing rooms. There are so many facets to the enterprise that it becomes difficult to judge our achievements.

Into the mix we have to throw the fact that as avid watchers of football we all have our opinions about the players and the targets we should be setting ourself. But we're also excellent at dreaming up counter-factuals, worlds in which if only this other player had or had not been signed then this failure would not have occurred, or this success might have.

I realise that this forum only exists because we like debating this kind of stuff, on the other hand I think that as long as the underlying signs are positive (which I believe they are), then we should try to give the benefit of the doubt, we should try to give the new team time to bed in, and to see what they achieve. If after a TW or two the mid-level signings turn out to be mediocre, and the kids turned out not to be given a chance and moved onto pastures new where they have massive success, then that's the time to complain. In the meantime I think we should try and be patient.

You are right, of course, it is a much more complicated question than the one I have posed. This was really just my way of saying I don't want McCarthy and inter alia any more decent but fairly ordinary players when we should be putting more emphasis on the top to bottom philosophy which would allow us to promote players who can at the very least fill this remit without spending 5-10m plus 2-3m per year on wages on what I perceive as these decent but ordinary players who we end up having to move on 2 years later, having blocked the development of a kid who we have spent years preparing to work in a system that hopefully runs through the club.

It was also a reaction to this continual mantra of "if the coach doesn't think they're ready". I can't really think of too many examples of our development players being given chances letting us down any worse than any of the other players, bought, experienced etc. I understand that not every kid we give games to will flourish or be a world beater instantly, but hardly any players we buy are either ? I'd rather trust a kid we've spent 5 years teaching an ethos specific to how we want the first team to play, than trust a reasonably ordinary bought player with a few years experience of not playing that system.

If we wait to until kids have gone elsewhere and proven themselves to be decent then it's too late to complain. We need to be proactive in promoting this change of philosophy than reactive. You will say there is some evidence of this, but some of the players we seem to be interested in this window says we are not being proactive enough.

 

[IGSpur]

It was also a reaction to this continual mantra of "if the coach doesn't think they're ready".

Easily one of the most frustrating arguments read on here.

You know I agree with you but I think where the debate 'falls down' is everyone's perception of an ordinary player as it is all subjective otherwise I think most would agree. There is no set criteria, but for me outside of the top 7 there aren't many CMs I'd want to spend fee/wages on over giving our top players a go

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Easily one of the most frustrating arguments read on here.

You know I agree with you but I think where the debate 'falls down' is everyone's perception of an ordinary player as it is all subjective otherwise I think most would agree. There is no set criteria, but for me outside of the top 7 there aren't many CMs I'd want to spend fee/wages on over giving our top players a go

Opinons on all players are subjective and to be fair, we are possibly one of the best trading clubs in the transfer market. But a quick glance at the names on the transfer rumour page and ITK suggesting we have had genuine interest in names like Ings, Austin, McCarthy, Moses tells me the club's ordinary/exceptional barometer still needs some fine tuning.

 

[Lilbaz]

Has anyone thought that the reason we haven't actually bid for these experienced players yet, is because Poch wants to see how our youngsters play in preseason with the first team?

Oduwa, Onomah, Winks and Coulthirst have all been given a chance so far and Oduwa has looked very good.

 

[DogsOfWar]

I think bringing in the youngsters is more important than ever now that the market prices for players has become so inflated.

The two players from teams below us I would like to have seen come in are Schneiderlin and Benteke but for £60 million?
They are good players but not worth anything like that kind of money, at least not to me.

We have produced Bentaleb and Kane for, relatively speaking, nothing and I would rather see Milos, Alle, Winks, Onomah, or even Azzaoui get an opportunity rather than McCarthy or Moses.

 

[IGSpur]

Opinons on all players are subjective and to be fair, we are possibly one of the best trading clubs in the transfer market. But a quick glance at the names on the transfer rumour page and ITK suggesting we have had genuine interest in names like Ings, Austin, McCarthy, Moses tells me the club's ordinary/exceptional barometer still needs some fine tuning.

