The All New Spurs U21, U18 & Other Youth News Thread

[IGSpur]

Good player haha

 

[Spursidol]

OS Report on u18 match today - Chelsea had goalkeeper Brad Collins to thank for keeping them in the game
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/u18-chelsea-away-report-280215/

jack roles‏@JRoles8·
Lost 2-1 to Chelsea, played 16's first half and scored again. 8 goals in 9 games Then got my debut for 18's in the second half. #THFC

 

[IGSpur]

U18s to face Chelsea.

Glover, Paul, Muscatt, Owens, Tanganga, Brown, Edwards, Hayford, Loft, Duncan, Sterling

Subs: Marsh, Roles, Daly, McDermott

I wonde how we lined up. Back line is a strange one espeically as I saw Hayford play as a no.10 last week when I thought he was a RB. I've seen Muscatt use his right foot and don't know how good Brown's is and I think Paul can play CB so I assumed we lined up with something like that.

Glover
Muscatt Paul Tanganga Brown
Owens Hayford
Edwards Duncan Sterling
Loft

If there is any match I don't mind losing against Chelsea over next couple weeks it was that one. Let's hope we win the next lot. Sounds like we could have taken this game. Loft needs to take more of his chances.

 

[Spursidol]

I wonde how we lined up. Back line is a strange one espeically as I saw Hayford play as a no.10 last week when I thought he was a RB. I've seen Muscatt use his right foot and don't know how good Brown's is and I think Paul can play CB so I assumed we lined up with something like that.

Glover
Muscatt Paul Tanganga Brown
Owens Hayford
Edwards Duncan Sterling
Loft

If there is any match I don't mind losing against Chelsea over next couple weeks it was that one. Let's hope we win the next lot. Sounds like we could have taken this game. Loft needs to take more of his chances.

Brown played as CB per OS, so I'd guess Paul at RB and Muscatt at LB with Tangana as other CB

Otherwise I'd agree, although Edwards and Stering might change sides, so :

Glover
Paul, Tanganga, Brown, Muscatt
Owens Hayford
Edwards Duncan Sterling
Loft

 

[IGSpur]

Brown played as CB per OS, so I'd guess Paul at RB and Muscatt at LB with Tangana as other CB

Otherwise I'd agree, although Edwards and Stering might change sides, so :

Glover
Paul, Tanganga, Brown, Muscatt
Owens Hayford
Edwards Duncan Sterling
Loft

Ah, thanks should have just read the report. Nice to know Brown can slot in at CB too. Ye they probably would too but I'd imagine they would have started out as inverted wingers. I assume that the reason this game wasn't open to the public today was due to the large number of u16s playing.

 

[newbie]

Did Chelsea play there under 16s ?

 

[Spursidol]

Did Chelsea play there under 16s ?

Think they had a side with mixed age groups out too, not sure how many u16's

 

[IGSpur]

Did Chelsea play there under 16s ?

From their official site.

"There were four schoolboys in the starting team as Edwards made five changes from last week’s defeat to Reading. Josh Grant, Cole Dasilva and Under-15 Dujon Sterling joined Ali Suljic in the back four, with regular goalkeeper Bradley Collins between the sticks."

I take that to mean three u16s and one u15. As opposed to four u16s and one u15.

We had five u16s but no u15s. However, one of their biggest prospects, Boga, came off the bench who is 18, whereas we brought on two more u16s off the bench and a 17yo.

 

[newbie]

I don't think there is much between our accademies these days although the next two legs will be a good indication.

 

[Blake Griffin]

i asked @chelseayouth about the game today. obviously he's pro-chelsea but he has an interest in all things youth football and gets to see a lot of our lads too. here's a quick summary:

- said sterling was our standout performer, played aml and fw and was always a threat. was impressed by his poise and intelligence
- edwards was quiet, game passed him by
- glover is huge, very commanding and he actually mistook him for one of the coaches in the warmup
- loft was decent, good hold up play and chelsea defenders struggled with him
- jaden brown was better than tanganga
- daly did well when he came on
- roles only got a few minutes
- conditions were bad, very windy, some rain, heavy pitch affected the quality of the game

 

[KingSRV]

I don't think there is much between our accademies these days although the next two legs will be a good indication.

