Happy with our youth development?

[dontcallme]

Just wondering how people feel regarding our youth development.

In Harry's first summer he announced that he wouldn't be entering a team in the reserve league. Instead he decided to send out a lot of our youngsters on loan. Not just unknown ones but the likes of Dos Santos and Taarabt went down a division to show what they can do before playing for Spurs.

Although not extremely young HR quickly found a regular place Huddlestone to play alongside Modric, he got Lennon playing better and he helped Bale become a star player not long after some were calling for him to be sold. Several youngsters who were already around the first team have thrived while some have not.

Kyle Walker is the most notable of our young players going on loan and then finding themselves a place in our first team. A loan spell back at Sheffield Utd and later a period in the Prem with Villa gave him the perfect opportunity to improve his game, prove his worth and get his first team place.

I don't believe the EL campaign was particularly to their development though. Throwing a bunch of players together who have never played together before in sporadic games can't be great for development. Livermore received criticism for his performances but yet when he was thrown into our first team against Everton he played really well. Football is a team game and it's easier to shine as an individual when in a good team with a settled style than just thrown into a team of young players and players regaining match fitness.

I hope the EL campaign was more for preserving our first team players than a method for improving our young players.

Harry Kane also received criticism for his performances as he didn't look ready. Some already saying he'll never make it. He has now gone on loan and put in good performances against Birmingham and Dagenham and Redbridge.

 

[Byron]

theres food for thought regarding the ressies verses loaning's. i suppose the loan side of it give you the crowds and the presssure of losing etc whereas ressie games have a few people and a dog watching, and a few players returning from injury etc. it can't be the same can it?

 

[SubZero]

There's pros and cons to both I think. The EL team as expected was a total mess, woth no distinctive way of play. While raw talent can get you far, I am of the belief that a talented youngster should be blooded into a existing setup, even if a loose one. Spurs seems to be more reliant upon individual skill as we let our players play more to their natural game. Opposed to Man Utd, which seems more of a system with like-for-likes. This is why a loan can be better than reserves, you play with their best players available, not with a team which changes form and shape every week with players recovering from injuries, players out of form and so on. The upside about a reserve team is that you (the club) control formations, type of training etc., and you are still with your club. Spurs however, has no reserve team so they are dependent upon cup games and Spurs XI against whoever for match training.

This was particulary evident in the game when we started a few first teamers and expected to blow the opposition away and they would still thank us for it. Not so. Modric for all his class had absolutely no outlets as they had probably not trained pass and formation together at all.

I am quite sure that if Harry Kane had trained with and been given a go up front with Ade, serviced by Bale, Modric, Parker and Lennon as opposed to starting with shoot-at-everything-Pav in front of Livermore, Dos Santos, Carroll, Falque and Townsend, he would not do much worse than Pav and Defoe. Football is not THAT complicated.

IMHO.

 

[akie]

The only way to know whether the decision tom pull out of reserves was correct, is if we have a core bunch of youngsters coming through each year, going on loan and improving, I certainly have high hopes for the likes of Townsend, Kane, Caulker, Naughton, its a shame that nobody has looked at Tom Carroll

 

[riversmonkey]

Finally there seems to be a process in place, and there is clear evidence that the Academy is beginning to become fruitful for the club. You can chart development progress through First Team experience gained from spells out on loan and / or apperances in Cup Games. Jake Livermore has become a bona fide member of the First Team Squad, and it seems likely that Caulker and Townsend will make the transition next season, possibly also Smith, the young right back out on loan at MK Dons as well, who might become back-up to Kyle Walker.

 

[StartingPrice]

The long term strategy of the club, that Dan Levy has invested a large anount of time, money and effort ito, is to be major developers of young talent. I don't think we are really in a position to judge yet - maybe in a few years.

I know you are asking more specifically concerning the decision to axe the reserves, but I think the above overrides that, and even if we had reserves it would be a bit early to say. Hell, if no players broke through it could just mean that none of them were good enough and be no reflection at all on the reserves situation.

What I would say, though, is that the policy of farming young players out may have helped us decide that Walker was capable and ready of playing in the first team. WIthout that, and Corluka being a decent right-back, we may have farted about over a decision until he got fed up and wanted out. The same policy may suggest that Naughton is good enough to provide cover/competition for Walker,a nd on the left. Would we have been able to have decided that if we had both of them competing for games in the reserves :shrug:

Like I said, I don;t think it is time to declare it a success or a failure, not just yet. But I do think the Walker/Naughton situation does show how it can work.

 

[Spurs1960]

We have had a reserve team for years and it produced nobody that had come through from the academy. Ledley was the last so clearly that approach didn't work for us.

 

[SpurSince57]

The 'reserve' side was a joke. Apart from anything else, the 'reserves' (or seven of them) are sitting on the bench.

It's fair to say that our youth development has not been good, but I'm not sure we're that much worse than many other EPL clubs. We're not going to see our new policy and academy come to fruition for a few years yet.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

The long term strategy of the club, that Dan Levy has invested a large anount of time, money and effort ito, is to be major developers of young talent. I don't think we are really in a position to judge yet - maybe in a few years.

I know you are asking more specifically concerning the decision to axe the reserves, but I think the above overrides that, and even if we had reserves it would be a bit early to say. Hell, if no players broke through it could just mean that none of them were good enough and be no reflection at all on the reserves situation.