Though I don't really rate Austin, the Ings and Austin links are understandable as we arguably need two strikers and have no immediate ones to step into the first team bar Coulthirst who hasn't shown enough for us to rely on him whereas we have plenty of players as back on the wings, and in CM and DM. Our back up CMs and CBs are relatively speaking better than our first choice strikers to step up.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

That's understandable, but we cannot continue this problem of being hung up on just quality. If there's a need for an attribute in the squad, there's a need regardless of numbers. It just so happens at the moment that we're light on both numbers and balance in the winger positions, so it's a) a need which needs addressing via immediate reinforcement and b) economical to make that/those reinforcements coincide with our needs for attributes.

Honestly, I think we're so unbalanced that even an average player who can spread a back line via aggression can make such a difference for our turgid and timid attack that we could improve without an even making a signing of outstanding quality for the position. Someone, anyone willing to actually run at defenders and induce disruption (Townsend doesn't anymore, he plays just as scared as the rest of them) would be an improvement. This isn't analogous to us buying another ho-hum midfielder similar to what we already have, but rather more analogous to buying a needle to sew when all you have is pairs of scissors.

However, I'm with you that if possible to find a stronger signing who also possesses those qualities, that would be absolutely ideal.

This is the craziest thing I've read in here in a long time. Pace, aggression, dynamism, etc etc are all wonderful attributes, but they are utterly pointless unless they come attached to "quality".

And re your earlier point on Bentaleb, I'd add Rooney, Gerrard, Scholes, Giggs, Gascoigne to @spurs9 list of players that had no loans at all. I'm sure there's thousand's less famous.

 

[DaSpurs]

This is the craziest thing I've read in here in a long time. Pace, aggression, dynamism, etc etc are all wonderful attributes, but they are utterly pointless unless they come attached to "quality".

And re your earlier point on Bentaleb, I'd add Rooney, Gerrard, Scholes, Giggs, Gascoigne to @spurs9 list of players that had no loans at all. I'm sure there's thousand's less famous.

The "craziest thing you've read here in a long time?" I doubt that love, and suspect that's more a personal statement than one based on logic. Bit ironic too, considering it wasn't too long ago when you said it would be more disastrous to lose one of our youth players than Lloris. I'm not one much for grudges, so I left it alone, but I guess you see it differently. Disappointing, your aggression here.

I've no doubt though that the statement is incomprehensible to you nonetheless, as you view the game from the standpoint of "pile intelligence and quality on the pitch, and they'll make it work." It would be a dream if only it were that simple. In reality, you have to have a balanced foundation, and build from it. This is not a make-believe game of cerebral dreams, it is a game fought on a physical pitch, and as such there must be structural compatibilities. You cannot expect to pile quality on a pitch and expect that the components will work every time. It just does not work that way, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The "craziest thing you've read here in a long time?" I doubt that love, and suspect that's more a personal statement than one based on logic. Bit ironic too, considering it wasn't too long ago when you said it would be more disastrous to lose one of our youth players than Lloris. I'm not one much for grudges, so I left it alone, but I guess you see it differently. Disappointing, your aggression here.

I've no doubt though that the statement is incomprehensible to you nonetheless, as you view the game from the standpoint of "pile intelligence and quality on the pitch, and they'll make it work." It would be a dream if only it were that simple. In reality, you have to have a balanced foundation, and build from it. This is not a make-believe game of cerebral dreams, it is a game fought on a physical pitch, and as such there must be structural compatibilities. You cannot expect to pile quality on a pitch and expect that the components will work every time. It just does not work that way, no matter how much you want it to.

Look DS, I like a lot of what you write, but that's just a nonsensical paragraph that means very little sense. You are far more likely to find quality components work better and more compatibly than non quality components. The last time we were a serious team was the time we had the most about of quality in our team. Sure it was flawed quality at times but still quality and we should always be "hung up" on trying acquire it and settling for less is the road to ruin.