Buy "ordinary" Experience or Coach what we have debate

[DaSpurs]

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.

"More likely," yes that is true. Nonetheless, it's no guarantee. When you factor in egos, personalities, varied playing styles (both too similar and too different), and physical compatibility, any of those can deviate even the most quality assortment of players from efficiency.

We briefly touched on this the other day, about how Bentaleb and Rabiot are each very gifted players of immense potential, but that doesn't automatically make them more efficient than a duo which is more complementary and compatible. This game of ours is such a one of balance, and I think it often gets undervalued by fans in lieu of excitement about outright quality. Yes, that is all well and good, and yes you're right that the more quality a side the more likely it is to be efficient, but we cannot ignore the important fact about how vital it is that the parts of a collective yet complement each other to provide the most optimal possible performance.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

"More likely," yes that is true. Nonetheless, it's no guarantee. When you factor in egos, personalities, varied playing styles (both too similar and too different), and physical compatibility, any of those can deviate even the most quality assortment of players from efficiency.

We briefly touched on this the other day, about how Bentaleb and Rabiot are each very gifted players of immense potential, but that doesn't automatically make them more efficient than a duo which is more complementary and compatible. This game of ours is such a one of balance, and I think it often gets undervalued by fans in lieu of excitement about outright quality. Yes, that is all well and good, and yes you're right that the more quality a side the more likely it is to be efficient, but we cannot ignore the important fact about how vital it is that the parts of a collective yet complement each other to provide the most optimal possible performance.

Right, but it's a quantum better guarantee than buying non quality.

Quality players won't always be symbiotic but that doesn't mean that you stop pursuing "quality" you just try to find the best quality alternative possible to fit your need, you don't just say "the good quality option isn't going to work so lets find a poor quality option".

 

[DaSpurs]

Right, but it's a quantum better guarantee than buying non quality.

Quality players won't always be symbiotic but that doesn't mean that you stop pursuing "quality" you just try to find the best quality alternative possible to fit your need, you don't just say "the good quality option isn't going to work so lets find a poor quality option".

Well of course, but I can only assume then from your point here that you must have misinterpreted my original point. It wasn't to advocate forgoing quality outright, much less pursuing poor quality, but rather that the criteria many seem to have for looking for a player for any given position as the "best" player for that spot may not always be the best solution for improving your team. It only works that way in video games, but in the tangible world where physical advantages play a much greater role.

So yes, you do want to search for as much quality as possible, I'm not denying that. However, you must also look to identify exactly what your squad needs to become more complementary and thus efficient, and sometimes the option required in order to do so may not be the option viewed as the most talented. If you need pace on the flanks, you need pace on the flanks rather than buying another talented creative mid that's more of the same. If you need a CB with strong aerial presence, you need a CB with strong aerial presence rather than the six footer who is seen as the better prospect but isn't so great in the air. If you need a striker capable of getting on he end of throughballs to stretch out play, you need a striker capable of getting to throughballs rather than the talented clunker everyone in Europe is after.

I hope that explains things more clearly, and that the point isn't so "crazy" to you after all. You say things from time to time I may disagree with, but no offense, you couldn't even hope to say the craziest thing I've ever read on here.

 

[sloth]

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.

Here's what I heard, Levy's appointed a new sporting director and head of development, but the guy hasn't actually been to the training ground, nor will he spend any time there. Instead he'll catch the odd match on the internet, and of course nearly all the first team matches on the TV. He hasn't got any coaching qualifications either, but he is passionate about football, and believes kids should be given a chance. He's replacing fully-qualified coaches with years of experience playing and coaching at the highest level, who spend time with the players week in and week out on the training field and attending matches, both at the senior and the youth levels. Although they had a policy for bringing the youth through, it was deemed too conservative, and that this new guy with his ideas unpolluted by actually being a coach or working with any of them has a much better grasp on what needs to be done!

Welcome to THFC Bus-Conductor!!

