What's new

Was scrapping the Reserve Team a good idea

gusrowe

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2005
836
809
I just thought I would post this for comment and debate.

We scrapped our reserve team 2 seasons ago and have since relied on friendly matches and loans for our reserves. I am not too sure if this has worked in our favour.

Our reserves no longer play weekly competitive matches and if they go on loan to other lower teams they may get experience, if chosen to play, but Spurs lose their services from anything from a month to a season. Bearing in mind we are now in the CL with increased matches to play and also our current injury list, is the Club restricting its options.

Also the lack of weekly competitive reserve team football must have a bearing on the overall fitness of the squad.

I will be interested to see your comments. I for one would like to see the re-establishment of our reserve team.
 

BillyWhizz

SC Supporter
Nov 16, 2006
1,179
888
I agree with you mate (although I still think getting the more promising kids out on loan is a good idea) having reserve games is a great way getting first team players back to match fitness and testing out if anything is going to get 'tweaked'. At the moment all of our injured players are just going to get thrown straight back into competitive games.

Also I don't understand the decision to loan Caulker out right now and its not like it was nearing the deadline for loans that is in November!
 

chadders

Active Member
Mar 21, 2009
322
191
With the 25 man squad rule and teams losing players with injury I am not really sure how strong and competitive reserve team football is and would be and maybe it is more beneficial for players to go out on loan for more competitive fixtures.

With this in mind maybe they should scrap Youth team football (U18) and reserve team football and have competitive U21 leagues, this maybe more beneficial in the long run. Maybe a limitation on having 2 overage players in the squad aswell for fitness but if we are honest not many senior footballers will settle or be happy with Reserve team football hence I think its a nonsense in the game at this level.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
As I understand it, the decision was taken due to a number of factors, not least of which was that the 'patchy' standard of the reserve league meant that the young players were not getting experience that would help their development, and fitness could be achieved by a combination of training and specifically arranged matches.

I am all in favour of our younger players going out on loan for 'real life' experience in situations where they are competing with and against players who may be dependent upon appearance and/or win bonuses to pay the mortgage; particularly at a higher level than they have played at before. If they are not getting a game, then they can be recalled and farmed out to a more appropriate club - or it tells us that something is lacking in them and that they may not be good enough for us. In either case, it has to be useful for their development and our assessment of them.

So no, given these factors, I don't want us to rejoin the reserve league.

ps: I know it's semantics, but we haven't scrapped the reserve team; we've just withdrawn from a competition.
 

Krafty

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2004
4,768
2,098
There are two problems with reserve team football.

1. Quality
2. Scheduling

Reserve team football involves youngsters not quite ready for the first team, and first teamers coming back from injury. As such the level of play, and more importantly the tempo, is not going to match competitive games. Considering the number of youth players that make it (not just at our club) and having seen a couple of our youth/reserve games, it doesnt aid player development and its not going to make players really match sharp.

So lets say its useful getting players playing together and knowing each others games, and for people just back form injury getting some minutes under their belt.

Then we come to point 2, scheduling. The last year we had reserves, Harry's first season, we had something daft like no reserve games between the end of October and the start of March because of clashes with first team fixtures, unavailability of reserve pitches due to the weather or the host club needing it, and then we had 7 reserve games in two and a half weeks, plus the usual first team games.

No one really complained last season, and someone like Gareth Bale came into the team and did well without having had a run of reserve games.

Our kids will do a lot better with competitive games under their belt (but they do need to be playing)
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,316
13,891
I'm in agreement with spud on this. In addition to the points he has already raised, and from a more commercial perspective, it also gives our reserve players more exposure to the league. When we decide to sell a player's they will already be known to the managers of the league and that helps create interest and increase our transfer income.

My only concern is that we are not creating a youth setup that is trained to play a specific system our style in the same way barca and arsenal do. Arsenal produce players that fit a system and know their role, most are average players but they still know their role. Djourou, senderos, traore? These are average players but they know their place in the setup. Our players don't get to play which each other week in week out.
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
My only concern is that we are not creating a youth setup that is trained to play a specific system our style in the same way barca and arsenal do.

That is a really good point. In mitigation, you could say that (if that is the way we coach our youth teams) they have this experience right up to the point where they are loaned out, but there is obviously a gap between that point and any first team squad involvement.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
As others have implied, I think the flaw in your argument is the description of reserve league matches as "competitive" games. The whole problem is that they weren't. They were fitness run-outs.