Hi I'm new here (and a Chelsea fan, though I'm predominantly neutral when it comes to youth football, and a massive fan of your academy, which is how I ended up on this board, silently observing for the last year or so).

One of the things about this board is that is fairly insular and having been round the country watching youth football for the last five years or so I'd thought I'd widen the context to give you a better view of where your academy stands in comparison to everyone else. Particularly, considering the upcoming FAYC tie, your south west London neighbours.

I first attended a Chelsea reserve game as a twelve year old in 2004 and was appalled by the standard. I had a youthful idea that between the ages of 18 and 21 some enormous improvement would take place and they would blossom into premier league footballers. It was informative to watch them disappear below conference level, retire, and a few end up in lowly Scandinavian leagues. The poor quality I'd observed then made sense. The matches I'd seen had looked like sub-conference football. (Incidentally a number of that period's players are now progressive coaches, such as McKenna and Chelsea's U18 manager Joe Edwards. Both of whom at 28 are the countries youngest tier 1 youth team managers.)

Ten years later I cannot believe how good academy football currently is and the full story, of which Tottenham is a part, is too complicated to cover here. It takes in the FA youth development, under Trevor Brooking, which prioritised the ages of 5-11, the thinkers of that period employed at the FA (including Terry McDermott) the rise of young innovators slowly pushing out the old boys in academies, the predominance of Spanish, Dutch, German, and Belgian youth development showing the way forward and accelerating the innovators advancement, and finally the club's internal stories. Since 2005 elite youth football has undergone a revolution in talent ID, coaching, infrastructure, and culture. The two main clubs who haven't progressed at such a startling rate were both youth football powers in 2005: Arsenal and Man U. While the latter are still generally strong, although far surpassed by their neighbours, and the former desperately trying to make up lost ground having realised too late they were being left behind, both are significantly behind the modernism of youth football's big three.

EPPP classifies academies over all areas from facilities to general welfare provision but if you were to take the three most important criteria: the quality of talent ID, players and coaches across all age groups; you would get three academies who stand out far above the rest: Chelsea; Tottenham; and City. I saw people saying the difference between Arsenal and Tottenham is the facilities, but they are only a symbol of Tottenham's attitude towards youth development. Facilities mean nothing compared to what goes on inside them.

Over the last decade elite youth coaching in this country has divided into the new school and the old, with the new spectacularly winning. Its culture emphasises intelligence, understanding of psychology, the importance of education and above all the focus on developing technique and character with the understanding this will lead to success in the long term, even if the smaller less physical, but more talented, boys are not able to win everything in junior groups. This is something that for ages has been antithetical to English football. Simultaneously in talent ID the focus has moved from early physical developers (who win youth football matches) to skilful late developers (who win senior football matches) to the extent Tottenham now effectively reject boys who are too big by telling scouts to prioritise on smaller boys. Just as Chelsea do. This also comes with an understanding that just because a boy is tiny or average compared to his peers aged eight doesn't mean he won't grow to be 6'4' like Ruben Loftus-Cheek while still retaining their technique.

In Arsenal's case they have become outdated because Brady wouldn't remove the coaches and scouts who were once regarded as the best but whose methods didn't advance. He couldn't bring himself to be disloyal to them having been made so successful by them. They haven't got worse, they've stayed the same (which of course, when everyone else is improving, is equivalent to getting worse.) They have some excellent internally produced players such as Chris Willock and Reiss Nelson (U15) but these came about more from the advance of grass roots football beneath them than any improvements on their behalf. It may be strange to hear but in many cases Tottenham's facilities were not decisive in swinging a boy's decision to come to Spurs over Arsenal, as they hadn't even been to Arsenal, whose scouts saw and overlooked them.

Talent ID is not as simple as it appears, spotting talent aged eight, is much harder than when they are twenty eight and everyone on the pitch has physically matured. Equally challenging is the age old problem of the academic year group, 75% of youth players above the age of sixteen were born between September and December, why? Because when they were scouted they were between 8-15% older and more advanced than their peers born in August so naturally they looked better than them. When they are seven or eight, that gap is the same as pitting your U14's against your U16's. This is a problem which still persists but it is noticeable Tottenham were one of the first in realising it and you now have one of the most widely spread age ranges, so you're not limiting yourselves to 33% of the talent pool. For example even if clubs had been focused on small technical boys fifteen years ago they would have missed KWP (July births are still very rare.).