Of course that's bullshit and it's not meant to preclude having an opinion, but it does illustrate the flimsiness of the evidence on which these particular opinions are being constructed. That's why I think we need to understand that we don't really have much of an insight into this part of the club's operations, we need to give the new regime time, but after time, if we see the things happening which you fear might, then we can begin to express our disapproval and reservations.

 

[Ionman34]

I'm pretty much in the BC, MPickard camp here. I don't think McCarthy will add significantly to our first team, considering the fact that Mason outperformed him for the majority of last season.

For me, the ideal alternative was mentioned earlier in the thread, Carrick. He is the ideal player for our younger midfielders to learn from. He has a calm assurance on the pitch and has undoubted quality regardless of his age. You won't get 60 games a season out of him, so there will be ample opportunity for our up and comers to get game time. He's a very disciplined player, positionally, who can guide the youngsters on their own positional awareness both from communication and by observation, not just on the pitch but also on the training ground. Coaches can "use" him in this respect, pointing out to the youngsters what they need to emulate.

He's a consumate professional who, imo, would havea very positive impact. He will never block any development either, rather he would likely provide that extra "polish" to any understudy, allowing for a more finished product to take over when he retires. You'd get a first team improvement in the short term, with the greater benefit over the long term from the understudies. I really think Carrick's influence could take someone like Bentaleb to the next level, as Bentaleb really occupies the same position and has the ability for that playmaker role.

He'd be quite cheap too. Considering the potential ongoing benefits, I reckon it could be a superb piece of business.

 

[SpursManChris]

The context:

We are being linked with McCarthy again. Some of us think that this type of signing is exactly the type we should be avoiding. It's not that he's a bad footballer, he's not, he's decent, but we believe that he either doesn't represent enough of an improvement on what we have or what we are close to developing to warrant the fee and wages that will be involved and these resources could be better spent.

Various posts were exchanged by these were the last two:

This was a @THFCSPURS19 response to @IGSpur




To which I responded:

I'm really fed up with reading this "coaches think he the player's not ready" bullshit. Mostly who's not ready are the coaches. They are not ready to put their bollocks on the line and trust their ability to coach footballers to be better, individually and collectively, physically and mentally, they are not ready to trust their ability to achieve tactical excellence, so they fall back on "buying experience".

And I didn't just say development group, I said already here too. Forget comparing videos, I watched Mason utterly dominate McCarthy in his own back yard. He saw nearly three times as much ball as him (Mason 90 passes/ Mc 34 passes), still gave it away less (Mason 88.9%/ Mc 82.4%). he made more tackles, more interceptions (Mas 2/3 - Mc 1/1), he made three key passes to McCarthy's none.

So McCarthy, with his "6" years of experience was thoroughly outplayed by a kid having his first season, not just of EPL football, but of any real football.

Mason is industrious, tenacious, and can play in both halves of the pitch, and both him and Bentaleb have more character, are more vocal and have more pitch leadership.

We do not need to spend 15-20m on a player when, with better coaching, we have at least one here who could be much better, and IMO already is at least as good.



.

is it really one or the other here?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Here's what I heard, Levy's appointed a new sporting director and head of development, but the guy hasn't actually been to the training ground, nor will he spend any time there. Instead he'll catch the odd match on the internet, and of course nearly all the first team matches on the TV. He hasn't got any coaching qualifications either, but he is passionate about football, and believes kids should be given a chance. He's replacing fully-qualified coaches with years of experience playing and coaching at the highest level, who spend time with the players week in and week out on the training field and attending matches, both at the senior and the youth levels. Although they had a policy for bringing the youth through, it was deemed too conservative, and that this new guy with his ideas unpolluted by actually being a coach or working with any of them has a much better grasp on what needs to be done!

Welcome to THFC Bus-Conductor!!

Of course that's bullshit and it's not meant to preclude having an opinion, but it does illustrate the flimsiness of the evidence on which these particular opinions are being constructed. That's why I think we need to understand that we don't really have much of an insight into this part of the club's operations, we need to give the new regime time, but after time, if we see the things happening which you fear might, then we can begin to express our disapproval and reservations.

Phew, that was scary, for a minute I thought we were bringing in Tim Sherwood.

