The future of scouting??

[DC_Boy]

to be honest i think BC has a point, the standout player in arsenal side, ie fabregas, was poached , dubiously to say the least, from barcelona using various bits of contract law to do so.. it's not as if no-one else had noticed his talent , it was just for whatever reason arsenal, probably due to recentl winning the league and having Henry in his prime were able to poach him.. its not quite the same as standing on hackney marshes on a wet sunday in january and spotting the next gazza

but he doesn't have a point cos he brought Hudd and Lennon into the debate - whom we got by paying money for - not watching them on Hackney Marshes

as I keep saying if you're looking at the traditional scouting idea- we have one current 'local yoof' in the team - that's O'Hara - and who scouted him - Arsenal

my point was in line withthis article about getting young players cheap/free - AFC have a way better record than us
if you're talking about the traditional scouting AFC and West Ham have a better record than us- add Boro and city and I could find others - so my original point stands again -

AFC got Fabregas cos of the way they do bizness - it may or may not be imoral - as its Arsenal I like most Spurs fans will probably look to the immoral angle

but how did we get Lennon & Hudd - because of the way we do bizness - how do you think clubs like Leeds Derby feel about us getting their players on the cheap because we're a bigger draw than them - ditto west Ham when we nicked carrick & Defoe fro them - while Chelse and others have also grabbed half their academy

again as it's West Ham - I'm happy we grabbed Carrick off them for cheap - but I bet west Ham fans ain't happy about the morality -

but it's bizness - football bizness

the original point of this article was about scouting players using a system of measurements - it wasn't talking that a player had to be a local lad playing on Hackney Marshes or Moss side Common (if there is one

 

[Bus-Conductor]

but he doesn't have a point cos he brought Hudd and Lennon into the debate - whom we got by paying money for - not watching them on Hackney Marshes

as I keep saying if you're looking at the traditional scouting idea- we have one current 'local yoof' in the team - that's O'Hara - and who scouted him - Arsenal

my point was in line withthis article about getting young players cheap/free - AFC have a way better record than us
if you're talking about the traditional scouting AFC and West Ham have a better record than us- add Boro and city and I could find others - so my original point stands again -

AFC got Fabregas cos of the way they do bizness - it may or may not be imoral - as its Arsenal I like most Spurs fans will probably look to the immoral angle

but how did we get Lennon & Hudd - because of the way we do bizness - how do you think clubs like Leeds Derby feel about us getting their players on the cheap because we're a bigger draw than them - ditto west Ham when we nicked carrick & Defoe fro them - while Chelse and others have also grabbed half their academy

again as it's West Ham - I'm happy we grabbed Carrick off them for cheap - but I bet west Ham fans ain't happy about the morality -

but it's bizness - football bizness

the original point of this article was about scouting players using a system of measurements - it wasn't talking that a player had to be a local lad playing on Hackney Marshes or Moss side Common (if there is one

OK DC let's back track a little. Firstly if you are saying that as a club we haven't benefited from our own "youth/schoolboy" scouting network then I'd have to agree. Also that ManCity, Boro and West Ham have. Although it is subjective to a degree. Part of the reason those clubs contain more home produced players is fiscal. ie lack of funds (and pulling power) to go and get the Lennon's, Huddlestones, Clichie's and Fabregases. And you have to ask yourself how many of these home grown players are that good (or would have been good enough for our first team) None of those sides are going to qualify for europe or win a trophy are they.

In terms of scouting - re the original article - I don't think it necessarily applies to one particular age group. So the attributes it describes can be used in the procurement of any player really of any age.

Lastly, where I thought you were being silly, was quoting Fabregas, Cliche, Traore, Adebayor and bendtner as examples of Arsenals "home production line". They were procured in exactly the same way Lennon, Huddlestone etc were. From other clubs as teenagers.