I could go on and on about the changes but that's enough for an overview. Sufficient to say Tottenham are right at the forefront of improvements.

Now to Chelsea. 2005 is an important year for them because it was when Abramovich's demands for a successful youth policy were formulated by the newly appointed head of academy Neil Bath. All the contracted age groups from reserves down were formed of players, apart from a few notable exceptions, who weren't good enough. To make up for this at U18 level massive recruitment from abroad was instituted to raise the standard. For this Frank Arnesen was chosen at geriatric Dutch super scout, and Abramovich advisor, Piet De Visser's behest. The most successful of Arnesen's signings were Fabio Borini, Gael Kakuta, Patrick Van Aanholt, Gokhan Tore, Miroslav Stoch and Jeffrey Bruma, all of whom failed to become Chelsea regulars but are now playing in top tier European leagues (if you use the Harry Redknapp definition of top, ie a few are not playing in top top top leagues, such as Stoch who is on loan from Fenerbahce to Al Ain, who play in a bottom bottom top league.)

Far more rewarding for Chelsea was the focus placed on the young age groups from which the team on Thursday has largely been reaped and means that Chelsea's reputation for producing foreign youth teams is slowly lessening. This was where the real hope was placed ten years ago and the standard of the youngsters at U18 level is the highest it ever has been. Chelsea have never judged their performance on the league table since the league side changes from week to week, but the FAYC. In the last three years their worst result has been the semi finals in 2011, where they lost against the Pogba, Morrison, Lingard, Will and Michael Keane, Man U side. They've reached four finals in five years and only lost one of those. This hasn't been done since the Busby babes.

The trouble is no player has gone on to the first team despite a few who have merited the chance. This is not an issue confined to Chelsea as those who until recently have lamented Tottenham's failure to realise the un-glistening riches in the youth teams shadows that begin to sparkle when exposed to light, can attest. It is for that reason Pochettino is one of my favourite manager's right now. At last one of the big three academies has a manager who will trust its produce.

While my fondness for Poch isn't completely disinterested as I forlornly hope Chelsea may be encouraged by his success, my main focus is that talented people are being allowed to fulfil their gifts.

The famous Michelangelo quote is that every block of stone has a sculpture inside it and it is the sculptor's task to find it. The task of dealing with youngster's of immense potential is similar.

For too long English youth development has been wantonly smashing up pieces of stone then wondering why so few of them turn into perfectly crafted sculptures, before finally deciding it was because there are only a few pieces of very special stone that when smashed become elegantly arranged, rather than finding their regressive treatment of the materials to be at fault.

The fact is of those born between 1982-92 there were somewhere between 5-20 boys who had Marcus Edwards' level of talent and 20-40 of Josh Onomah's but they were not allowed to fulfil it because of the backwards system it was filtered through. Considering the financial fortunes swilling around in clubs at the time, to me that is a crime against human talent, that there are people who have that talent in them but will never be able to fulfil it, not because of their own failings, but that of a system designed to extract it from them. That still infuriates me, because that, to me, is the greatest abandonment of the community these clubs were originally set up to serve. That fulfilment of their own members potential should be their greatest priority (not to mention Barcelona, Munich, and Ajax have proved it's the only way to build a truly great football team).

 

[moomin]

That was a great read @KingSRV, thanks for joining the forum and posting.

 

[DaSpurs]

Absolutely brilliant read. Thank you so much for contributing that.

 

[mark87]

You couldn't have summed it up in a single paragraph, no? I'm joking, was a very enjoyable read and very informative

 

[Monkey boy]

Thanks for that great write up. You see, I knew it wasn't me being crap at football that prevented me becoming a professional. It was because my bloody Birthday is in June!

 

[sammyj]

Great reading , many thanks

 

[jambreck]

Great stuff, KingSRV. A superb read. Many thanks for that.

But with respect...................................................................I hope you have a miserable afternoon and evening.

 

[whatislifewithoutspurs]

This thread is really amazing!

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

Hi I'm new here (and a Chelsea fan, though I'm predominantly neutral when it comes to youth football, and a massive fan of your academy, which is how I ended up on this board, silently observing for the last year or so).