In other news, I watched Iago Falque put in a very similar performance to many that our 26m signing Lamela has, for Roma against a full strength Real madrid. We have also just lost a player - Ceballos - who I believe is at least as good as two we've been heavily linked with for his position this summer. May I express my disapproval and reservations about this yet or must I go and do a coaching badge and 10 years work experience at a football club first ?

 

[IGSpur]

Here's what I heard, Levy's appointed a new sporting director and head of development, but the guy hasn't actually been to the training ground, nor will he spend any time there. Instead he'll catch the odd match on the internet, and of course nearly all the first team matches on the TV. He hasn't got any coaching qualifications either, but he is passionate about football, and believes kids should be given a chance. He's replacing fully-qualified coaches with years of experience playing and coaching at the highest level, who spend time with the players week in and week out on the training field and attending matches, both at the senior and the youth levels. Although they had a policy for bringing the youth through, it was deemed too conservative, and that this new guy with his ideas unpolluted by actually being a coach or working with any of them has a much better grasp on what needs to be done!

Welcome to THFC Bus-Conductor!!

Of course that's bullshit and it's not meant to preclude having an opinion, but it does illustrate the flimsiness of the evidence on which these particular opinions are being constructed. That's why I think we need to understand that we don't really have much of an insight into this part of the club's operations, we need to give the new regime time, but after time, if we see the things happening which you fear might, then we can begin to express our disapproval and reservations.

I know you said it doesn't preclude an opinion, but what you wrote above can literally be applied to any opinion on football.

Not that anyone is wrong, but I see people all the time criticise Poch's tactics, saying that are midfielders/players are more suited to a 433. Someone could say Poch sees them all the time in training, has all thse coaches with years of experience but the guy who never spends time at the training ground with know coaching badges apparently has a better idea of what the players are capable of and what would best suit them.

Same goes for players we are trying to sign, where we have paid scouts and analysts who will watch them more than our fans, yet it doesn't stop people from rating them or thinking we should buy a certain player over another, or questioning our targets. Examples are Cabaye and Clasie, where I've seen many people mention they would be perfect for our system and question why Poch isn't going for them, which apparently is acceptable. But the moment someone, who watches the youth play suggests that we have excellent youth players who could do a job or we should put faith in one, who is unanimously seen as talented, over another player they watch in the PL, they are shot down. Or we aren't privy to know if they#re ready or the coach knows best.

I can only assume it's because everyone on the forum watches the first team so can all debate that. People also watch other teams especially PL so can debate the merit of the other players, but not everyone watches the youth teams and so an even debate can't be had. Outside of talking about youth, the main proponents I think are generally considered knowledgeable or good posters on other topics, so I don't know why their knowledge is undermined when it comes to this topic.

 

[sloth]

I know you said it doesn't preclude an opinion, but what you wrote above can literally be applied to any opinion on football.

I don't think so. If you go to matches week in week out and see the players actually playing then you can form a stronger more informed opinion then someone who's just seen a single match. It's the same with everything; the more information you're party to the better chance you have of being insightful (of course a lot of folk will never have much insight because having made up their minds on a hunch and a first impression, they then spend the rest of their lives only taking notice of the evidence that confirms what they already think and actively ignoring or disparaging that which contradicts them - but that's a different story.).

In the case of something like climate change though, it's much harder for an armchair enthusiast to have an informed opinion. It's not enough to stick your hand out the window and say it's warm for Spring isn't it! Or last winter was freezing so I think climate change is bollocks!

So it is with youth players, we don't watch them up against the senior pros in training, in fact we don't see them at all except in the occasional age group competition. Which is not to say we know nothing, or that in fact we may not turn out to be right, but we have to accept our knowledge is pretty flimsy. Now if we were three years in to this regime and not a player had made the step up, meanwhile we'd signed a load of senior journeymen types who never really cut the mustard, and those kids we did let go were now playing for the biggest teams elsewhere. At that point there's evidence to criticise the regime. Until then we should try and give the benefit of the doubt and just wait to see what happens.