 

[DC_Boy]

Lastly, where I thought you were being silly, was quoting Fabregas, Cliche, Traore, Adebayor and bendtner as examples of Arsenals "home production line". They were procured in exactly the same way Lennon, Huddlestone etc were. From other clubs as teenagers.

ok BC - as I'd hate to miss your genuine insights I'l back track a little too

it was you who brought up Hudd and Lennon - so then I brought up Fabregas & Co

so I wasn't being silly - you were being silly for suggesting I was being silly - and you're completely misrepresenting my argument in the quote above -

I also really resent being called fucking silly when it's you who's being fucking silly - but hey the joys of the internet

 

[Bus-Conductor]

good scouts would presumably be picking up on some/all these things -

maybe it would help some of our scouts though ;-) that's a joke BTW - I've no idea who's to blame for the fact that we don't seem to do as well as some/ a lot of other prem teams in picking up good cheap/undiscovered talent

also would love these type of stats to be available for us fans - as I think it helps our understanding

DC

This was the original post that I responded to by saying that we had in fact picked up good cheap talent (Lennon, Huddlestone, Peckhart, Birchichie, Olsen, Dixon,Rose) etc.

I also qualified this by explaining that the reason clubs must often procure in this way is because there are geographical restrictions. But I need not have qualified this at all as you clearly stated that we don't seem to do as well as other clubs at picking up good cheap talent, when in fact we have been one of the most pro-active clubs in this area lately.

 

[DC_Boy]

DC

This was the original post that I responded to by saying that we had in fact picked up good cheap talent (Lennon, Huddlestone, Peckhart, Birchichie, Olsen, Dixon,Rose) etc.

I also qualified this by explaining that the reason clubs must often procure in this way is because there are geographical restrictions. But I need not have qualified this at all as you clearly stated that we don't seem to do as well as other clubs at picking up good cheap talent, when in fact we have been one of the most pro-active clubs in this area lately.

Hi BC - right so we've got Lennon Hudd - good - agreed

but AFC have done better than us (see above) - City have done better than us - SWP Richards - Boro have done better than us Cattermole Wheatear Johnson - so that's some clubs already - which was my original point - I really can't be bothered to go through all the clubs - but look at Toffees and the bargains they've picked up

Villa too - but I'm quite happy for you to have the last word as I'm tired of this topic now

 

[Bus-Conductor]

So you reckon that SWP & Richards are better than King & Lennon ?

You think Cattermole, Wheater & Johnson are better than Kin, Lennon & Huddlestone ?

You really think Bendtner, Traore, Diaby are that good ? Better than the above trio plus Bale.

Arsenal have picked up some very talented youngsters, for sure but that is Wengers forte. A system that has been honed over the last few years - along with relationships with african academies. You surely don't expect us to be on a level par with arsenal in that respect just now do you ? But all things being even we are making a pretty decent job of following their model (as the 5-1 slabbing by a pretty young spurs side showed).

And as for Boro - well those players are hardly world beaters are they. Would you want any of them playing for spurs ?

Richards is a good player, but not as good as King (yet).

Villa payed good money for most of their better players. Agbonlahore ? again not exactly top drawer is he.

 

[DC_Boy]

As I said have the last word BC

 

[Locotoro]

I think both DC and Bus-Con have valid points but you misconsrue each other's valid arguments. Those teams mentioned ('boro, Man City, West Ham) have produced some good youth players but I think its important to look at the context of how their respective situations.

These teams ultimately have a lot of things in common:

- They have all been pretty poor mid table teams over the last 10 years. Therefore the youth players produced doesnt necessarily have to be of a A* standard. The C class players will be used simply because they are good enough to be used due by the clubs in that current position. There is also less pressure to perform at these C class clubs because of lower expectations.

- These teams have (before this season) generally struggled for money. (Boro being the exception to the group but even they are not big spenders in the traditional sense). This means there is more of a need to develop young players because they are less likely to afford the A* or even A class players. They are reliant on bringing through the C standard players and giving them playing time to see where it takes them. Wheater, Cattermole, Johnson & even Downing to a certain extent are prime examples of this. C class players given playing time and have certainly improved. Whether they can continue to improve is a question to be asked?
A good example of this is Leeds Utd. When Leeds were in the semis of the CL, they spent (badly) on lots of "top" players. Now, they are in a positon whereby the youth development and sale of quality youngsters is the financial lifeblood the club runs on. Hence, we see Lennon, Rose, Taiwo and a few others which I forget.

