The Protecting or Unleashing Talent Debate Thread

[IGSpur]

I think Pritchard, Alli, Onomah, and Winks look like they'll get minutes having been included in the first team squad. However with a decent sized squad, people who say Walker-Peters, or Carter-Vickers etc. should get minutes in the Europa or league cup are slightly deluded as the squad players are going to have to play.


Kane and Pritchard have played significantly more first team football up and down the divisions. A different quality of experience to youth tournaments.

I can maybe accept people saying that they will just put their trust in Poch but I don't understand this whole loan argument.

This thread is about how to handle them. Not every player needs a loan, why can't someone watch someone play regularly assess their skills and think,'yes this player has serious ability he is more than capable to receive a ball and pass it in a holding role in the league'.

I don't really understand what you want him to do for you to believe he is good enough to play for us.

Do you think he needs to play against men? Men that are really playing to support their family? If so we can send him to League 2 or the Ryman League. How many games do they need, 6 in the Championship isn't enough, so is it 10? a whole season? 2 seasons to prove himself? Does it matter what level? I don't get this obsession of having to always go on loan.

He is a languid positional DM it wouldn't suprise me to see him struggle in leagues where people are just throwing weight around and being physical. The PL is much more technical and would suit him better. He has gone 180mins against a team/attack that would rival the top 6 in the PL and conceded one goal, but people don't believe he can play in the EL. I have never met a person that has watched him a significant amount and not rated him. Do you believe Oxford (a CB) played well at the Emirates with no PL experience? Before that game I would bet that most people would laugh at the suggestion that Oxford, who has looked decent for Eng u17s, was better than Veljkvoic. now all of a sudden people probably think he is better. I'd imagine most people would now believe Oxford (who wasn't good enough for us)is better than all our prospects just because his manager has placed faith in him and he has now shown he can play in the impossible PL. Maybe that jump from u21 league isn't as massive as people believe as I haven't seen many young people flounder making the step up. If they have that is most likely the inconsistency of youth.

What would you have us do with Bentaleb before he came through? more loans?

Seemingly we're never going to agree on how good Veljkovic is but I'd be intersted to hear what exactly it is you want him to do to convince you he is a good player? Or what the bare minimum is? What is the moment where you say, 'ye he is ready to play' Do you think players can ever go straight from youth to league? What do you want us to do with Onomah?

I also generally agree with your last sentence, but if we get rid of Fazio I don't see a problem with CCV or KWP getting minutes in a dead rubber EL match for example like I think Onomah should have got

 

[npearl4spurs]

I can maybe accept people saying that they will just put their trust in Poch but I don't understand this whole loan argument.

This thread is about how to handle them. Not every player needs a loan, why can't someone watch someone play regularly assess their skills and think,'yes this player is has serious ability he id more than capable to receive a ball and pass it in a holding role in the leage'.

I don't really understand what you want him to do for you to believe he is good enough to play for us.

Do you think he needs to play against men? Men that a really playing to support their family? If so we can send him to League 2 or the Ryman League. How many games do they need, 6 in the Championship isn't enough, so is it 10? a whole season? 2 seasons? to prove himself? Does it matter what level? I don't get this obsession of having to always go on loan.

He is a languid positional DM it wouldn't suprise me to see him struggle in leagues where people are just throwing weight around and being physical. The PL is much more technical and would suit him better. He has gone 180mins against an team/attack that would rival the top 6 in the PL and conceded one goal, but people don't believe he can play in the EL. I have never met a person that has watched him a significant amount and not rated him. Do you believe Oxford (a CB) played well at the Emirates with no PL experience. Before that game I would bet that most people would laugh at thee suggestion of Oxford, who has looked decent for Eng u17s was better than Veljkvoic now all of a sudden people probably think he is better. I'd imagine most people would now believe Oxford (who wasn't good enough for us)is better than all our prospects just because his manager has placed faith in him and he has now shown he can play in the impossible PL. Maybe that jump from u21 league isn't as massive as people believe as I haven't seen many young people flounder making the step up. If they have that is most likely the inconsistency of youth.

What would you have us do with Bentaleb before he came through? more loans.

Seemingly we're never going to agree on how good Veljkovic is but I'd be intersted to hear what exactly it is you want him to do to convince you he is a good player? OR what the bare minimum is? What is the moment where you say, 'ye he is ready to play' Do you think players can ever go straight from youth to leauge? What do you want us to do with Onomah.

I also generally agree with your last sentence, but if we get rid of Fazio I don't see a problem with CCV or KWP getting minutes in a dead rubber EL match for example like I think Onomah should have got

Thank you IG! A quality post - I'm glad you understood where I was coming from regarding the point of this thread.