 

[Spursidol]

I don't think so. If you go to matches week in week out and see the players actually playing then you can form a stronger more informed opinion then someone who's just seen a single match. It's the same with everything; the more information you're party to the better chance you have of being insightful (of course a lot of folk will never have much insight because having made up their minds on a hunch and a first impression, they then spend the rest of their lives only taking notice of the evidence that confirms what they already think and actively ignoring or disparaging that which contradicts them - but that's a different story.).

In the case of something like climate change though, it's much harder for an armchair enthusiast to have an informed opinion. It's not enough to stick your hand out the window and say it's warm for Spring isn't it! Or last winter was freezing so I think climate change is bollocks!

So it is with youth players, we don't watch them up against the senior pros in training, in fact we don't see them at all except in the occasional age group competition. Which is not to say we know nothing, or that in fact we may not turn out to be right, but we have to accept our knowledge is pretty flimsy. Now if we were three years in to this regime and not a player had made the step up, meanwhile we'd signed a load of senior journeymen types who never really cut the mustard, and those kids we did let go were now playing for the biggest teams elsewhere. At that point there's evidence to criticise the regime. Until then we should try and give the benefit of the doubt and just wait to see what happens.

Sorry, but what a load of b*****cks.

In the last few years we've seen Caulker, Livermore, Rose, Townsend, Kane, Mason & Bentaleb play in the first team and Pritchard has been told by Poch that he will be in the first team squad next season

So that's an average of about 2 Spurs youth per season promoted to the first team by a variety of managers.

And the Spurs youth watchers universally report that there is a conveyor belt of good prospects coming through - mostly mentioning the same names, and they are realistic so its identifying a couple a season who could make it, and recognising a few who are good but not perhaps quite good enough..

So if we've had an average of 2 youngsters a season come through to the first team and no shortage of talent coming through - isn't the logical thing to expect is an average of 2 a season in the future ?

And in order to get the 2 a season into the first team squad, that often means having a group of maybe half a dozen involved with the first team, of whom Poch will choose 1, 2 or 3 to promote full time.

So having nobody come through into the first team in a season should raise more than eyebrows.

 

[sloth]

Sorry, but what a load of b*****cks.

In the last few years we've seen Caulker, Livermore, Rose, Townsend, Kane, Mason & Bentaleb play in the first team and Pritchard has been told by Poch that he will be in the first team squad next season

So that's an average of about 2 Spurs youth per season promoted to the first team by a variety of managers.

And the Spurs youth watchers universally report that there is a conveyor belt of good prospects coming through - mostly mentioning the same names, and they are realistic so its identifying a couple a season who could make it, and recognising a few who are good but not perhaps quite good enough..

So if we've had an average of 2 youngsters a season come through to the first team and no shortage of talent coming through - isn't the logical thing to expect is an average of 2 a season in the future ?

And in order to get the 2 a season into the first team squad, that often means having a group of maybe half a dozen involved with the first team, of whom Poch will choose 1, 2 or 3 to promote full time.

So having nobody come through into the first team in a season should raise more than eyebrows.

Next time maybe try reading what is written before walobing someone eh?

Meanwhile, whilst you re-read and hopefully construct a more thoughtful apposite response, I'll ask you how many times you have been to the training ground in the last 12 months?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I don't think so. If you go to matches week in week out and see the players actually playing then you can form a stronger more informed opinion then someone who's just seen a single match. It's the same with everything; the more information you're party to the better chance you have of being insightful (of course a lot of folk will never have much insight because having made up their minds on a hunch and a first impression, they then spend the rest of their lives only taking notice of the evidence that confirms what they already think and actively ignoring or disparaging that which contradicts them - but that's a different story.).

In the case of something like climate change though, it's much harder for an armchair enthusiast to have an informed opinion. It's not enough to stick your hand out the window and say it's warm for Spring isn't it! Or last winter was freezing so I think climate change is bollocks!

