What's new

The Spurs Youth Thread - 2017/2018

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Jun 13, 2008
21,886
32,513
It’s a different time now than Sherwood era. The squad quality has gone up hugely and the depth. I really hope we have first refusal on Bennett’s buy back. I kind of have a feeling he will reach Townsend level which is obviously good but still not good enough for where we want to go.

The usual retort, why do they have to be on some elite level? In the last couple of years we've had in the squad footballing fucktards like Sissoko, Aurier, the N'Randoms, Fazio, Wimmer, Janssen, a decrepit Llorente, and, if I was going to throw in a few controversial ones, even more. I think that, and would much rather have seen, academy prospects could have largely fulfilled all these roles. Even if they didn't make it ultimately, and were only bit-part squad players for a couple of years before getting moved on and someone else takes their place, that's no different to what a lot of our transfer business does, saves god knows how much money, and for me is preferable to what we have done.

Then you'll get the odd few that do surprise everyone and just keep progressing.....
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
I've never seen anything to suggest that Onomah is one of our best prospects ever. He may go on to have a Jake Livermore style career but even that may be beyond him.

I can't believe people are actually trying to claim that Poch is holding back our youth. Poch has proven time and time again that he has no problem giving youth a chance. The problem our youth players have no is that we're a very good team. Take Onomah again for example. He isn't as good as Dier, Dembele, Sissoko, Wanyama, Winks for central midfield. And he isn't as good as Eriksen, Alli, Son, Lamela, Moura as one of the players behind Kane. So how on earth is he being messed around? Are you seriously suggesting we should play inferior youth players just to give them a chance? What happens when we then throw away points because of that and Poch gets the boot for not qualifying for the CL?

You are no doubt basing you're opinion off either 20 PL minutes spread over 10 games or his loan at Villa where loans don't mean a lot. He has played ONE game in his favourite position in CM for Spurs in a 4-1 against Monaco when he was 18, so unless you missed that game why would you have seen anything of Onomah. If you're in this thread you're obiovusly interested in the views of those people that have watched them, and 95% of youth watchers would rank Onomah in the top 5 academy players they have seen in the last 10 years and probably the best midfielder. What do you think they are all watching or do you just write off their opinion because he hasn't played for our 1st team?

Poch is holding back our academy players. He has shown time and time again he is willing to play signed players, not academy players. When he started here, fans were saying that young players can't wait to join our academy to work under Poch, and we are finding that they are leaving, but of course they're wrong.

You are hyperbolising to make a point. You are acting like there are no opportunities where academy playres could have gotten 20 minutes here and there. You have moments where we're winning against APOEL I think and Sterling came on with 2 mins to go. There were times when Onomah could have got a chance in the EL over Capoue or Paulinho who were garbage for us. Youo also don't know these players wouldn't be better than the players you mentioned. By your logic Kane would never have come through if we were in the CL, as a Kane who had only ever had 2 games for Norwich would not have been better than an Adebayor that had played for Real Madrid. Kane could never prove that he was Adebayor so would have sat there, and while you made these sweeping statements about him. If Wanyama and Demebele weren't injured, you would not have believed that Winks could have played against Real Madrid. How did KWP do after getting his chances via injury, these are 3 players who all played purely because of circumstance. Why not give them EFL starts, or mins when we're 3-0 up, if we lose from their, that is a team problem not an academy player.

Either way the fact that we are a very good team should not prevent academy players from getting chances it should encourage it. Being able to introduced in a good confident team with talented players around, who should have the ability to compensate for any slight inexperience they show. How did Ferguson manage to introduce Welbeck (bare in mind that means he would be worse than he is now) to a title challenging side, which had Rooney, Hernandez and Berbatov? Was Welbeck better than them? Is Welbeck better than them now? And yet Ferguson still saw the benefit in bringing through and found time to bring through Welbeck. But what does he know?

To be fair, Onomah was given a number of opportunities. It's hard to say that he wouldn't have had more either but iirc he chose to go on loan this season instead.

I totally agree with you on wanting to see more players come through and get opportunities but to play devil's advocate a bit and attempt to see Pochettino's side.

There was ITK awhile ago saying that Pochettino prefers to keep young players at the club rather than on loan to avoid them picking up habits and, presumably, teach them how he wants them to play. If you look at all the signings that have arrived under Pochettino, the ones that hit the ground running nearly all arrived in June/July, giving them a full preseason. I'm thinking of Wanyama, Davies, Trippier, Alli and Toby. Sanchez is the only exception I can think of, even a great player like Son struggled in the early days after arriving late. Clearly senior players need a month or so to adapt in preseason and if they don't get it they're then needing more time to perform at their best so it stands to reason that younger players, who are still learning their own game, will need a lot of time too.

With that in mind, how long have these young players been considered ready to be tested out in the first team? If we set the bar at 6months that would rule out a fair chunk of them, I'd imagine, and as we've seen, it's taken some established senior players that sort of timeframe to really start to perform for us. Once you've ruled them out you're left with KWP, Winks, Edwards and Onomah. Winks was pushed through, Onomah wanted a loan, KWP definitely should have played more and Edwards... well who knows what's going on there. 1 in 4 aint great but it's not bad either.

Maybe going to Germany is the better option but there are some good opportunities coming up. A lot of first teamers are going to the World Cup so there's going to be preseason opportunities whilst they're rested after and we've seen from Alli, Mason and Kane that impressing the boss in preseason is a great way to kickstart your Spurs career. In addition, we'll no longer be playing "home" games at Wembley and as it stands, other than potentially another attacker, we're mostly being linked with replacements for first 11 players who are leaving.

I disagree about Onomah's chances. But I think if I'm correct you're saying that the academy players need to be more patient and allow themselves to bed in more? Poch has been here 4 years and we've seen one academy player get integrated, if these players are all having to wait until they're 22, while also getting zero experience from loans, before they get a sniff of the first team, can you really wonder why these players might want to leave while they're 17/18 to go to a league known for giving young players chances, and not staying at a club that claims it.

I really appreciate the insight and knowledge on the youth game posted in this thread and i think its safe to say everyone wants to say our youth players progress but there are a 2 questions i would ask:

1) Do you promote a youth player over a "better" squad player simply because they are a youth player?
Surely we're trying to create a meritocracy where the players that work the hardest and show the best performance will be the ones that get the opportunities. If not, then are we not simply lowering the bar and rewarding mediocrity on the basis of giving youth a chance? If the player is good enough then yes put them in. KWP has shown when he's given the chance that he performs and I personally think he should start ahead of Aurier if not Trippier too next season. But Onomah hasn't shown at senior level that he's better than Dembele or Wanyama or even Sissoko so i'm not sure what the rush to put him into the team is.

2) We'd obviously prefer to not have to buy expensive players when we have good youth options but do you avoid transfers of players that could potentially improve your team simply because you have a youth option who also may improve your squad ? Clubs nowadays want to sweep up all the talent and even though we have a Kane, you can still bet if there was a chance of us getting another top striker on a good deal we'd be making that deal. You have to account for the unforeseeable circumstances and having 2 options is better than one. We've had great potential players that didnt make it at Spurs or even at their new clubs so we can't assume that a player will always have a continuous level of improvement, so players just stop improving and then we're stuck because we've banked on a player that isnt as good as we thought he'd be. (Jenas as an example)?

1) Of course not. But if you believe an academy player is talented, surely you do what you can do either give them chances or at least give them incentives for staying rather than giving them zero hope. THis is the reason Sancho left Man City, but I assume you wouldn't mind that situation happening here? We have become City and Chelsea fans the very fans we've mocked for wasting their academy.
I also believe in a meritocracy, however I thought it was quite clear that didn't standards are being applied to academy players compared to signings and first teamers. It's clearly noticeable, and it was confirmed by ITK, who said KWP has been doing everything he can possibly do and still getting ignored. You believe Poch will give them a chance, just because he has an unfounded reputation for doing and saying that he will, but surely you can see the evidence points to the contrary. He has had 4 years at the club, time on his side the perfect conditions to develop young players and we haven't done any better than any other club. You believe that they must not be good enough and yet German clubs are all over our players at the moment. Why would they be paying for untested inferior players.

2) Don't disagree, then go for players that are top quality. And if we can't get them then trust your best academy players. I understand why fans would be fearful of the unknown but buying average players to cover for injuries is a waste of money. How many do you buy? Let's look at KWP. Some people are still panicking over him being one of the 2 RBs. We have seen that he got barely any chances this season, why would that change if we have 3 next season. But people say, if he is one of the RBs, and the other gets injured then what. We play him. How many RBs do we need in reserve. The manager will need to adapt, he can go 3 at the back he can put Dier there. Why buy average players and block the path of your best academy players, just because you're scared of inexperience. You're wasting money and missing out on talent
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
Im not talking about poch I’m talking the wider picture.

I’d rather have 3 U23s players on the bench than not regardless if they miss some youth league football games.