I'm tired of failed loans, and I'm tired of everyone always thinking our best and brightest need loans. Does that mean we shouldn't do them? No, not at all. But that was my initial frustration in writing this post.

 

[nicdic]

I can maybe accept people saying that they will just put their trust in Poch but I don't understand this whole loan argument.

This thread is about how to handle them. Not every player needs a loan, why can't someone watch someone play regularly assess their skills and think,'yes this player has serious ability he is more than capable to receive a ball and pass it in a holding role in the league'.

I don't really understand what you want him to do for you to believe he is good enough to play for us.

Do you think he needs to play against men? Men that are really playing to support their family? If so we can send him to League 2 or the Ryman League. How many games do they need, 6 in the Championship isn't enough, so is it 10? a whole season? 2 seasons to prove himself? Does it matter what level? I don't get this obsession of having to always go on loan.

He is a languid positional DM it wouldn't suprise me to see him struggle in leagues where people are just throwing weight around and being physical. The PL is much more technical and would suit him better. He has gone 180mins against a team/attack that would rival the top 6 in the PL and conceded one goal, but people don't believe he can play in the EL. I have never met a person that has watched him a significant amount and not rated him. Do you believe Oxford (a CB) played well at the Emirates with no PL experience? Before that game I would bet that most people would laugh at the suggestion that Oxford, who has looked decent for Eng u17s, was better than Veljkvoic. now all of a sudden people probably think he is better. I'd imagine most people would now believe Oxford (who wasn't good enough for us)is better than all our prospects just because his manager has placed faith in him and he has now shown he can play in the impossible PL. Maybe that jump from u21 league isn't as massive as people believe as I haven't seen many young people flounder making the step up. If they have that is most likely the inconsistency of youth.

What would you have us do with Bentaleb before he came through? more loans?

Seemingly we're never going to agree on how good Veljkovic is but I'd be intersted to hear what exactly it is you want him to do to convince you he is a good player? Or what the bare minimum is? What is the moment where you say, 'ye he is ready to play' Do you think players can ever go straight from youth to league? What do you want us to do with Onomah?

I also generally agree with your last sentence, but if we get rid of Fazio I don't see a problem with CCV or KWP getting minutes in a dead rubber EL match for example like I think Onomah should have got

No where have I said all youth players should go out on loan. I have merely been responding to some who have been claiming that Veljkovic's has more experience than many of the other lads. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between international age grouped experience and league experience, particularly because it seemed likely from his interview that he'd be getting a Championship loan. That's been my argument. Loans will work, and are maybe necessary for some, and for others won't be needed. It seems clear that for whatever reason the coaching staff think a loan would be good for him, as does the player seemingly.

I have no idea what will make Veljkovic's ready in Poch's eyes, or the coaches eyes. I'd have loved to of seen him grafted in as it appears Onomah and Winks have been, but I don't see everything, and also know we've got a real balancing act to make. It seems to me that it's a minority of Spurs fans who are actively taking an interest in the youth academy, and wishing more players to get immediate chances (I would count myself in that number). The majority, by far, already think we have too young and inexperienced a squad, let alone with the prospect of bringing in further academy graduates. Just look at most attitudes regarding our midfield options going into this season. We have Mason, Bentaleb, Alli, Winks, and Dier (I won't count Dembélé and Carroll because they've been played exclusively in the AM3). Most posters want us to buy one first choice central midfielder, and a large number are saying we need two. I, for the record want us to stick, allowing for good opportunities for Winks and Alli. The same is true for the wide forward thing, youth watchers want Pritchard to get games and have argued for the inclusion of Oduwa. Most fans however think we need at least one first team wide forward. There is a balance to be made between still picking up results and blooding the kids.

Onomah appears to be sticking in the first team squad this season and thus I would expect him to pick up minutes across all competitions, same for Winks. I'm totally for that. Totally. I just recognise we probably can't do it for all of them all at once, and that some might need or benefit from loans first.

I'm all for a trim squad with space left for youth players to stake a claim for minutes. Ideally we'd have one less defender, but even then CCV and Veljkovic's both have plenty of time I think.

 

[nicdic]

Thank you IG! A quality post - I'm glad you understood where I was coming from regarding the point of this thread.

I'm tired of failed loans, and I'm tired of everyone always thinking our best and brightest need loans. Does that mean we shouldn't do them? No, not at all. But that was my initial frustration in writing this post.

Which failed loans?

 

[DEFchenkOE]

If you look at Barca the most successful team to bring through youth players in recent years, they rarely loan out players that they plan to bring into their first team. It's slightly different for them as they have a B team in the league below, but for them a loan outside the club usually means that player won't make it with them and will be sold on.

Maybe we should adopt a similar strategy, players that look like they will cut it at some point in the first team, don't loan out and instead begin to integrate into the first team as soon as they seem physically ready, 5 or 10 mins at the end here and there plus start the odd cup game.

Players that don't look like they're going to make it, loan them out with a view to them showcasing their talent at that particular level and hopefully getting them a permanent move. Maybe give us a first option to buy back or decent sell on clause should they become a success.

So if you take the 2 loans that have just happened to Rangers, Ball would still go as it's probably unlikely he will make it with us, too much competition and a few youths behind him who are higher rated. And Oduwa wouldn't have gone as he has more of a chance of making it into the first team, therefore should be integrated as soon as possible.

If you look at Pritchard and Eriksen, they are a similar type of player and less than 1 year apart in age, yet the difference in experience they have is insane. Pritchard has not just suddenly developed his talent and I doubt he's grown much in the past 2-3 years so he could have easily been integrated much earlier into the first team imo. In an area where he excels and we've often looked short of ideas it's nuts that he has never started a first team game for us. Talentwise he's as good as Eriksen and is more aggressive imo so should have at least been His understudy for the set couple of seasons.

I don't really see any benefit in sending a player on loan to 3 or 4 clubs like we have done in the past.

 

[nicdic]

If you look at Barca the most successful team to bring through youth players in recent years, they rarely loan out players that they plan to bring into their first team. It's slightly different for them as they have a B team in the league below, but for them a loan outside the club usually means that player won't make it with them and will be sold on.

Maybe we should adopt a similar strategy, players that look like they will cut it at some point in the first team, don't loan out and instead begin to integrate into the first team as soon as they seem physically ready, 5 or 10 mins at the end here and there plus start the odd cup game.

Players that don't look like they're going to make it, loan them out with a view to them showcasing their talent at that particular level and hopefully getting them a permanent move. Maybe give us a first option to buy back or decent sell on clause should they become a success.

So if you take the 2 loans that have just happened to Rangers, Ball would still go as it's probably unlikely he will make it with us, too much competition and a few youths behind him who are higher rated. And Oduwa wouldn't have gone as he has more of a chance of making it into the first team, therefore should be integrated as soon as possible.

If you look at Pritchard and Eriksen, they are a similar type of player and less than 1 year apart in age, yet the difference in experience they have is insane. Pritchard has not just suddenly developed his talent and I doubt he's grown much in the past 2-3 years so he could have easily been integrated much earlier into the first team imo. In an area where he excels and we've often looked short of ideas it's nuts that he has never started a first team game for us. Talentwise he's as good as Eriksen and is more aggressive imo so should have at least been His understudy for the set couple of seasons.

I don't really see any benefit in sending a player on loan to 3 or 4 clubs like we have done in the past.

havibg a B team that your youth players can play in is vastly different to your players playing in the U18s/U21s then straight into the first team.

I agree we should seek to bring players through as early as possible when they are good enough, but the loan system is also incredibly useful.

Does anyone know what the situation is regarding B teams over here? Wasn't there a push a year or two ago for teams to be able to enter the U21 team or something? Did that all die out?

As for Pritchard, I can very clearly remember the fuss around him when he scored for fun in the Next Gen, and there was initially clamour to get him in the first team. However I'm sure that at the same time lots of the youth watchers then didn't actually think he was anywhere near ready, and I can remember speaking to lots of youth watchers who didn't think he'd make it. He's always had talent, but it does seem that the last two seasons have really matured him and he's come on loads.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

havibg a B team that your youth players can play in is vastly different to your players playing in the U18s/U21s then straight into the first team.

I agree we should seek to bring players through as early as possible when they are good enough, but the loan system is also incredibly useful.

Does anyone know what the situation is regarding B teams over here? Wasn't there a push a year or two ago for teams to be able to enter the U21 team or something? Did that all die out?

As for Pritchard, I can very clearly remember the fuss around him when he scored for fun in the Next Gen, and there was initially clamour to get him in the first team. However I'm sure that at the same time lots of the youth watchers then didn't actually think he was anywhere near ready, and I can remember speaking to lots of youth watchers who didn't think he'd make it. He's always had talent, but it does seem that the last two seasons have really matured him and he's come on loads.

I think all or most the football league clubs said no to the B team idea that Dyke was pushing.

The thing with the loans is it seems to be very hit and miss. A lot of players would probably look terrible in league 1 or league 2 in a team that plays a direct or long ball style, and that can knock there confidence and set them back a year or 2.

I'm not against the loan system if it's the right club, I just don't see how it benefits players at all sending them to 3,4 or 5 clubs on loan.

Kane, Mason, Townsend, Bentaleb and now hopefully Pritchard have all had very different routes into the first team. But you wouldn't know that Bentaleb was the only one that didn't go out on loan, he doesn't look out of place, well apart from last weekend maybe.

And regarding Pritchard, I really think he had qualities that could have helped us last season. Especially when Eriksen was having quiet games or not available he would have been the ideal person to bring on for 10-15 mins. But I understand as it was Poch's first season he wouldn't have had a chance to look at him, at least he has now and seems to be giving him an opportunity which is all we can ask for.

Someone like Veljkovic for example, I really don't think a Championship loan would benefit him as he's a technical player and that's not really a technical league.

 

[npearl4spurs]

Which failed loans?

It is my perception of failed loans - and I acknowledge that my perception probably is off on that area. There are many reasons why a loan would be successful or not and any are successful for reasons that aren't obvious. A failed loan would be an injury, but in addition to being completely unpredictable, that would also be a season lost if they were still back here at Spurs. A failed loan would also just be not finding any playing time - but I acknowledge that only a few loans have seemed to 'fail' from that perspective: Mason at Lorient and Sonupe at St. Mirren (the jury is out on how good Sonupe is right now/can become).

Really, the point is that it is sometimes hard to judge what a successful loan is.

 

[nicdic]

I think all or most the football league clubs said no to the B team idea that Dyke was pushing.

The thing with the loans is it seems to be very hit and miss. A lot of players would probably look terrible in league 1 or league 2 in a team that plays a direct or long ball style, and that can knock there confidence and set them back a year or 2.

I'm not against the loan system if it's the right club, I just don't see how it benefits players at all sending them to 3,4 or 5 clubs on loan.

Kane, Mason, Townsend, Bentaleb and now hopefully Pritchard have all had very different routes into the first team. But you wouldn't know that Bentaleb was the only one that didn't go out on loan, he doesn't look out of place, well apart from last weekend maybe.

And regarding Pritchard, I really think he had qualities that could have helped us last season. Especially when Eriksen was having quiet games or not available he would have been the ideal person to bring on for 10-15 mins. But I understand as it was Poch's first season he wouldn't have had a chance to look at him, at least he has now and seems to be giving him an opportunity which is all we can ask for.

Someone like Veljkovic for example, I really don't think a Championship loan would benefit him as he's a technical player and that's not really a technical league.

Except Kane, Mason, and Townsend all ended up in the first team via this route, and looks like Pritchard too will do the same. I'd say they would all see benefit there, and whether or not they might have preferred to be back at Spurs in and around the first team or not, or how those loans have gone they will have played a part in making them who they are now as men and players. That doesn't mean every player needs a loan, but people also need to stop treating loans as if they are some kind of dirty word.

It is my perception of failed loans - and I acknowledge that my perception probably is off on that area. There are many reasons why a loan would be successful or not and any are successful for reasons that aren't obvious. A failed loan would be an injury, but in addition to being completely unpredictable, that would also be a season lost if they were still back here at Spurs. A failed loan would also just be not finding any playing time - but I acknowledge that only a few loans have seemed to 'fail' from that perspective: Mason at Lorient and Sonupe at St. Mirren (the jury is out on how good Sonupe is right now/can become).

Really, the point is that it is sometimes hard to judge what a successful loan is.

Mason at Lorient on the surface looks like a failure, but perhaps that experience taught him things he wouldn't have learnt otherwise? Injuries too may teach something that they may not have learnt otherwise. I don't think there is any marker by which someone can mark a loan as a failure to be honest. Though I agree we want to be careful about the clubs we choose etc. Obviously we'd love players to play week in week out, but surely it's good for them to be going in somewhere and having to earn a place too?

 

[nicdic]

The outlast after todays game calling for further signings just hows how tricky a balance this is. I'm encouraged so far, but think the issue is going to be the fans rather than necessarily the coaching staff.

 

[npearl4spurs]

What I don't understand is - is Carroll really not that good?

I thought both of our games so far were screaming out for him in the second half. I thought Lamela was absolutely the wrong sub in the United game and I thought Carroll should have come in for Dembele today when we gave up the pen.

I think Alex Pritchard is going to work out really well for us and I hope he is fit enough for Leicester. He only played 45' for the U21s so I thought Poch was saving him for the bench. He must really be taking him slowly and getting him fresh.