So it is with youth players, we don't watch them up against the senior pros in training, in fact we don't see them at all except in the occasional age group competition. Which is not to say we know nothing, or that in fact we may not turn out to be right, but we have to accept our knowledge is pretty flimsy. Now if we were three years in to this regime and not a player had made the step up, meanwhile we'd signed a load of senior journeymen types who never really cut the mustard, and those kids we did let go were now playing for the biggest teams elsewhere. At that point there's evidence to criticise the regime. Until then we should try and give the benefit of the doubt and just wait to see what happens.

That's a piss poor analogy. We are all far more qualified in the process of being able to make a reasonable assessment of a young footballer (or any footballer) than we are in the science of climate change. Most of us have played, watched, studied, read and critiqued football/footballers for decades. Of course coaches get to see these players more often, but they are invariably seeing the same player demonstrate the same attributes (ability, technique, intelligence, character etc) that we are, they are just seeing it more often, or in case of kids the evolutionary process with more frequency, but is that really essential to form a valid opinion ? Do managers make decisions on purchasing players based on watching every day of a player development from ages 15-20 ? No, of course they don't because it's not necessary to form a valid opinion of that player. Most of those days he will just be repeating the same qualities that you will see of you watch him a handful of times.

The coaches will have a getter insight as to the players personality, but again, this is something becomes more relevant when they are on the pitch, and again, watching a player half a dozen times you can get a feel for his character, temperament and intelligence. Watching through a season even more so. Watching him another 500 hundred will not necessarily change that radically.

The bottom line is, us punters have possibly seen as much and know almost as much about our academy players as most manager will know about overseas purchases they make.

 

[sloth]

That's a piss poor analogy. We are all far more qualified in the process of being able to make a reasonable assessment of a young footballer (or any footballer) than we are in the science of climate change. Most of us have played, watched, studied, read and critiqued footballers for decades. Of course coaches get to see these players more often, but they are invariably seeing the same player demonstrate the same attributes (ability, technique, intelligence, character etc) that we are, they are just seeing the evolutionary process in with more frequency, but is that really essential to form a valid opinion ? Do manager make decisions on purchasing players based on watching every day of a player development from ages 15-20 ? No, of course they don't because it's not necessary to form a good opinion of that player. Most of those days he will just be repeating the same qualities that you will see of you watch him a handful of times.

The coaches will have a getter insight as to the players personality, but again, this is something becomes more relevant when they are on the pitch, and again, watching a player half a dozen times you can feel for his character. Watching him another 500 hundred will not necessarily change that.

The bottom line is, us punters have possibly seen as much and know almost as much about our academy players as most manager will know about overseas purchases they make.

Would you employ someone with your experience of the youth players to select the players for the PL team?

 

[danielneeds]

What is quality though? I would, for instance, never have called David Batty a quality player, but he was an important player at successful Leeds and Blackburn sides.

 

[IGSpur]

I don't think so. If you go to matches week in week out and see the players actually playing then you can form a stronger more informed opinion then someone who's just seen a single match.

So it is with youth players, we don't watch them up against the senior pros in training, in fact we don't see them at all except in the occasional age group competition. Which is not to say we know nothing, or that in fact we may not turn out to be right, but we have to accept our knowledge is pretty flimsy.

I agree the more information you gain the better you can form an opinion of someone, however most people form opinions of PL players let alone those outside of the PL. Yet outside of the top 6 the average number of PL matches shown on tv in 2013 was 10. Last season for example, between streams and attending I watched around 9 u21s matches, and a few more u18s. Plus you can watch the players on loan and of course like you mentioned international age group comps. So unless people are streaming other clubs' games outside of Spurs regularly, then I'm sure I am in as strong of a position to form an opinion on our young players as anyone is on a player not from Spurs.

As you mentioned the major difference is that they are generally against older players. However, noone really knows how a player will adapt to a different team and league and so the best thing to judge is actual ability. Regardless many of the u21s face first team players e.g. Man Utd, Norwich and Leicester. These are still full adults and can include 3 overage players while ours are generally younger so we get to see how they adapt to bigger players. A weakened u21 side just played against a L1 side who were a lot bigger and handled that so we can make a guess as to how they will be able to cope in the EL or Cup games. Granted I don't see them on the training ground but noone is privy to that information for any player. So I don't think the information we get on young players is any flimsier than we get from a player from abroad.