Well that will just result in stockpiling of talented academy players. If that was the case, you could have a club like Chelsea having Mount, Loftus-Cheek and Hudson-Odoi on the bench and not letting them go out on loan as you 'may' use them. And they will still most likely not use them, and miss out on actual development. As I said they will be kept from loans
 

Hengy1

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2014
2,744
7,424
Well that will just result in stockpiling of talented academy players. If that was the case, you could have a club like Chelsea having Mount, Loftus-Cheek and Hudson-Odoi on the bench and not letting them go out on loan as you 'may' use them. And they will still most likely not use them, and miss out on actual development. As I said they will be kept from loans
You’ve just put in regards to Onomah above that “ loans don’t mean a lot” so if that is true then it wouldn’t matter either way.

CHO is at Chelsea anyway traveling with them to games like KWP has done with us yet don’t get on the bench if we have a full contingent of first team players.

If there was extra spaces then they could get on the bench instead of sitting in the stands.
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
With regards to the Bennetts situation, in general I say good luck to any kid who makes this kind of decision, more of them should.

And this is why I have probably been in a minority of not criticising the Chelsea academy and kids for choosing them. They get great money, they get excellent coaching, then they get sent abroad or around the UK on loans to get real football, which is far more likely to get them a permanent deal away somewhere and Chelsea a better fee.

With regards to Bennetts specifically, I'm perhaps in a minority again, but I'm not overly bothered about this one. I'm not saying he hasn't got some talent and won't make it, or make it at a top division club (here or abroad), god knows Townsend's doing it, but I don't think he would have been good enough for us ultimately, his end product was still very, very unreliable.

I don't need to tell you this, and I know you're only passing an opinion on Bennetts which is fair, but even if he did reach Townsend level, in this day and age that's worth £25m.

A game or 20mins here or there, and he pulls off just one of the goals he pulled of this season where he cut in and curls one in, and all of a sudden everyone would take notice. He'd probably get a loan, and we could get a decent payout. You know that can go to improving contracts, buying better players, and improving our reputation and encourage the best young players to join us, while also developing a connection between the club and fans.
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
You’ve just put in regards to Onomah above that “ loans don’t mean a lot” so if that is true then it wouldn’t matter either way.

CHO is at Chelsea anyway traveling with them to games like KWP has done with us yet don’t get on the bench if we have a full contingent of first team players.

If there was extra spaces then they could get on the bench instead of sitting in the stands.

The development and experience from a loan is priceless. How well the loan actually goes in term of games played, performances stats, don't mean a great deal in terms of of predicitng their future ability. While I would have liked ONomah to have joined a better club, going away, roughing it in the Championship and moving about the pitch and experience football is a lot better than sitting on a bench.

Kane's different loans gave him loads of experience despite only one really being great performance wise. They would have served him a lot better than if he sat on the bench from the age of 18 to 22.

That's only one extra player travelling with the squad rather than them taking around an extra 5 who might not play anyway. KWP's been on our bench quite a few times and still never played. I don't see how putting more talented players on the bench if they're not going to be used. If a club is 2-0 down 9 times out of 10 they will bring on experience to win the game. If a club is hanging onto a 1-0 lead most manager will bring on experience to see the game out. The majority of young players get opporunties when clubs are 3-0 up, but then some managers also use that to give squad players game time.

Maybe I've just become too cynical at this point. Like when the homegrown rule came in, all people started doing was buying English players to fulfil a quota. It didn't help
 

Hengy1

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2014
2,744
7,424
The development and experience from a loan is priceless. How well the loan actually goes in term of games played, performances stats, don't mean a great deal in terms of of predicitng their future ability. While I would have liked ONomah to have joined a better club, going away, roughing it in the Championship and moving about the pitch and experience football is a lot better than sitting on a bench.

Kane's different loans gave him loads of experience despite only one really being great performance wise. They would have served him a lot better than if he sat on the bench from the age of 18 to 22.

That's only one extra player travelling with the squad rather than them taking around an extra 5 who might not play anyway. KWP's been on our bench quite a few times and still never played. I don't see how putting more talented players on the bench if they're not going to be used. If a club is 2-0 down 9 times out of 10 they will bring on experience to win the game. If a club is hanging onto a 1-0 lead most manager will bring on experience to see the game out. The majority of young players get opporunties when clubs are 3-0 up, but then some managers also use that to give squad players game time.

Maybe I've just become too cynical at this point. Like when the homegrown rule came in, all people started doing was buying English players to fulfil a quota. It didn't help
We had at one stage KWP, TOB & Georgiau (sp) all travelling to games.

I’d rather them get a spot in the bench than sitting in stands watching.

Then if you x that by 19 prem teams if a extra 3 or 4 players a season get minutes then it’s been worthwhile.

We’ve sent players on loan to not get into there squads or of the bench anyway.

This is just a extra way to get player from the stupid U23 league and into first team squads like loans do
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I think they are more talking when Sherwood was in charge of the academy not from his little time as manager.

Which is why I referenced the problems with AVB. Nothing great happened whilst he was in his hard to define role as one pf the academy directors that can be attributed to him. He knows nothing about coaching and wasn't even qualified. McDermott, Inglethorpe and Ramsey had far more input into the over arcing coaching philosophy - and actual coaching - that started to produce better coached kids and saw that really talented Pritchard, Smith, Veljkovic, Bentaleb group emerge and hammer teams like Barca and Inter. And McDermott championed players too, hence players like Mason, Kane and Bentaleb name checking him when they got first team chances. Sherwood seemed to oversee loans, which apart from his "Swindon" connection were as bad as any.

For all his blarney ability to schmooze academy parents, his actual tangible contribution is, like every other facet of his coaching career (appointed by Redknapp because he's a "proper football geezer") is vastly blagged, mostly by him. I think Levy sussed him out, and moved him on pretty sharpish, despite his amazing half season "PPG".
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I don't need to tell you this, and I know you're only passing an opinion on Bennetts which is fair, but even if he did reach Townsend level, in this day and age that's worth £25m.

A game or 20mins here or there, and he pulls off just one of the goals he pulled of this season where he cut in and curls one in, and all of a sudden everyone would take notice. He'd probably get a loan, and we could get a decent payout. You know that can go to improving contracts, buying better players, and improving our reputation and encourage the best young players to join us, while also developing a connection between the club and fans.


As you said, I've been espousing the economic sense of this approach as long as anyone, and I stand by it. But that has to work within our own evaluations. As right and wrong as they are. So whilst I appreciate and endorse the approach, we all have our own opinions of who merits those chances more than others. I would still have much, much rather seen Edwards given that game time than Bennetts, because I believe his ceiling is higher and in footballing terms I think he was readier, more intelligent.

I do think with the way our team is right now, Ive get less problem with Bennetts not getting some game time as an AM, than I have with players like KWP and Onomah's careers being completely stifled by the likes of Aurier and Sissoko. Because we have some decent AM's, but those two aren't any better than KWP and Onomah in their respective roles - and that's accepting that Onomah is a long way from perfect.
 
Last edited:

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
We had at one stage KWP, TOB & Georgiau (sp) all travelling to games.

I’d rather them get a spot in the bench than sitting in stands watching.

Then if you x that by 19 prem teams if a extra 3 or 4 players a season get minutes then it’s been worthwhile.

We’ve sent players on loan to not get into there squads or of the bench anyway.

This is just a extra way to get player from the stupid U23 league and into first team squads like loans do

You may be right and it's worth a go. I have now idea how it might work.

My fear, is that it would just allow clubs to be more risk averse. I don't know how often the players you mentioned have travelled but if they put players on the bench, and don't end up using them, then it's a pointless season for them.
 

IGSpur

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2013
7,939
13,758
I would still have much, much rather seen Edwards given that game time than Bennetts, because I believe his ceiling is higher and in footballing terms I think he was readier, more intelligent.

100% agree, I was basing it off the fact that it seems Edwards has no chance here. I'd almost forgotten about him. So in that instance, I would start using Bennetts. However, if only one can get the opportunity in that AM slot, then it has to be Edwards without question.

And agree with you're 2nd point, there are more weaknesses in those areas than there are with our attackers. I'd be confident those 2 players would outperform the worse player in their favourite positions in their first season, than I would Edwards outperforming the AMs
 

thefierycamel

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2014
2,015
5,128
I can't see where any will break through. Poch won't trust them at CM (except for winks for some reason) and we keep spending on strikers despite having sterling, Griffiths and so on. There's no room at CB, especially if we get de ligt who is a kid himself (why not promote tanganga?). I just don't see it, we're basically the same as Chelsea and city now
 

Univarn

Lost. Probably Not Worth Finding.
Jul 20, 2017
2,864
15,279
While it would be hard to convince Poch, and I am sure he will always have a couple token youth players training, I would love to see us get smarter with our academy and loans. I know not every loan is going to be a big bang win but some of them never made sense and felt almost rushed and half baked. Selling players with buy back clauses or loans overseas if we can partner with some good clubs. If we want Ajax's next best thing give them one to cook for us. Buy De Ligt and sell them Tanganga with a first buy option if they get a bid, etc.
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,328
13,917
I can't see where any will break through. Poch won't trust them at CM (except for winks for some reason) and we keep spending on strikers despite having sterling, Griffiths and so on. There's no room at CB, especially if we get de ligt who is a kid himself (why not promote tanganga?). I just don't see it, we're basically the same as Chelsea and city now
He trusted winks because winks proved to poch that he can step up and perform. We all knew this because it was frequently joked that Winks was a teachers pet. To me that says that he did what was necessary to get into the team.

All this talk of loans, first team appearances, training sessions being better representation of a players ability and how can they show what they have unless they are given a chance all misses the point. Poch sets the criteria for first team action and it's clear match day starts are a reward for performances in training sessions. He's always had that approach.

Hell, if I were a manager I would take the exact same approach. A player must prove himself on the trainung field deserving of a start. You dont get hired based on heresay or potential. You get the gig for showing you can deliver what the manager wants. If a youth player wasn't showing me they should start in their training sessions or showing me they are better than the competition why should i start them. If they have the mental fortitude they will apply themselves appropriately and treat every session like a chance. It's complete nonsense to suggest a player should be given a start because they have potential and are young. Thousands of young players with potential come through the youth ranks and a small percentage. Pochs is looking for mental application and he's the one calling the shots
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
You’ve just put in regards to Onomah above that “ loans don’t mean a lot” so if that is true then it wouldn’t matter either way.

CHO is at Chelsea anyway traveling with them to games like KWP has done with us yet don’t get on the bench if we have a full contingent of first team players.

If there was extra spaces then they could get on the bench instead of sitting in the stands.

You get a much better view
sitting in the stands
than from the bench.
 

Anuth

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2008
745
2,346
He trusted winks because winks proved to poch that he can step up and perform. We all knew this because it was frequently joked that Winks was a teachers pet. To me that says that he did what was necessary to get into the team.

All this talk of loans, first team appearances, training sessions being better representation of a players ability and how can they show what they have unless they are given a chance all misses the point. Poch sets the criteria for first team action and it's clear match day starts are a reward for performances in training sessions. He's always had that approach.

Hell, if I were a manager I would take the exact same approach. A player must prove himself on the trainung field deserving of a start. You dont get hired based on heresay or potential. You get the gig for showing you can deliver what the manager wants. If a youth player wasn't showing me they should start in their training sessions or showing me they are better than the competition why should i start them. If they have the mental fortitude they will apply themselves appropriately and treat every session like a chance. It's complete nonsense to suggest a player should be given a start because they have potential and are young. Thousands of young players with potential come through the youth ranks and a small percentage. Pochs is looking for mental application and he's the one calling the shots


I think that's a problem. I don't believe that you need to show that you are better than other players to get a chance to play. How much can players show in training session to be considered good enough to start? Does Edwards has to dribble past Dembele, Vertonghen and Toby consistently?

Do we have a double standard between our own academy and the bought one? This is no offence to Foyth. He deserve to play IMO but when he played, it doesn't mean he is better than Toby, Jan, Sanchez or Dier. My question is why did Poch trust to play Foyth but not KWP? Does it mean Foyth train better than KWP? KWP was the world cup winner, while Foyth was knock out from the group stage.

Poch might have his reason but us as a fan has a right to worry because if this trend is continued, we will lose all of our best talents and we won't be able to compete with top clubs to recruit top young players because we have no pathway advantage any more.
 

faze_coys

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,138
4,796
And agree with you're 2nd point, there are more weaknesses in those areas than there are with our attackers. I'd be confident those 2 players would outperform the worse player in their favourite positions in their first season, than I would Edwards outperforming the AMs

Does an AM necessarily need to outperform though? A Young AM just needs to provide a unique option/alternative when things might not be working for us, which Marcus certainly could in our squad even if its just 10 minute cameos to start with.

CM is a different ball game as there is huge responsibility there.
 

George94

George
Feb 1, 2015
3,661
19,454
We have a pre season tour coming up after a World Cup - I hope Poch takes a load of our academy players and gives them a chance to impress while the players who were at the World Cup rest.

Starting to feel really negatively about our academy. We deserve everything we get, in terms of losing our best prospects. If I were Edwards or Onomah, I'd look for a way out in the summer.
 
Top