One of the things about this board is that is fairly insular and having been round the country watching youth football for the last five years or so I'd thought I'd widen the context to give you a better view of where your academy stands in comparison to everyone else. Particularly, considering the upcoming FAYC tie, your south west London neighbours.

I first attended a Chelsea reserve game as a twelve year old in 2004 and was appalled by the standard. I had a youthful idea that between the ages of 18 and 21 some enormous improvement would take place and they would blossom into premier league footballers. It was informative to watch them disappear below conference level, retire, and a few end up in lowly Scandinavian leagues. The poor quality I'd observed then made sense. The matches I'd seen had looked like sub-conference football. (Incidentally a number of that period's players are now progressive coaches, such as McKenna and Chelsea's U18 manager Joe Edwards. Both of whom at 28 are the countries youngest tier 1 youth team managers.)

Ten years later I cannot believe how good academy football currently is and the full story, of which Tottenham is a part, is too complicated to cover here. It takes in the FA youth development, under Trevor Brooking, which prioritised the ages of 5-11, the thinkers of that period employed at the FA (including Terry McDermott) the rise of young innovators slowly pushing out the old boys in academies, the predominance of Spanish, Dutch, German, and Belgian youth development showing the way forward and accelerating the innovators advancement, and finally the club's internal stories. Since 2005 elite youth football has undergone a revolution in talent ID, coaching, infrastructure, and culture. The two main clubs who haven't progressed at such a startling rate were both youth football powers in 2005: Arsenal and Man U. While the latter are still generally strong, although far surpassed by their neighbours, and the former desperately trying to make up lost ground having realised too late they were being left behind, both are significantly behind the modernism of youth football's big three.

EPPP classifies academies over all areas from facilities to general welfare provision but if you were to take the three most important criteria: the quality of talent ID, players and coaches across all age groups; you would get three academies who stand out far above the rest: Chelsea; Tottenham; and City. I saw people saying the difference between Arsenal and Tottenham is the facilities, but they are only a symbol of Tottenham's attitude towards youth development. Facilities mean nothing compared to what goes on inside them.

Over the last decade elite youth coaching in this country has divided into the new school and the old, with the new spectacularly winning. Its culture emphasises intelligence, understanding of psychology, the importance of education and above all the focus on developing technique and character with the understanding this will lead to success in the long term, even if the smaller less physical, but more talented, boys are not able to win everything in junior groups. This is something that for ages has been antithetical to English football. Simultaneously in talent ID the focus has moved from early physical developers (who win youth football matches) to skilful late developers (who win senior football matches) to the extent Tottenham now effectively reject boys who are too big by telling scouts to prioritise on smaller boys. Just as Chelsea do. This also comes with an understanding that just because a boy is tiny or average compared to his peers aged eight doesn't mean he won't grow to be 6'4' like Ruben Loftus-Cheek while still retaining their technique.

In Arsenal's case they have become outdated because Brady wouldn't remove the coaches and scouts who were once regarded as the best but whose methods didn't advance. He couldn't bring himself to be disloyal to them having been made so successful by them. They haven't got worse, they've stayed the same (which of course, when everyone else is improving, is equivalent to getting worse.) They have some excellent internally produced players such as Chris Willock and Reiss Nelson (U15) but these came about more from the advance of grass roots football beneath them than any improvements on their behalf. It may be strange to hear but in many cases Tottenham's facilities were not decisive in swinging a boy's decision to come to Spurs over Arsenal, as they hadn't even been to Arsenal, whose scouts saw and overlooked them.

Talent ID is not as simple as it appears, spotting talent aged eight, is much harder than when they are twenty eight and everyone on the pitch has physically matured. Equally challenging is the age old problem of the academic year group, 75% of youth players above the age of sixteen were born between September and December, why? Because when they were scouted they were between 8-15% older and more advanced than their peers born in August so naturally they looked better than them. When they are seven or eight, that gap is the same as pitting your U14's against your U16's. This is a problem which still persists but it is noticeable Tottenham were one of the first in realising it and you now have one of the most widely spread age ranges, so you're not limiting yourselves to 33% of the talent pool. For example even if clubs had been focused on small technical boys fifteen years ago they would have missed KWP (July births are still very rare.).

I could go on and on about the changes but that's enough for an overview. Sufficient to say Tottenham are right at the forefront of improvements.