That might be useful for a seasoned squad player, but it's pretty pointless for a young player who needs to experience fierce, genuine competition in order to develop.
 

spurdownunder

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,772
74
As others have implied, I think the flaw in your argument is the description of reserve league matches as "competitive" games. The whole problem is that they weren't. They were fitness run-outs.

That might be useful for a seasoned squad player, but it's pretty pointless for a young player who needs to experience fierce, genuine competition in order to develop.

It seems to work for those butt lovers from down the road, as proved last week.

I guess it's a matter of weighing up 'learning to play our system' vs 'good solid competitive experience'.

There are pro's and con's of each.

I think this year, we're seeing that for our club, it's probably best to reinvent the reserves so that our fringe youngsters can get used to our style of play and play with the odd senior team player who's coming back from injury. That way, they're hopefully ready to just slot in when called upon.
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
I was surprised when we opted out of the reserve set-up but was convinced at the time by arguments such as Davidmatzdorf put forward.
Now I'm not so sure.
A lot of our youngsters are farmed out but do not play regularly. Their training and selection is at best random and is not under our direct supervision.
We need to keep a closer eye on them and have more input into their progress which we can't have if they are sent as Caulker has on a season long loan.

The needs of the host team will always come first and in some ways regularly playing under close in house supervision in our reserves under a Spurs coach might be more beneficial and serve the needs of both the club and the player better.
 

Bobishism

*****istrator
Aug 23, 2004
15,035
126
As others have implied, I think the flaw in your argument is the description of reserve league matches as "competitive" games. The whole problem is that they weren't. They were fitness run-outs.

That might be useful for a seasoned squad player, but it's pretty pointless for a young player who needs to experience fierce, genuine competition in order to develop.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,545
45,012
The use of reserve games as fitness work for returning first team players is pretty irrelevant. We regularly schedule Spurs 11 games against lower-league sides in order to specifically provide first-team players with fitness work.

Also, scrapping the reserve team doesn't mean the players don't train - they gain plenty of fitness with normal scheduled training. The arranged matches provide them with the cliched 'match sharpness'.

Sending the young players out on loan is far more valuable than wasting them on pointless and patchy reserve team football.
 

spur1960

New Member
Sep 21, 2010
2
0
Reserve Games

Seen a lot of reserve games over the years but now they are like youth team games The 10 mill players wont play in the stiffs and if they do its a coast against the youngsters of the other teams Used to watch the Prem Res League a few years ago (dont know if its still going) but it ended up nearly as a youth league Years ago we had 1st team Reserves A Team and youth team and we had a lot more youngsters coming through Now most youngsters never get to the first team as we just go and buy someone Its a shame really
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
Now most youngsters never get to the first team as we just go and buy someone Its a shame really

You make it sound as though there was a time when we had a steady stream of kids graduating through the ranks from youth to first team. There wasn't. There never has been. We have always been a buying club with the occasional very talented youngster making it.

The withdrawal of the reserves from the league (that you yourself intimate is worthless) is an attempt - for the first time - to change that.
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,316
13,891
The alternative is the Real Madrid approach. Sell the players with a buy back option to get them off the wage bill and get them to a team that can help them develop over 2 years and sign them back if they can cut it.

or

Create a team in the Scottish league and loan the youth players to play for the team
 

StokeSpur

Banned
Aug 10, 2005
3,053
1
I think it depends on how long the manager thinks he'l be at the club.

For instance, lets take Wenger, he has built replicas of the first team all through the ranks, his reserves are a blue print for the first team and so on and so on, his was a long term job and he made that the set up. with playing reserve team football he could spend years training players as replicas for the first team, they would get to know each other and what's expected of them when they are required to fill in for the first team.

Harry see's his job differently, i guess he thinks from contract to contract and believes that his young players will benefit from playing first team football at clubs in a lower division, this maximises the chance of them getting playing time because they will be better players than the lower club has, therefore it stands to reason that they will play and get experience. What they wont get however is any idea of how his future team mates play or how the clubs system is played.

i agree with others who like a reserve team, it has more benefits than meets the eye and the obvious ones like giving recovering players time in a match while observing their progress.

I just think Harry thinks this is the best way for how long he's going to be here. the trouble is, when he leaves he wont leave us anything in the way of continuity. What we have needed for a very long time is a manager who will be with us for a very very long time like Fergie and Wenger who can implement a solid working structure all the way down the ranks.
 
Top