Luck or tactical nous??

[Bus-Conductor]

Thing is I don't actually see that big identity (at least playingwise) elsewhere either. It is something in the mould of "attacking football" at best. I mean look at Barca from individuality of Cruyff to strict systems of LVG. Even the tikitaka of now is more of a heritage from Pep with pretty much same squad continuing it after his departure and don't think it will stick that long either. They'll always look to be attacking side, but it seems to stop there. Besides we want attacking game too and have it in our history, just have had problem of installing it to the pitch on more recent times. Ajax of past might be best example and they may even have their identity now, but hey, they haven't exactly shined domestically taking account resources in this millenium. Though things have changed since FDB, didn't stop Salzburg beating them.

Arsenal would surely be the best example of a club in the EPL with a footballing identity. Tikitaka isn't an inheritance from Pep, he just finessed it.

 

[FinnYid]

Arsenal would surely be the best example of a club in the EPL with a footballing identity.

Is it? What kind of identity they had pre-Wenger (boring boring Arsenal and that was over various managers), what kind of identity they will have after? I think what they have is same manager with pretty clear vision at helm for what is utterly abnormal time in modern game. I mean out of 98 top flight clubs in top 5 leagues only 4 have managers that have been on the same job pre 2010 and other three from bundesleague started theirs late 2000's.

Tikitaka isn't an inheritance from Pep, he just finessed it.

Well, there isn't as much in common at Barca teams of the past and approaches of managers to call it all on same term even if wikipedia tries.

 

[Timsherwood]

Tim would have benefited from being a number 2 alongside the likes of someone more experienced. Learned his trade, mixed with the first team and earned his reputation.

The problem as I see it is he has been thrown into the limelight, he's feeling the stress and pressure to get instant results. Managing top class players is completely different, many of whom have worked under experienced coaches and some may not show Tim or his opinions the same level of respect. He's done great with Ade, but watching our matches at times it appears the players are not following his instructions. It's all rather hit and miss.

Tim is old school, let the players express themselves, football is a very simple game. This is great and will see results against teams with a lesser quality of player. However, against teams who are more talented we need to make up this gap with decent tactics. This is where I feel Tim is not ready and that is why I am concerned about our upcoming fixtures.

The real test for Tim is coming up.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Tim would have benefited from being a number 2 alongside the likes of someone more experienced. Learned his trade, mixed with the first team and earned his reputation.

The problem as I see it is he has been thrown into the limelight, he's feeling the stress and pressure to get instant results. Managing top class players is completely different, many of whom have worked under experienced coaches and some may not show Tim or his opinions the same level of respect. He's done great with Ade, but watching our matches at times it appears the players are not following his instructions. It's all rather hit and miss.

Tim is old school, let the players express themselves, football is a very simple game. This is great and will see results against teams with a lesser quality of player. However, against teams who are more talented we need to make up this gap with decent tactics. This is where I feel Tim is not ready and that is why I am concerned about our upcoming fixtures.

The real test for Tim is coming up.

You really shouldn't talk about yourself in the third person

 

[Ironskullll]

Would you mind telling me a little bit more about that?

1959/60 - 3rd undefeated first 10 games; scored around 100 goals in the league; lost to Man City and Chelsea at home 1-0 towards the end of the season, totally unexpectedly and against the odds. Finished 3rd. Those defeats were decisive.
61/62 - 3rd slow start compared with the double season; Spurs lost at home to Ipswich but by the time of the away game Billy Nick had sussed Ipswich and Alf Ramsey's deep lying inside forward tactic that took everyone by storm but the players weren't on board and he relented. Lost again. Come the charity shield the cup winners slaughtered the champions 5-1 but had Billy prevailed over the players it might have been two doubles on the trot.
62/63 - 2nd - mitigated by one of the worst ever winters, a gruelling European campaign and a moneybags Everton team suddenly bankrolled by rich investors, Spurs just couldn't keep up with their early form - by mid November they'd scored nearly 50 goals and were clear favourites but ehn winter came and they ended up playing 3 games [er week for about 8 weeks. Something had to give.

Averaged just short of 100 goals per season but defensively leaked about 70 per season. Before the days of sports science, nutritional science, biometrics, loads of coaches etc; instead we had Billy working his rocks off, walking to work each day and working 6 1/2 days per week. A different world and as they say, if my auntie had whiskers she'd be my uncle.

 

[ShelfSide18]

You believe it was Sherwood's direction that our development teams played that way ? How long has McDermott been head of the academy ? Was he not the driving force ? I had a really good link to a PDF training manual document authored by McDermott, but now it says access denied when I try to open it so I can't read it anymore or see when it was dated.

Would this be what you're after, file attached...

 

[Legend10]

How do you know it's a top notch post. It might be, but unless you have seen Sherwood work you wouldn't have a clue. Have you seen him work ?

The irony.

Anyhow if you read my post the one after you quoted you will see that i don't pretend to know how Sherwood or anybody else works, what i was referring to was EB's point about us making tactical compromises based on our players, the availability of them and the relevant strength and weaknesses of our opponents. I make reference to this by saying i think it's correct that a side who aren't a top 2/3 side with the best players don't always set up the same way, in the same formation etc and stated that i like the fact that Sherwood has done this and used a variety of approaches rather than just consistently the same one.

I've also in the past in fact only recently stated how important i believe the pre season period is for managers to work with their players to form the basis of what they want from them and to develop systems and player recruitment around each other, and that i believe that during the heat of the season it's very difficult due to time constraints to implement them.

On this basis i agree 100% with EB and therefore i think he made a top notch post, and not because for one minute am i thinking that i know how Sherwood works with either youth team or first team players on a day to day basis, after all i think that would be pretty daft.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Would this be what you're after, file attached...

Thanks for this... really interesting!

 

[eddiebailey]

You believe it was Sherwood's direction that our development teams played that way ? How long has McDermott been head of the academy ? Was he not the driving force ?

So now it is McDermott who is responsible for our success at development level, not inglethorpe; anyone in fact rather than Sherwood who had been in overall charge of the whole set up for the past four years, and who personally coached both the the blinding NextGen run which only ended when we were forced to withdraw from the competition, and the the U21 team who were robbed in the final by Man United, who had been runners up by some distance.

The more valid criticism of Sherwood is that it is a big step up from coaching the U21s to the first team, and imposing a philosophy that has been successful at youth level onto the Premiership is always going to be a big step up.

Sherwood's protege Cooper has been attempting to put the Spurs youth philosophy into practice at Swindon in League One; sometimes they look brilliant, more often it is turgid, and frequently they lose.

Does this mean that the philosophy is flawed? No, it means that philosophies are hard to put into practice; your own players need to buy in while the opposition are not necesarilly going to let you impose your philosophy on them. That was one reason Tim promoted Bentaleb into the team - he wanted one player in there who got it.

Tim has tinkered with formations, but that does not mean that he does not have a philosophy of how the game should be played, which is far more important than how the team lines up on a chalkboard. A footballing philosophy is not the same as tactical rigidity. AVB did not have a philosophy he had an idée fixe. Yes, Tim is struggling to impose this philosophy - his frustration is apparent in every post match interview - but Rome was not built in a day.

Anyone who thinks that a new manager is going to come in mid-season with the same group of players and get us playing like Barcelona is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sherwood is currently exceeding all realistic expectations.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The irony.

Anyhow if you read my post the one after you quoted you will see that i don't pretend to know how Sherwood or anybody else works, what i was referring to was EB's point about us making tactical compromises based on our players, the availability of them and the relevant strength and weaknesses of our opponents. I make reference to this by saying i think it's correct that a side who aren't a top 2/3 side with the best players don't always set up the same way, in the same formation etc and stated that i like the fact that Sherwood has done this and used a variety of approaches rather than just consistently the same one.

I've also in the past in fact only recently stated how important i believe the pre season period is for managers to work with their players to form the basis of what they want from them and to develop systems and player recruitment around each other, and that i believe that during the heat of the season it's very difficult due to time constraints to implement them.

On this basis i agree 100% with EB and therefore i think he made a top notch post, and not because for one minute am i thinking that i know how Sherwood works with either youth team or first team players on a day to day basis, after all i think that would be pretty daft.

A very fair and well articulated repost.

I was more referring to the fact that we don't know if Sherwood is making tactical compromises or just not succeeding in his attempts to get players doing the things he is publicly saying he is trying to do - like start games at a better tempo, retain the ball, lock teams in their third etc.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

So now it is McDermott who is responsible for our success at development level, not inglethorpe; anyone in fact rather than Sherwood who had been in overall charge of the whole set up for the past four years, and who personally coached both the the blinding NextGen run which only ended when we were forced to withdraw from the competition, and the the U21 team who were robbed in the final by Man United, who had been runners up by some distance.

The more valid criticism of Sherwood is that it is a big step up from coaching the U21s to the first team, and imposing a philosophy that has been successful at youth level onto the Premiership is always going to be a big step up.

No EB, what I referred to was the Next Gen team I saw coached by Inglethorpe. I know Inglethorpe wasn't head of the academy, that he was just a coach and have known for quite a while that McDermott was head of the academy. Which is why I thought and have repeatedly referenced the well coached team I saw (that was coached by Inglethorpe when I saw them) and am now asking you the genuine question - your answer still awaited - as to who exactly - and that manuel provided by SS18 is the exact one I was referring to - was responsible fopr the overarching philosophy of the development group. As you can imagine, especially having read that and given his title since at least 2009 (maybe longer - again I asked you genuinely), I always assumed that Mcdermott - as his title suggested was.

My point was, I liked what I saw of the way that team coached by Inglethorpe played - I liked it very, very much.

I liked what I read in that dossier compiled by McDermott about the overarching strategy of the club's development policy.

I have heard Troy Twonsend talk about Chris Ramsey.


What no-one seems to be able to tell me, and I would genuinely like to know is, what exactly was Sherwood's role in all this ? If you don't actually know the precise answer, that's OK. I have also asked @Spursidol and he didn't have an exact answer either.

I am not trying to downplay his role, I just genuinely have no idea what he actually did throughout the last 5 years at the club. How much was coaching and in what capacity (lead coach, assistant to Ramsey, etc etc) Why doesn't he have his qualification ? Was he more administrative ?

The more valid criticism of Sherwood is that it is a big step up from coaching the U21s to the first team, and imposing a philosophy that has been successful at youth level onto the Premiership is always going to be a big step up.

Agreed. Still don't know what he was doing though. Even his official title at the club was vague ? I thought Ramsey (again referring to Troy Townsend's interviews) was more the hands on coach ?

Sherwood's protege Cooper has been attempting to put the Spurs youth philosophy into practice at Swindon in League One; sometimes they look brilliant, more often it is turgid, and frequently they lose.

Does this mean that the philosophy is flawed? No, it means that philosophies are hard to put into practice; your own players need to buy in while the opposition are not necesarilly going to let you impose your philosophy on them. That was one reason Tim promoted Bentaleb into the team - he wanted one player in there who got it.

Tim has tinkered with formations, but that does not mean that he does not have a philosophy of how the game should be played, which is far more important than how the team lines up on a chalkboard. A footballing philosophy is not the same as tactical rigidity. AVB did not have a philosophy he had an idée fixe. Yes, Tim is struggling to impose this philosophy - his frustration is apparent in every post match interview - but Rome was not built in a day.

Anyone who thinks that a new manager is going to come in mid-season with the same group of players and get us playing like Barcelona is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sherwood is currently exceeding all realistic expectations.

I disagree about AVB, but will not procrastinate now as this is a different discussion and it will get more convoluted.


I agree about the whole philosophy/tactical rigidity being different stuff. But whilst I can't accuse Sherwood of formation rigidity, it's hard to tell whether he has a philosophy or tactical flexibility right now because we are seeing very little of either being employed successfully IMO.

I also, actually believe that to a degree, an amount of tactical rigidity is important. Players need some degree of continuity, certainly in terms of basics, and as that dossier lays out, some tactical aspects should be ever present.

And I am not expecting Barca-esque performance (why is this so frequently trotted out). Just some level of coherence or tempo to our work on and off the ball would be nice. I can understand why we aren't the most creative side, I have continually said this, but doing the basics - like starting games with a little gusto - shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility. We already had a reasonably coherent work ethos.

 

[Legend10]

A very fair and well articulated repost.

I was more referring to the fact that we don't know if Sherwood is making tactical compromises or just not succeeding in his attempts to get players doing the things he is publicly saying he is trying to do - like start games at a better tempo, retain the ball, lock teams in their third etc.

To be honest BC and to put my point of view in a 'nut shell' so to speak, i think you are expecting and wanting too much far too soon.

Like you say we don't know but i want to come down on his side and give him a chance, in the same way that even though i was incredibly frustrated with how AVB had us playing i wanted to give him more of a chance and as you know didn't want him sacked. But i am certain in my own mind that Sherwood inherited a lot of problems from AVB, not least of which was the inability of a side to score goals at any sort of acceptable rate. People can argue philosophy's all they like and i hear that but there is overwhelming evidence that this season at least we had no offensive potency under AVB. IMHO it had to be Sherwood's first priority to change that and i can't accept that he hasn't significantly improved us in this area. 7 goals scored from inside the area in 16 games to 18 in 12 is not an accident and i don't care if Ade is playing and is part of that, it still had to be done.

Yes, some performances have been really ugly, usually half performances, but ugly all the same, but I'm not at all surprised by that and as time progresses i think we are seeing Sherwood's demands on the players increasing. They clearly aren't doing what he wants and expects at times and we can now see him starting to express his frustration at times from both the technical area and in interviews.

I think under his oversight the youth set up at the club has been very highly spoken of, so i think he's earned his chance and personally i don't need to see a big name in the dugout, i just want to see one who if given time might and i say might as many haven't, but might be able to take us up a level, and i'm ok with Sherwood being given that chance.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

N


What no-one seems to be able to tell me, and I would genuinely like to know is, what exactly was Sherwood's role in all this ? If you don't actually know the precise answer, that's OK. I have also asked @Spursidol and he didn't have an exact answer either.

I am not trying to downplay his role, I just genuinely have no idea what he actually did throughout the last 5 years at the club. How much was coaching and in what capacity (lead coach, assistant to Ramsey, etc etc) Why doesn't he have his qualification ? Was he more administrative ?

.

I read an article/interview about our academy head of recruitment (John Magrone) and in it was said;

''Magrone, 39, was highly recommended by Spurs football director Tim Sherwood for a position that could see him play a significant part in sculpting the long-term on-field future of the leading London club.''

''He has a network of scouts working with him, and reports directly to Sherwood and Tottenham’s Academy manager, John McDermott.''

This always led me to believe he was always more of a director, over seeing the academy and employment and operations etc trying to galvanise it in to an efficient structure to allow Tottenham the best opportunity of developing young players. I certainly didn't think he was as hands on with the coaching as McDermott/Ramsey et al.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

To be honest BC and to put my point of view in a 'nut shell' so to speak, i think you are expecting and wanting too much far too soon.

Like you say we don't know but i want to come down on his side and give him a chance, in the same way that even though i was incredibly frustrated with how AVB had us playing i wanted to give him more of a chance and as you know didn't want him sacked. But i am certain in my own mind that Sherwood inherited a lot of problems from AVB, not least of which was the inability of a side to score goals at any sort of acceptable rate. People can argue philosophy's all they like and i hear that but there is overwhelming evidence that this season at least we had no offensive potency under AVB. IMHO it had to be Sherwood's first priority to change that and i can't accept that he hasn't significantly improved us in this area. 7 goals scored from inside the area in 16 games to 18 in 12 is not an accident and i don't care if Ade is playing and is part of that, it still had to be done.

Yes, some performances have been really ugly, usually half performances, but ugly all the same, but I'm not at all surprised by that and as time progresses i think we are seeing Sherwood's demands on the players increasing. They clearly aren't doing what he wants and expects at times and we can now see him starting to express his frustration at times from both the technical area and in interviews.

I think under his oversight the youth set up at the club has been very highly spoken of, so i think he's earned his chance and personally i don't need to see a big name in the dugout, i just want to see one who if given time might and i say might as many haven't, but might be able to take us up a level, and i'm ok with Sherwood being given that chance.

Fair enough.

This is why I want to know - genuinely - what exactly was Sherwood's previous role(s). So I can make a more balanced assessment of the bloke and what he is actually about, and ergo, what we are to expect.

I still have no idea as to his actual influence and input on our core development strategy. I am pretty sure John McDermott played a major role in it though. Not only from the dossier submitted in 2009 but also I have seen some footage of him giving a talk on youth development.

 

[Legend10]

Fair enough.

This is why I want to know - genuinely - what exactly was Sherwood's previous role(s). So I can make a more balanced assessment of the bloke and what he is actually about, and ergo, what we are to expect.

I still have no idea as to his actual influence and input on our core development strategy. I am pretty sure John McDermott played a major role in it though. Not only from the dossier submitted in 2009 but also I have seen some footage of him giving a talk on youth development.

Sherwood was the overall head of football development, he was McDermott's boss, he was Ramsey's boss and all other coaches working with young players.

We know at times he was in charge of the under 21's and i recall when AVB was sacked Sherwood saying he was just beginning a coaching session with the under 21's when he was summoned to see Levy.

He clearly doesn't come across as an administrator as somebody suggested he might be and the way he has referred to knowing everything about Bentaleb and other young players and how they know fully what he expects clearly points to him being hands on.

There's a link below to some comments from Ugo Ehiogu who coaches the under 16's, you might find interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...go-Ehiogu-England-need-DNA-continue-fail.html

 

[Spursidol]

Sherwood was the overall head of football development, he was McDermott's boss, he was Ramsey's boss and all other coaches working with young players.

We know at times he was in charge of the under 21's and i recall when AVB was sacked Sherwood saying he was just beginning a coaching session with the under 21's when he was summoned to see Levy.

He clearly doesn't come across as an administrator as somebody suggested he might be and the way he has referred to knowing everything about Bentaleb and other young players and how they know fully what he expects clearly points to him being hands on.

There's a link below to some comments from Ugo Ehiogu who coaches the under 16's, you might find interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...go-Ehiogu-England-need-DNA-continue-fail.html

I think that I have answered @Bus-Conductor but I'm not sure he really liked the answer ! So to repeat in a different way in more detail :

1. Spurs youth development programme was totally revised about 8 year ago now by Frank Aanesen giving Levy a strategy and probably a philiosophy. He was nobbled by Chelsea before much of the changes wre actually implemented.

2. As a result John McDermott was recruited from the FA where he had a senior role in Englan's youth teams to take the position of Head of Spurs Academy (ie dealing with youth up to the age of about 18). Alex Inglethorpe joined at about the same time as u18 coach.

The first of the youth groups having the full McDermott/Inglethorpe 'education' was probably the 1991 year group as he took them from about age 15/16 through to 18. As an aside this was when I became very interested in youth development as the style of play was very different - as maybe shown best when that year group defeated Barcelona in the semi final and thgen Sporting Lisbon in the final of a youth tournament (these are generally regarded as 2 of the best academies in the world)

3. Tim Sherwood was recruited by HR with an initial job title of Technical Co-Ordinator, which included ensuring that the style of play/tactics/management style etc from youth through development to first team were identical. At that time but maybe slightly later, TS became in overall charge of all Spurs youth below first team matters and took over the reseerves/u21 coaching role from Clive Allen - but at this stage we had ducked out of the Reserves League and .had frequent Spurs X1 games

4. TS first became welll known through managing/coaching the first NextGen team - an u19 squad comprising the younger development squad members and some Academy Year 2 players. That side was very successful until being forced to withdraw by an envious Liverpool club. The side also played excellent football - in the 7-1 demlition of Inter Milan Spurs looked like the continental side playing freeflowing fast dynamic football whilst Inter looked the old style English side of big guys lumping the ball about - when they could get hold of it from Spurs who were dominant. Several of the other games were like this whilst a few were necessarily defensive with a well marshalled Spurs side earning hard fought draws. TS had Ramsey and Ferdinand as his team.

5. Inglethorpe was coaching the 2nd season of Nextgen before leaving mid season to join Liverpool.

Whilst BC is looking for a clear cut answer of who coaches the youth team(s), its not a straightforward answer. What we do know is :

a) The Sherwood/Ramsey (plus Ferdinand who I think follows rather than leads) team have been responsible for the coaching of the over 18 youth teams. I think that Ramsey coached 100% of the time but Sherwood split his time between coaching and other duties - so lets say 50% coaching and 50% other duties (including dealing with McDermott/Academy/loans/player aquisition both yoiungsters and first team etc). It is noteworthy that TS/CR/LF attended first team games under HR and acted as part of the first team extended management - but that ceased under AVB.

b) Most of the youngsters come through the Academy, so the work of McDermott and the circa 20 youth team coaches is key in getting the youngsters to play in the Spurs way which Sherwood/Ramsey/Ferdinand were then further developing with the development squad. It is clear from the likes of Ugo Ehihogue that Sherwood/Ramsey have a big influence oin the Academy - I suspect they and McDermott ensure that the Academy coaches know what they should be teaching (ie coaching the coaches).

c) Ramsey is 'insanely overqualified' (as Windy puts it) for his role in having not only the UEFA Pro licencde (ie qualified to manage in the PL) but he also is a course assessor - and actually failed AVB on his UEFA A or UEFA B qualification first time round.

McDermott is also highly experienced and very well regarded in coaching and managing youth football.

So overall I do not think there is any one single person who can be described as the 'Uber coach' that BC wants me to identify, but I do think that Sherwood, Ramsey and McDermott ensure that the DNA of the Spurs youth development set up continues to evolve and continue. We now have one of the best youth set ups in UK and possibly Europe which is down to contributions from all 3 of those and also the many youth coaches and others working there.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think that I have answered @Bus-Conductor but I'm not sure he really liked the answer ! So to repeat in a different way in more detail :

1. Spurs youth development programme was totally revised about 8 year ago now by Frank Aanesen giving Levy a strategy and probably a philiosophy. He was nobbled by Chelsea before much of the changes wre actually implemented.

2. As a result John McDermott was recruited from the FA where he had a senior role in Englan's youth teams to take the position of Head of Spurs Academy (ie dealing with youth up to the age of about 18). Alex Inglethorpe joined at about the same time as u18 coach.

The first of the youth groups having the full McDermott/Inglethorpe 'education' was probably the 1991 year group as he took them from about age 15/16 through to 18. As an aside this was when I became very interested in youth development as the style of play was very different - as maybe shown best when that year group defeated Barcelona in the semi final and thgen Sporting Lisbon in the final of a youth tournament (these are generally regarded as 2 of the best academies in the world)

3. Tim Sherwood was recruited by HR with an initial job title of Technical Co-Ordinator, which included ensuring that the style of play/tactics/management style etc from youth through development to first team were identical. At that time but maybe slightly later, TS became in overall charge of all Spurs youth below first team matters and took over the reseerves/u21 coaching role from Clive Allen - but at this stage we had ducked out of the Reserves League and .had frequent Spurs X1 games

4. TS first became welll known through managing/coaching the first NextGen team - an u19 squad comprising the younger development squad members and some Academy Year 2 players. That side was very successful until being forced to withdraw by an envious Liverpool club. The side also played excellent football - in the 7-1 demlition of Inter Milan Spurs looked like the continental side playing freeflowing fast dynamic football whilst Inter looked the old style English side of big guys lumping the ball about - when they could get hold of it from Spurs who were dominant. Several of the other games were like this whilst a few were necessarily defensive with a well marshalled Spurs side earning hard fought draws. TS had Ramsey and Ferdinand as his team.

5. Inglethorpe was coaching the 2nd season of Nextgen before leaving mid season to join Liverpool.

Whilst BC is looking for a clear cut answer of who coaches the youth team(s), its not a straightforward answer. What we do know is :

a) The Sherwood/Ramsey (plus Ferdinand who I think follows rather than leads) team have been responsible for the coaching of the over 18 youth teams. I think that Ramsey coached 100% of the time but Sherwood split his time between coaching and other duties - so lets say 50% coaching and 50% other duties (including dealing with McDermott/Academy/loans/player aquisition both yoiungsters and first team etc). It is noteworthy that TS/CR/LF attended first team games under HR and acted as part of the first team extended management - but that ceased under AVB.

b) Most of the youngsters come through the Academy, so the work of McDermott and the circa 20 youth team coaches is key in getting the youngsters to play in the Spurs way which Sherwood/Ramsey/Ferdinand were then further developing with the development squad. It is clear from the likes of Ugo Ehihogue that Sherwood/Ramsey have a big influence oin the Academy - I suspect they and McDermott ensure that the Academy coaches know what they should be teaching (ie coaching the coaches).

c) Ramsey is 'insanely overqualified' (as Windy puts it) for his role in having not only the UEFA Pro licencde (ie qualified to manage in the PL) but he also is a course assessor - and actually failed AVB on his UEFA A or UEFA B qualification first time round.

McDermott is also highly experienced and very well regarded in coaching and managing youth football.

So overall I do not think there is any one single person who can be described as the 'Uber coach' that BC wants me to identify, but I do think that Sherwood, Ramsey and McDermott ensure that the DNA of the Spurs youth development set up continues to evolve and continue. We now have one of the best youth set ups in UK and possibly Europe which is down to contributions from all 3 of those and also the many youth coaches and others working there.

Thanks again SI. I genuinely appreciate the time you have taken to write that, as I do all your development stuff, but you know what, I'm still a little perplexed as to exactly what and to some degree why Sherwood was given the roles as per your explanation as you say yourself it is not straightforward.

Everyone else's roles are quite clearly defined. And it does seem to me that McDermott was the first, and possibly most significant appointment and contributor to this "one philosophy" approach we started taking from his appointment onwards. This tally's with your account, the dossier that we have (now all) seen and the talks and other snippets. This is clearly a vision laid out and overseen initially by McDermott a man with the scope, intellect and communication skills to pull it all together.

Inglethorpe was obviously key at the outset, along with other coaches brought in at the time, but Inglethorpe was quite a high profile recruitment for such a post was he not ? Clearly his reputation/contribution was recognised by Liverpool who went to the trouble of effectively poaching him - not Ramsey or Sherwood (or Ferdinand).

What I have always had difficulty understanding is why we had seemingly a very highly regarded and capable academy directer (McDermott) we needed to create a similar sounding job title for Sherwood ? Why when the excellent coaches such as the "over-qualified" Ramsey and highly regarded Inglethorpe we needed Sherwood with no coaching qualification (or less than those two) coming in above them ? Was this just initially Redknap parachuting in his "own man" ?

Why was Sherwood given the head coach role now, not the supremely qualified and more experienced coach Ramsey ? Is this purely because of Sherwood's more forceful personality/temperament ? Is it because when he did coach at youth level someone (levy ?) deemed him a better coach ? Or is it that Sherwood is deemed to offer the better "package" figurehead type deal ?

 

[Spursidol]

What I have always had difficulty understanding is why we had seemingly a very highly regarded and capable academy directer (McDermott) we needed to create a similar sounding job title for Sherwood ? Why when the excellent coaches such as the "over-qualified" Ramsey and highly regarded Inglethorpe we needed Sherwood with no coaching qualification (or less than those two) coming in above them ? Was this just initially Redknap parachuting in his "own man" ?

Why was Sherwood given the head coach role now, not the supremely qualified and more experienced coach Ramsey ? Is this purely because of Sherwood's more forceful personality/temperament ? Is it because when he did coach at youth level someone (levy ?) deemed him a better coach ? Or is it that Sherwood is deemed to offer the better "package" figurehead type deal ?

Re your para on McDermott - I think you are underestimating the size of McDermott's job, to give a couple of stars its over 200 kids and over 20 staff (and maybe double) to deal with the under 18's. Added to that, under EPPP (Elite Player Performance Plan), the head of the academy (McDermot) is required to be a dedicated position for Spurs to qualify as a Tier1 Academy. - its not a part time job allowing McDermott to be told - by the way look after the under 21's loans etc, McDermott has to be seeen to be doing the full time job.

Moving onto your questions re Ramsey v Sherwood, I'd suggest that Ramsey has all of the technical qualifications but not the personal trats in spades needed to be a top manager. No new thing here - Brian Clough was a great manager when he had Peter Taylor alongside, but not so good without (hence the 40 days at Leeds for Clough and a few problem for Taylor managing without Clough). What Spurs now have is a duet (team) of Sherwood/Ramsey, even if the press (and you) are focussing on the higher profile Sherwood.

I'd suggest that the Sherwood/Ramsey combo works as both have some skills whereas the pair have all the skills. Overall the pair have better skills than AVB by himself - I was nervous that Ramsey's technical skiills (previously taught at a high level rather than practiced) might be less good in PL, but its been apparant that he's more than coped. As an interim team they have EXCELLED beyond that which might have reasonablkyt be expetcted. As an example if we take one simple yardstick of results versus the top 7 teams - AVB had one win anmd 6 losses making Spurs bottom of that minileague this season. TS with 2 wins (ManU and Everton) is already ahead. So the gamble of replacing AVB with Sherwood/Ramsey seems to be winning on that measure.

 

[cwhite02]

I would rather he have both!

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Re your para on McDermott - I think you are underestimating the size of McDermott's job, to give a couple of stars its over 200 kids and over 20 staff (and maybe double) to deal with the under 18's. Added to that, under EPPP (Elite Player Performance Plan), the head of the academy (McDermot) is required to be a dedicated position for Spurs to qualify as a Tier1 Academy. - its not a part time job allowing McDermott to be told - by the way look after the under 21's loans etc, McDermott has to be seeen to be doing the full time job.

Moving onto your questions re Ramsey v Sherwood, I'd suggest that Ramsey has all of the technical qualifications but not the personal trats in spades needed to be a top manager. No new thing here - Brian Clough was a great manager when he had Peter Taylor alongside, but not so good without (hence the 40 days at Leeds for Clough and a few problem for Taylor managing without Clough). What Spurs now have is a duet (team) of Sherwood/Ramsey, even if the press (and you) are focussing on the higher profile Sherwood.

I'd suggest that the Sherwood/Ramsey combo works as both have some skills whereas the pair have all the skills. Overall the pair have better skills than AVB by himself - I was nervous that Ramsey's technical skiills (previously taught at a high level rather than practiced) might be less good in PL, but its been apparant that he's more than coped. As an interim team they have EXCELLED beyond that which might have reasonablkyt be expetcted. As an example if we take one simple yardstick of results versus the top 7 teams - AVB had one win anmd 6 losses making Spurs bottom of that minileague this season. TS with 2 wins (ManU and Everton) is already ahead. So the gamble of replacing AVB with Sherwood/Ramsey seems to be winning on that measure.

This is what I was referring to when I said "personality/temperament/figurehead package". I get the combination theory, I don't agree about them excelling at all. Results have been fine, performances have been largely uninspiring in any sphere, I really don't see how you can say Ramsey's technical skills have proved to have more than coped ? How exactly is that manifesting for you ? These two may in time prove themselves but I have no idea what you are seeing that's making you so bullish about it. We start nearly every game like it's an afterthought, we don't press the ball coherently (or at all at times), our passing in many games has been disjointed as has the relationship between defence/midfield/attack.

I'm not sure, other than the points, what indicators you got from ManU away or Everton (our two top 6 wins), where we were thoroughly outplayed in both games. Everton we scored with our first shot on target in the 64th minute (one of our 2 shots on target in the whole game). neither manager has beaten an actual top 4 side but only one managed to actually outplay one. Both have been slabbed by one of them after tactically inept team selections.

Tactically I'd say newcastle was the only game I've watched under the new regime where I saw any kind hopeful signs for the future, for 50 minutes shape was good, balance was good, tempo was good, work off and on the ball was coherent (helped by the balance of the side).

Perhaps you could tell me what collective skills they have that are better than AVB's ? genuine question as you seem to have some insight, whereas all I have to go on is what I see on a match day.

And I also think it's possibly a bit early for the Sherwood/Clough comparison.