Now to Chelsea. 2005 is an important year for them because it was when Abramovich's demands for a successful youth policy were formulated by the newly appointed head of academy Neil Bath. All the contracted age groups from reserves down were formed of players, apart from a few notable exceptions, who weren't good enough. To make up for this at U18 level massive recruitment from abroad was instituted to raise the standard. For this Frank Arnesen was chosen at geriatric Dutch super scout, and Abramovich advisor, Piet De Visser's behest. The most successful of Arnesen's signings were Fabio Borini, Gael Kakuta, Patrick Van Aanholt, Gokhan Tore, Miroslav Stoch and Jeffrey Bruma, all of whom failed to become Chelsea regulars but are now playing in top tier European leagues (if you use the Harry Redknapp definition of top, ie a few are not playing in top top top leagues, such as Stoch who is on loan from Fenerbahce to Al Ain, who play in a bottom bottom top league.)

Far more rewarding for Chelsea was the focus placed on the young age groups from which the team on Thursday has largely been reaped and means that Chelsea's reputation for producing foreign youth teams is slowly lessening. This was where the real hope was placed ten years ago and the standard of the youngsters at U18 level is the highest it ever has been. Chelsea have never judged their performance on the league table since the league side changes from week to week, but the FAYC. In the last three years their worst result has been the semi finals in 2011, where they lost against the Pogba, Morrison, Lingard, Will and Michael Keane, Man U side. They've reached four finals in five years and only lost one of those. This hasn't been done since the Busby babes.

The trouble is no player has gone on to the first team despite a few who have merited the chance. This is not an issue confined to Chelsea as those who until recently have lamented Tottenham's failure to realise the un-glistening riches in the youth teams shadows that begin to sparkle when exposed to light, can attest. It is for that reason Pochettino is one of my favourite manager's right now. At last one of the big three academies has a manager who will trust its produce.

While my fondness for Poch isn't completely disinterested as I forlornly hope Chelsea may be encouraged by his success, my main focus is that talented people are being allowed to fulfil their gifts.

The famous Michelangelo quote is that every block of stone has a sculpture inside it and it is the sculptor's task to find it. The task of dealing with youngster's of immense potential is similar.

For too long English youth development has been wantonly smashing up pieces of stone then wondering why so few of them turn into perfectly crafted sculptures, before finally deciding it was because there are only a few pieces of very special stone that when smashed become elegantly arranged, rather than finding their regressive treatment of the materials to be at fault.

The fact is of those born between 1982-92 there were somewhere between 5-20 boys who had Marcus Edwards' level of talent and 20-40 of Josh Onomah's but they were not allowed to fulfil it because of the backwards system it was filtered through. Considering the financial fortunes swilling around in clubs at the time, to me that is a crime against human talent, that there are people who have that talent in them but will never be able to fulfil it, not because of their own failings, but that of a system designed to extract it from them. That still infuriates me, because that, to me, is the greatest abandonment of the community these clubs were originally set up to serve. That fulfilment of their own members potential should be their greatest priority (not to mention Barcelona, Munich, and Ajax have proved it's the only way to build a truly great football team).

Another great post in what is one of the most fulfilling and interesting threads on this board.

Thanks for the contribution

 

[StartingPrice]

@KingSRV - may I just echo t'others in saying that was a great read - and welcome to the forum.

I was a little surprised that you didn't mention Southampton's academy. My understanding was that they were real innovators, taking a lot of the initiatives and changes in direction on board before anyone else, and sacrificing an attempt at an immediate return to the EPL, maintaining their status as a yo-yo club and instead focusing on establishing a top academy with a steady of talent. I remember them appointing a team of young Dutch coaches very early in the 2000's. Were everyone else failed, they went out and hired a head coach who was going to buy into the whole ethos of youth promotion. That is why I believe it was so significant that we nicked Pochettino and then Mitchell. On that basis, and the players they are still producing, where do you rate their academy now?

Also, in regard to your own club, there is a certain train of thought that Abramovich sees the Chelsea academy as primarily a source of income to counteract FFP. Would you say there is any truth in this or is it just an unintended mismatch in philosophies or failure in communications between the manager and the owner? In this respect, do you hold any hope in Mourinho taking more interest in promoting from the youth set-up?

p.s. Sorry, but I'd have to concur with Jambreck - I hope your bunch get battered today