We will see whether or not the regime is right or wrong in the future but I hope it's not too late then. We seem to be getting rid of a lot of the journeymen and let's hope we can avoid signing anymore. As the unsuccessful journeymen are the ones blocking the talented youngsters, who's careers could have stalled for them to even make it elsewhere (though that's not our issue anymore, which is sad)

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Would you employ someone with your experience of the youth players to select the players for the PL team?

That is not what you were saying originally though, you were suggesting in a round about way that none of us are qualified to have an opinion. Which I think we are often eminently qualified, we just aren't paid to do so.

But to answer your question, if I was hiring someone to pick my pl team, I would interview the prospective applicants and make a decision based on all the criteria, facts, instincts on offer to me about those candidates. But if every chairman only employed the coach with the greatest footballing (playing/coaching) experience miles on the clock the game would have lost some great coaches.

Personally I would value intelligence, vision, character and communicative skills above a great playing career or years spent coaching.

Obvious examples like Mourinho and Sachi come to mind, but recently people like Warburton are proving this point.

 

[IGSpur]

What is quality though? I would, for instance, never have called David Batty a quality player, but he was an important player at successful Leeds and Blackburn sides.

It's subjective, but the mere fact that he was an integral cog in a successful side tells you he is a quality player. Mentally, physically if not technically, that would be able to inspire young players and add steel to a side

 

[yanno]

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.

@sloth I like your posts and we've had good discussions over the years.

But I'm afraid I think this post is imbued with MBA McKinsey-esque management consultant bullshit.

The kind of management structure you describe doesn't exist in any football club in the world. The most successful clubs are either driven batshit crazy by egos and power games - eg the political power games of FC Hollywood Bayern or Real Galatico Madrid - or alternately the board pretty much gives up and lets one man make all the decisions - eg Old Red Nose at Man Utd or Mourinho this time round at Chavski.

AVB wanted to blow half the Bale money (transfer fee & wage) on Hulk. What a lucky escape that was.

Meanwhile was he prepared to take a chance on Bentaleb? Hell no.

The Veljkovic debate is really interesting. The three young players that Sherwood stuck his stubborn neck out for and gave first team gametime were Bentaleb, Kane and then, briefly, Milos V. His judgement of the potential and quality of the player has proven correct on the first two.

Last season, Poch loaned Milos out twice, and neither loan worked. But he saw Ryan Mason in pre-season and had the courage to stick him in the team. So, he does have faith in his own judgement of a player's potential and his suitability for the tactical system he wants to play.

Over the summer, both Veljkovic and CCV were excellent in the U20 World Cup and are now training with the first team in pre-season, as are Onomah, Winks, KWP, Oduwa etc.

Going forwards, I have a fair amount of trust in Poch to identify the 2 or 3 of our youngsters who can be given first team chances, and loan some of the others out to get big game experience.

But for me this has nothing to do with management structures.

It comes down to:

1) a good Academy and coaching setup producing talented players who understand the system the first team plays and have good habits;

2) a first team coach with the cojones to stick the best youngsters in and not drop them at the first mistake;

3) a chairman who has to be prepared to back the coach if we have a couple of bad results;

4) a transfer philosophy that stops buying decent players to provide squad depth.

Let's buy top quality players when they're available and will come to us.

Let's buy occasional VDV/Davids/Naybet type experience when we need it.

But let's not buy journeyman players as squad depth who will block opportunities for our next Kane or Bentaleb.

 

[Spursidol]

Next time maybe try reading what is written before walobing someone eh?

Meanwhile, whilst you re-read and hopefully construct a more thoughtful apposite response, I'll ask you how many times you have been to the training ground in the last 12 months?

I had read it - and responded appropriately. I note responses from others to your posts as well

 

[Bus-Conductor]

What is quality though? I would, for instance, never have called David Batty a quality player, but he was an important player at successful Leeds and Blackburn sides.

But defensively he oozed quality. Quality isn't just about the creative thing.