What I would say, though, is that the policy of farming young players out may have helped us decide that Walker was capable and ready of playing in the first team. WIthout that, and Corluka being a decent right-back, we may have farted about over a decision until he got fed up and wanted out. The same policy may suggest that Naughton is good enough to provide cover/competition for Walker,a nd on the left. Would we have been able to have decided that if we had both of them competing for games in the reserves :shrug:

Like I said, I don;t think it is time to declare it a success or a failure, not just yet. But I do think the Walker/Naughton situation does show how it can work.

SP - I think you are missing one key aspect of the change in policy from reserves to loans, that of player trading. Assuming we won't strike gold all the time the loan system gives much better visibility to the players we develop and gives us a much better shot of getting decent money for some of them and this money can then be used for first team purchases. This is the Barca model e.g. GDS or Bojan and used to be the goon model as well but they've stopped producing any players worth buying.

 

[StartingPrice]

SP - I think you are missing one key aspect of the change in policy from reserves to loans, that of player trading. Assuming we won't strike gold all the time the loan system gives much better visibility to the players we develop and gives us a much better shot of getting decent money for some of them and this money can then be used for first team purchases. This is the Barca model e.g. GDS or Bojan and used to be the goon model as well but they've stopped producing any players worth buying.

It does.

I am generally in favour of the loan system...just tried to give a reasoned assessment - the main conclusion of which is that the whole policy won't really come to fruition for a couple of years, but IMHO the early signs are good, but that I didn't want to get overenthusiastic.

At the end of the day, our reserve policy might have been poor because we had shite players :grin:

 

[SpurSince57]

Only those who were amongst the 150-odd faithful that regularly attended our 'reserve' games have any business bemoaning the demise of this tired farce.

 

[not_tenth-again]

Only those who were amongst the 150-odd faithful that regularly attended our 'reserve' games have any business bemoaning the demise of this tired farce.

You seem to have placed an errant 1 in front of the 50 above.... possibly an additional 0 at the end too. We hadn't produced a player in a decade using the reserves, no matter what the quality of players it was time for a change.

For me It's a big positive vote in favour of loans.

 

[whitelightwhiteheat]

First team match experience is what young players need, not Mickey Mouse reserve games filled with bitter experienced players who can't get a game any more.

Going out on loan hasn't done Kyle Walker any harm. And it's currently not doing any harm to Steven Caulker's prospects of future first team football with us.

The likes of Andros Townsend, Danny Rose, Ryan Mason have all had mixed experiences in their respective developments.

Some will make it at some level of football, whilst others might fade to obscurity and playing non-league football. That's the nature of the beast as it's always been.

 

[mattyspurs]

First team match experience is what young players need, not Mickey Mouse reserve games filled with bitter experienced players who can't get a game any more.

Going out on loan hasn't done Kyle Walker any harm. And it's currently not doing any harm to Steven Caulker's prospects of future first team football with us.

The likes of Andros Townsend, Danny Rose, Ryan Mason have all had mixed experiences in their respective developments.

Some will make it at some level of football, whilst others might fade to obscurity and playing non-league football. That's the nature of the beast as it's always been.

Kyle Naughton is doing well at Norwich, probably well enough to come back next season to be understudy to Walker if Charlie wants to leave.

So that 2 of our youngsters currently playing in the PL, and one came back this year and is now first choice RB.

 

[onthetwo]

Defenders - Walker, Naughton, Smith, Caulker, Rose
Mids - Carrol, Livermore, Bostock
Strikers - Kane,

I'll concede that not all of that lot are 100% Academy-grown' as it were, but i think all are in and around the U21s or even full national team so thats pretty impressive IMO.

 

[14/04/91]

This issue has been raised & debated before. Personally I think the loan system is better for youngsters than reserve football; I think there are now 5 or 6 premier league teams who've followed us in taking this approach.
Don't forget we do have a reserve team, it's just not in a league & plays against a mixture of 1st team & reserve opposition. So players coming back from injury still get a run-out (Corluka this week).

Kyle Walker's a great example - he wouldn't be a first team regular & England international without his past year/18 months behind him.

I strongly believe it's the best way to develop youngsters.

As for how our youth programme compares with our rivals, I'd say pretty good. We've got more players coming through (albeit some still only with 'potential') than Chelsea and, I'd argue, Arsenal.

 

[StartingPrice]

Kyle Naughton is doing well at Norwich, probably well enough to come back next season to be understudy to Walker if Charlie wants to leave.

So that 2 of our youngsters currently playing in the PL, and one came back this year and is now first choice RB.

Like me, you forgot Caulker.
He is getting the game time and exposure at Swansea to suggest that either this year, or maybe after another year on loan, he may just be good enough to save a few quid on a central defensive berth.

 

[wpd659]

Just to let you know guys are whole training and scouting youth system is having a massive shake up and changes around april/may time this year. Our head of youth scouting and delopment is rumored to be replaced as we have missed out on alot of young potential this year and the whole way we train our youth teams and scout them abd sign them on youth contracts is going to be changed and our training is to be more based on how the dutch teams train there youth focusing more on techneique rather than just pace and strength like most english teams look at at a young age.

 

[mill]

We're only starting to do this now? We should see the benefit in 10 years

 

[mattyspurs]

Like me, you forgot Caulker.
He is getting the game time and exposure at Swansea to suggest that either this year, or maybe after another year on loan, he may just be good enough to save a few quid on a central defensive berth.

No I didn't big nose :wink: I said we have two youngsters on loan at PL clubs, I mentioned Naughton by name, because he had been forgotten by the poster I quoted, Caulker was one of the 2 :shake: