Spurs Youth - 2019/20

[Locotoro]

Two that were particularly painful to lose at the time were Bentaleb and Veljkovic - but neither has progressed. They wouldn't get close to the first team squad today.

My thoughts also...
So for all the failures of our ability to transition quality youth players to our first team there's not a single player in the last 10 years that we've missed out on developing

 

[spurs9]

Not that bothered by Shashoua leaving. Looked okay at u18 level but never convinced at u23 or in the UEFA Youth League. Didn't ever really show at the national youth level either when he was younger. Doesn't have the athleticism or just downright elite skills to really be a difference maker.

It's crazy how few games he started at U23 level, just 9 games across 2 seasons!!! I dont think that was justified and always thought he looked good when played at that level. Tracey has started 39 games for the U23 FFS and is only 1 year older and only 8 of those were whilst Sashouawas away on loan.

 

[IGSpur]

My thoughts also...
So for all the failures of our ability to transition quality youth players to our first team there's not a single player in the last 10 years that we've missed out on developing

I've bitten. We've been here before but you can't honestly believe that different chances can't lead to different outcomes. You're implying that any path in life is already written. Like Sancho would be at the level he's at now regardless of whether he stayed at City, came to us or went to Dortmund. Even Poch has admitted, had Kane's freekick not taken a deflection off someone's head against Villa and gone in Poch might not even be here for us to have a debate about his use of the academy.

Players not making it elsewhere, doesn't mean they were never good enough while they were here.

 

[IGSpur]

It's crazy how few games he started at U23 level, just 9 games across 2 seasons!!! I dont think that was justified and always thought he looked good when played at that level. Tracey has started 39 games for the U23 FFS and is only 1 year older and only 8 of those were whilst Sashouawas away on loan.

As someone said above, I wouldnt be surprised to see Tracey get more of a chance than Edwards and Shashoua.

Imagine a player that is 'rated' and taken on tour is only attracting the attention of League 2 clubs for loans, while those who aren't getting chances are wanted by Segunda and Serie A clubs. No surprise the foreign clubs are taking risks on risk taking players, while we 'take risks' on those that don't take risks

 

[Locotoro]

I've bitten. We've been here before but you can't honestly believe that different chances can't lead to different outcomes. You're implying that any path in life is already written. Like Sancho would be at the level he's at now regardless of whether he stayed at City, came to us or went to Dortmund. Even Poch has admitted, had Kane's freekick not taken a deflection off someone's head against Villa and gone in Poch might not even be here for us to have a debate about his use of the academy.

Players not making it elsewhere, doesn't mean they were never good enough while they were here.

There is a lot of criticism being levelled at the club, academy, manager for not using the youth, and when we do promote youth Poch is criticised for the type of youth player, and how he uses them. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that life is full of variables I'm looking back over a 10 year period and asking if our youth prospects are so good why has not a single one achieved the level of our current team? Surely for everything that we keep doing wrong and for all of these quality players that we've failed there must be at least one somewhere that has proved the club wrong for letting him go? And if not why not?

Could it be that because our current squad are better than those youth players we're not going to see many youth through and the ones that do are with the squad currently. Or we're crap at developing in which case they won't be good enough to come through anyway.

I know there's a lot to improve in the set up but I sometimes feel like people have a go for the sake of it when the evidence over 10 even 15 years of youth products wouldn't get anywhere near our current side

 

[Locotoro]

As someone said above, I wouldnt be surprised to see Tracey get more of a chance than Edwards and Shashoua.

Imagine a player that is 'rated' and taken on tour is only attracting the attention of League 2 clubs for loans, while those who aren't getting chances are wanted by Segunda and Serie A clubs. No surprise the foreign clubs are taking risks on risk taking players, while we 'take risks' on those that don't take risks

Maybe because we have more to risk by taking those risks, whereas those clubs have less to risk and less money to boot and have to take risks and

 

[Flashspur]

Tell me about one youth player that’s gone on and shot the lights out elsewhere? Trust the coaching team, they know what’s best.

 

[spud]

Tell me about one youth player that’s gone on and shot the lights out elsewhere? Trust the coaching team, they know what’s best.

I have no dog in this fight - and my knowledge of our youth players and structure is at best peripheral - but you have to concede that IGSpur, therhinospeaks and others might have a point.

The fact that apparently none of our youth players has left us and gone on to great things may be indicative of the fact that they lacked the 'something' to make it, but it isn't necessarily conclusive. Individual coaches, or the coaching structure, or the coaching philosophy, may not have the wherewithal to guide a precociously talented player to achieving his potential. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a player's development could be impeded under a particular coach or regime.

Even if that is not the case, a young player spending formative years in an environment unsuitable to his development is, at the very least, not going to develop to the required degree. Once you have spent time in one place you can't get that time back, and the coaching and/or environment that was required for your development then may not serve the same purpose now. That time - and the development that was required at that time to take a young player from being precocious to achieving his potential and becoming established - has gone, never to be recovered. Instead of possibly being an international, he ends up a journeyman.

So it may not be a vindication of our development programme that nobody has hit the heights after having left us. It may instead be a condemnation of it. We can only guess which, if either, is the case.

 

[Sweech]

I have no dog in this fight - and my knowledge of our youth players and structure is at best peripheral - but you have to concede that IGSpur, therhinospeaks and others might have a point.

The fact that apparently none of our youth players has left us and gone on to great things may be indicative of the fact that they lacked the 'something' to make it, but it isn't necessarily conclusive. Individual coaches, or the coaching structure, or the coaching philosophy, may not have the wherewithal to guide a precociously talented player to achieving his potential. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a player's development could be impeded under a particular coach or regime.

Even if that is not the case, a young player spending formative years in an environment unsuitable to his development is, at the very least, not going to develop to the required degree. Once you have spent time in one place you can't get that time back, and the coaching and/or environment that was required for your development then may not serve the same purpose now. That time - and the development that was required at that time to take a young player from being precocious to achieving his potential and becoming established - has gone, never to be recovered. Instead of possibly being an international, he ends up a journeyman.

So it may not be a vindication of our development programme that nobody has hit the heights after having left us. It may instead be a condemnation of it. We can only guess which, if either, is the case.

The likes of Reo Griffiths, Nya Kirby, and Keanan Bennets all left to a lot of teeth gnashing that they left due to the club not giving youth a chance and then went and...still didn’t play. Even though a couple went to clubs renowned for playing youth like Lyon.

The problem I find with the opportunities argument is it’s available ad infinitum - It’s like an atheist being proven wrong because he can’t prove that there isn’t a god. The thing is the burden of proof is on the person saying the player is good. If that player never turns into anything I’d say that person was wrong - turning to ifs ands or maybes doesn’t sway my opinion personally.

Using the opportunity argument we can basically pick any player in the youth squad and claim that they would have been the next best thing and have a free opportunity to have a whinge whenever we like.

For a bit of fun I’d like to say Shiloh Tracy would be better than Trezeguet if Poch would only just give him a chance FFS.

 

[Locotoro]

I have no dog in this fight - and my knowledge of our youth players and structure is at best peripheral - but you have to concede that IGSpur, therhinospeaks and others might have a point.

The fact that apparently none of our youth players has left us and gone on to great things may be indicative of the fact that they lacked the 'something' to make it, but it isn't necessarily conclusive. Individual coaches, or the coaching structure, or the coaching philosophy, may not have the wherewithal to guide a precociously talented player to achieving his potential. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a player's development could be impeded under a particular coach or regime.

Even if that is not the case, a young player spending formative years in an environment unsuitable to his development is, at the very least, not going to develop to the required degree. Once you have spent time in one place you can't get that time back, and the coaching and/or environment that was required for your development then may not serve the same purpose now. That time - and the development that was required at that time to take a young player from being precocious to achieving his potential and becoming established - has gone, never to be recovered. Instead of possibly being an international, he ends up a journeyman.

So it may not be a vindication of our development programme that nobody has hit the heights after having left us. It may instead be a condemnation of it. We can only guess which, if either, is the case.

But we have produced precociously talented players from our youth set-up. The point is that they are already in our first team. So clearly some players who have that something are making it and others that do not have it are not.

 

[coys200]

It’s a very interesting question what would have happened to Kane had he come through now. Honestly don’t know. Because the feeling is he wouldn’t have got a chance. Yet Parrott does appear to be getting a chance. I think you just have to accept we are buying £60m players now in attacking areas and trying to sign “Galacticos”. For a flair attacking player to breakthrough now they will have to be exceptional. In Sessegnon we’ve bought possibly one of the most highly rated England youth talents out there. Yet when all fit he will struggle to even make matchday squad. So any coming player now will have to be better than Sessegnon Clarke or Parrott just to get a look in.

 

[Locotoro]

It’s a very interesting question what would have happened to Kane had he come through now. Honestly don’t know. Because the feeling is he wouldn’t have got a chance. Yet Parrott does appear to be getting a chance. I think you just have to accept we are buying £60m players now in attacking areas and trying to sign “Galacticos”. For a flair attacking player to breakthrough now they will have to be exceptional. In Sessegnon we’ve bought possibly one of the most highly rated England youth talents out there. Yet when all fit he will struggle to even make matchday squad. So any coming player now will have to be better than Sessegnon Clarke or Parrott just to get a look in.

So essentially we're raising the bar for our youth program. That can only be a positive thing whichever way you look at it

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

I've bitten. We've been here before but you can't honestly believe that different chances can't lead to different outcomes. You're implying that any path in life is already written. Like Sancho would be at the level he's at now regardless of whether he stayed at City, came to us or went to Dortmund. Even Poch has admitted, had Kane's freekick not taken a deflection off someone's head against Villa and gone in Poch might not even be here for us to have a debate about his use of the academy.

Players not making it elsewhere, doesn't mean they were never good enough while they were here.

Cream always rises to the top.

 

[Blake Griffin]

Cream always rises to the top.

people say this but then at the same time will for example lay praise at poch's door for making kane who he is today, you can't have both.

if soldado and adebayor had performed as we'd hoped and kane was let go - probably to a championship side as his stock wasn't very high coming off the back of two less than stellar loans - then who knows how that would have effected him, it would've been a long road back and no one knows where he would be now.

 

[Blake Griffin]

The likes of Reo Griffiths, Nya Kirby, and Keanan Bennets all left to a lot of teeth gnashing that they left due to the club not giving youth a chance and then went and...still didn’t play. Even though a couple went to clubs renowned for playing youth like Lyon.

The problem I find with the opportunities argument is it’s available ad infinitum - It’s like an atheist being proven wrong because he can’t prove that there isn’t a god. The thing is the burden of proof is on the person saying the player is good. If that player never turns into anything I’d say that person was wrong - turning to ifs ands or maybes doesn’t sway my opinion personally.

Using the opportunity argument we can basically pick any player in the youth squad and claim that they would have been the next best thing and have a free opportunity to have a whinge whenever we like.

For a bit of fun I’d like to say Shiloh Tracy would be better than Trezeguet if Poch would only just give him a chance FFS.

griffiths and bennetts only left a year ago so it's still pretty early days and in the latter's case he is now making gladbach's matchday squad which is more than he would have gotten here. i don't think there was much "teeth gnashing" on here about reo leaving, most were still on the fence about him but he was the latest in a worrying trend of players choosing to go elsewhere. kirby is still young, same age as tob, most are also aware that he didn't leave for better chances, he left for chelsea and when spurs put a block on that he had to find another club.

the players that come through can roughly be separated into three groups - the best, the good and the rest. the best are being integrated either successfully or unsuccessfully into the first team, our record here is hit and miss and i think we could be doing better but it is what it is. then you have the good players, those where you can build their value up over time with smart loans and a bit of 1st team exposure(like what tanganga has just had for example), here we seem to be failing quite miserably and for some reason a lot of these players are being let go before "the rest" are.

@IGSpur made a salient point, look at the clubs this group of players are attracting compared to those we're choosing to keep on, what monetary value are we realistically hoping to build by loaning average players to england's 3rd and 4th tiers? there will be the odd exception and i think roles might be one but generally it's a waste of time for everyone involved. a case in point is someone like connor ogilvie, he was sent on endless loans, given new deals and then at the end of it he leaves on a free at the age of 23 to the same level he's just been on loan at for the past few years. does anyone really benefit from this approach?

you can keep bringing up this point that none of the players to have left have gone on to become superstars elsewhere, yet, but we're still not maximising the talent we do have and surely that's just bad business - which is pretty much all that anyone here is pointing out.

 

[Locotoro]

people say this but then at the same time will for example lay praise at poch's door for making kane who he is today, you can't have both.

if soldado and adebayor had performed as we'd hoped and kane was let go - probably to a championship side as his stock wasn't very high coming off the back of two less than stellar loans - then who knows how that would have effected him, it would've been a long road back and no one knows where he would be now.

You can have it both ways because it's a combination of both. If a player has talent and the right mentality even if they drop down to League 2 they will be noticed very quickly.
Look at Adam Smith and Charlie Daniels, they were let go but applied themselves appropriately and have managed to find themselves in the Premier League.

 

[Blake Griffin]

You can have it both ways because it's a combination of both. If a player has talent and the right mentality even if they drop down to League 2 they will be noticed very quickly.
Look at Adam Smith and Charlie Daniels, they were let go but applied themselves appropriately and have managed to find themselves in the Premier League.

if tim sherwood was given the permanent manager's job instead of hiring pochettino then would kane be as good as he is now or not? if the cream always rises to the top as you suggest then your answer surely must be yes, in which case poch has, by definition, had little part to play in where kane is now.

 

[beats1]

Cream rises to the top is exactly why english football has produced so few footballers despite having great youth teams that have dominated world youth football

i dont even know where to start with cream rises to the top and how wrong it is

 

[Phil_2.0]

Running an Academy is about dealing with young people and investing in them to hopefully benefit the future of the club. A secondary benefit or, you may consider it a cost, will be about the development of people that won't always end up having any monetary or net asset value to the club as a whole. Its an institution of learning, not a spreadsheet where players get deleted as soon as its decided they will not reach the first eleven or raise much money for the club.

There are personalities involved where management and coaches will believe in certain players and allow them to continue their development within the institution just because they like them, their character and believe they contribute to the culture of Tottenham Hotspur. This is not the primary goal of an Academy but you have to remember it is a school/college and the right process is to try to put in the practices and standards that mean every person walking through that door will try to be improved and developed regardless of talent, so when you find one player that extreme talent he will go onto play for the first team.

When questioning the decisions about running an Academy and why certain players are kept on and others released or moved on will not be down to Coaches having terrible talent identification skills, it will be down to a myriad of factors. The goal of John McDermott is to set up an environment where he develops every person through that door, even when he sees somebody who will create no Net Asset value to the club as long as the process is followed then there is no issue.

Not every young person will need to be taught or learn in the same way, some will have to take different paths.

 

[coys200]