-These teams are definately unable to compete with the status of the bigger teams. When ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool come calling for the older stars, heads will inevitably be turned. the prospect of winning trophies and playing in a winning team as well as the money is too much to reject in most cases. Therefore, The C class teams listed above will again have to concetrate on youth development.

In comparison, I doubt that most of the players produced by the C class teams would get much a look in at the A class teams (Arse, ManU, Chels and Liv'pool) or the B class teams (Spurs, Everton, A Villa). But because they get the playing time and they are the best of what is available they are seen as better prospects than say Rose, Pekhart. etc

Now, if we look at this in respect to the way we do things. When we bring young players into the team, their careers can go one of 2 (and a half) ways.
(1) They are thrown in at the deep end and after initial excitement as to their potential end up being vilified or pushed out of the club because of inconsistency (Examples: Young, Kelly, Ifill, Thelwell, Zeigler, Ricketts and currently Kaboul, KPB and Taarabt). This is due to poor management over the last 10 years in developing and handling youth players, or,
(2) They dont get the opportunity they should get to develop either on loan or in the Spurs team and end up being sold on. (Examples: Crouch, Blondel, Marney, Barnard) This is generally because the management have not identified the effective from the ineffective players efficiently.
(1/2) The player makes it in the Spurs team as a 1st team player because they have been mentally strong enough to withstand the pressure of being a Spurs player and have stepped up to the plate early due to the levels of maturity shown at a young age. Ironic, that there are only 2 player over the last 10 years who have achieved that feat, King and the guy who went down the road.

Ultimately, Spurs have a poor record in developing youth players because we have never been in a position where we had to in order to survive or compete. ManU, Beckham and co excepted, have not brought through many youth players that havnt already been developed elsewhere in recent years. Chelsea have never been big on bringing through youth players. Where have the Fowlers,Owens and Gerrards of the Liverpool Academy gone?? (They seem to be ending up at Everton now). Only Arsenal have this policy of blooding youngsters in un-pressured circumstances. But that is because their success in other competitions has allowed them to. In addition, Arsenal were not a traditionally rich club either so that proves that they were reliant on the youth players making the grade.

This has deviated from the crux of the thread, but does bare some relevance. The scouting of players is not limited to youth players by any stretch or to players developed at other teams. But surely we should be taking a leaf out of the C standard clubs and picking up the best of the rest and trying to develop them. Because they will inevitably improve and become players of a better standard. But its the scouting of those players that this article discusses. Scouting by measurements not commonly used in the footballing world will inevitably lead to picking up the unnoticed players who could develop into something special.

Apologies for the long post.

 

[SpurSince57]

Arsenal have instituted a policy of having their youngsters shadow quality, experienced first-teamers—Clichy shadowing Cole, for example, and now Traore shadowing Clichy. Although it's not a perfect system, it works very well and has given them a greater deal of continuity than almost any other club. You'll immediately spot the difference between them and us! :grin:

 

[DC_Boy]

fair points Loco

I do have more to say on this topic but I promised I wouldn't on this thread - i'll save it for another time

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I think both DC and Bus-Con have valid points but you misconsrue each other's valid arguments. Those teams mentioned ('boro, Man City, West Ham) have produced some good youth players but I think its important to look at the context of how their respective situations.

These teams ultimately have a lot of things in common:

- They have all been pretty poor mid table teams over the last 10 years. Therefore the youth players produced doesnt necessarily have to be of a A* standard. The C class players will be used simply because they are good enough to be used due by the clubs in that current position. There is also less pressure to perform at these C class clubs because of lower expectations.

- These teams have (before this season) generally struggled for money. (Boro being the exception to the group but even they are not big spenders in the traditional sense). This means there is more of a need to develop young players because they are less likely to afford the A* or even A class players. They are reliant on bringing through the C standard players and giving them playing time to see where it takes them. Wheater, Cattermole, Johnson & even Downing to a certain extent are prime examples of this. C class players given playing time and have certainly improved. Whether they can continue to improve is a question to be asked?
A good example of this is Leeds Utd. When Leeds were in the semis of the CL, they spent (badly) on lots of "top" players. Now, they are in a positon whereby the youth development and sale of quality youngsters is the financial lifeblood the club runs on. Hence, we see Lennon, Rose, Taiwo and a few others which I forget.

-These teams are definately unable to compete with the status of the bigger teams. When ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool come calling for the older stars, heads will inevitably be turned. the prospect of winning trophies and playing in a winning team as well as the money is too much to reject in most cases. Therefore, The C class teams listed above will again have to concetrate on youth development.

In comparison, I doubt that most of the players produced by the C class teams would get much a look in at the A class teams (Arse, ManU, Chels and Liv'pool) or the B class teams (Spurs, Everton, A Villa). But because they get the playing time and they are the best of what is available they are seen as better prospects than say Rose, Pekhart. etc

Now, if we look at this in respect to the way we do things. When we bring young players into the team, their careers can go one of 2 (and a half) ways.
(1) They are thrown in at the deep end and after initial excitement as to their potential end up being vilified or pushed out of the club because of inconsistency (Examples: Young, Kelly, Ifill, Thelwell, Zeigler, Ricketts and currently Kaboul, KPB and Taarabt). This is due to poor management over the last 10 years in developing and handling youth players, or,
(2) They dont get the opportunity they should get to develop either on loan or in the Spurs team and end up being sold on. (Examples: Crouch, Blondel, Marney, Barnard) This is generally because the management have not identified the effective from the ineffective players efficiently.
(1/2) The player makes it in the Spurs team as a 1st team player because they have been mentally strong enough to withstand the pressure of being a Spurs player and have stepped up to the plate early due to the levels of maturity shown at a young age. Ironic, that there are only 2 player over the last 10 years who have achieved that feat, King and the guy who went down the road.

Ultimately, Spurs have a poor record in developing youth players because we have never been in a position where we had to in order to survive or compete. ManU, Beckham and co excepted, have not brought through many youth players that havnt already been developed elsewhere in recent years. Chelsea have never been big on bringing through youth players. Where have the Fowlers,Owens and Gerrards of the Liverpool Academy gone?? (They seem to be ending up at Everton now). Only Arsenal have this policy of blooding youngsters in un-pressured circumstances. But that is because their success in other competitions has allowed them to. In addition, Arsenal were not a traditionally rich club either so that proves that they were reliant on the youth players making the grade.

This has deviated from the crux of the thread, but does bare some relevance. The scouting of players is not limited to youth players by any stretch or to players developed at other teams. But surely we should be taking a leaf out of the C standard clubs and picking up the best of the rest and trying to develop them. Because they will inevitably improve and become players of a better standard. But its the scouting of those players that this article discusses. Scouting by measurements not commonly used in the footballing world will inevitably lead to picking up the unnoticed players who could develop into something special.

Apologies for the long post.

I think you may have over simplified slightly (despite the length of post). Firstly the recruitment of players under a certain age is regulated geographically. This is particularly hard on London clubs.

And players often fail to make it simply because they are not good enough to compete with players that a club like us can buy at various levels. How many players have slipped out of our youth/reserve side lately that have gone on to be great players ? Crouch ? That's probably 1 in 10-15 seasons. And he followed Gerry Francis around if I remember rightly.

The technical quality of players from other parts of the globe is often superior due to various factors (which is a whole new topic but anyone who heard that dimwit Steve Claridge on 5live tonight stating it would have been a complete waste of time for one footed players to actually practice with their weaker foot will understand the type of thinking that limits the average english footballer).

 

[SpurSince57]

Dear God… (Claridge's comment, I meant). You've just reminded me why I gave up on 5 Live years ago.