David Brooks

[Chirpystheman]

Brooks is good player but he doesn't have the ability to become world class like grealish or eze ... I am yet to see why people rate brooks so highly...

This might be why some rate him. If he can get back to this level he could be class. Who knows what his injury has done to him. He has a very high ceiling

 

[DiVaio]

This might be why some rate him. If he can get back to this level he could be class. Who knows what his injury has done to him. He has a very high ceiling

Also maybe the reason of Brooks rated so highly is the fact world class Grealish made worse numbers than him in Championship and PL too

 

[C0YS]

It’s not a simple like for like, but yes, I can see the differences between playing for a top four team and a relegation threatened team.

I think you’ve gone way over the top with the world beater comment though. He’s had opportunities to do it here, in both counter attacking and possession based setups and still remains frustrating as hell.

Great energy, little end product

Well yes, I have gone over the top. But, he would look much better if he was given more space to do so.

Lamela's end product is more middling then poor tbh. I will compare with a similar player in Willian

19/20 Goals 4 Assists 6 (G/A every 166 mins) Willian Goals 11 Assists 9 (G/A every 168)
18/19 Goals 6 Assists 3 (G/a every 172 mins) Willian Goals 8 Assists 14 (G/A every 161 mins)
17/18 Goals 4 Assists 7 (G/A every 125 mins) Willian goals 13 Assists 12 (G/A every 122 mins)
16/17 Goals 2 Assists 7 (G/A every 105 mins) Willian goals 12 Assists 5 (G/A every 119mins)
15/16 Goals 11 Assists 10 (G/A every 146 mins) Willian goals 11 Assists 10 (G/A every 161 minutes)
14/15 Goals 5 Assists 10 (G/A every 195) Willian Goals 4 Assists 5 (G/A every 362 mins)

These are not bad stats. Pre injury he was actually reaching a point of being very productive. Post injury he has become more comfortable with being a player who brings aggression and bite rather than trying to be an out and out creator, while still averaging more than 10 goal involvements a season. As I expected, Willian, also a player not known for his output but other things he contributes to the team, has a remarkably similar productivity rate. If Lamela was playing regularly he should be hitting about 10 goals and 10 assists per season, those are far from bad numbers.

People talk about Madison being good and all but his stats are not particularly better, in fact they are actually way worse! For a team that has also created more goals than us.

Maddison has
9 goals 3 assists in 3091 minutes. 12 goal involvements in 3091 mins. So if my maths is right, Maddison is involved in a goal every 257 mins. Lamela has never had stats that low in a single season with us (his first season was G/A in every 190m). Similarly, he has also hit a better rate every season than Jack Grealish has this season, Jack is on a goal involvement every 197 mins.

So Lamela's rate is not bad. It's not bad at all. It's just not elite level, but playing regularly he is someone you would expect to be getting around 20-25 goal involvements in all competitions a season. That is very respectable and in line with typical squad AM's in the top 6. The thing is most of these players, Grealish, Brooks etc. are way more likely to do something similar to what Lamela does in terms of productivity, than become the next Son or Eriksen. Those kind of stats are stuff that only very few players can hit.

 

[C0YS]

Unless hes going for a very cheap price, which I doubt, I would wait 6 months and have another look then.

Surely you have to sign a player off the back of some form. And whilst hes been ok for a few games he hasn't rediscovered that form of a year ago.

I think you could say we made that mistake with Jack Clarke

Yeh, in an ideal world that's what you would do. Thing is, we need homegrown players, we probably need at least one or two in this window. The ball playing AM is a position we need an option in minimum, but it's not such a priority that to not get a top class player there would seriously hurt us. Brooks may well come cheap and fill that roll. If he is a flop so be it, as long as the price is right.

Also, wayy to early to call it on Clarke. Might come in and make an impression in the first team. Loans often can be deceptive. Worth noting that Kane broke into the team after back to back disappointing loans too. I don't care how players do on loan, I care about what they can contribute to the team. The best way to find out is on the training field, not on how well people do on loans which are filled with politics and complications. Which can make it hard for very good players to establish themselves.

 

[SpursSince1980]

Like Brooks but would probably prefer McNeil from Burnley (unpopular opinion I'm sure).

I feel like McNeil has the makings of a left wing back. If he could work on his defensive side of the game, he'd be excellent in a team that plays with 3 at the back. Clearly is an excellent crosser of the ball. But just not what we need right now.

Not 100% sold on Brooks. He is a bright young player, but I'm not sure if he is capable of catapulting our team into the top 4. Happy to stand corrected. Likewise, I can see a lot of similarities between him and Cantwell. Just not sure who is better.

When it comes to both of them, I'm not sure we'd have to splash the cash. Both teams I think would be amenable to considering swap/loan deals. EG: Let's say we want Brooks, but will not pay the 30M+ they may ask for him. So instead, how about a 2 year loan with an option to buy, with two of our promising players going in the other direction for the duration (EG: Parrott and Cirkin). That way, should Bournemouth go up, Brooks could return to them. Or if they don't we pick up the option to buy.

Really think this transfer window is going to see us cobbling together some pretty creative deals. As lord knows, we do not have the money to go big.

 

[Montalbano]

It seems like Mourinho wants to get another winger / attacking mid in addition to the existing crop. I think we could very well see Brooks and Eze in with Lamela out as long as we can get creative with their transactions and fetch a decent fee for Lamela.

Haven't seen a quoted fee for Brooks in the press but if he's available for around £20-25m he'd be good business.

 

[Chirpystheman]

Stats dont mean as much. If a lot of your minutes are late in games that are stretched then easy for stats to be more padded. Also lamela at periods was taking corners/free kicks. So again assist stats can be misleading. Also hard to compare players from clubs thay have 30% of the ball compared to us who were having 60%+ under Poch in the early years. People also saying not to sign brooks due to a bad injury are sayingnwe should keep lamela who has missed 100 odd games for us since hes signed through injury. Considering he has 154 league appearances and 220 in all comps to be missing over 100 through injuries is a joke. Brooks signing could be great and i assume Levy would weight it heavily with appearances/injury clauses. He could be better than Maddison who a large majority cry about us not signing. He would get so much more time and space with us. Was the reason eriksen was so good as when we had peak Alli and son kane teams had to much too worry about and allowed him to dictate. At Bournemouth teams snuffed him out as Bournemouth had less players to worry about

 

[Fittster]

I don't understand why Brooks makes sense for Spurs currently. What existing problem with the squad would his signing address?

 

[Johno1470]

I don't understand why Brooks makes sense for Spurs currently. What existing problem with the squad would his signing address?

Signings aren't all about solving 'problems'. They can be about bringing in a quality player who can bring a different dimension to your team or add to the talent you already have. But to answer your question, in my opinion we have lacked a midfielder that is capable of taking the ball and creating opportunities for the attacking players. Since losing Eriksen we have struggled to create clear cut opportunities and currently rely on counter attacks or hitting the ball out right to Aurier to cross in. If TND isn't gonna remain with us then Brooks would be a good signing.

 

[dontcallme]

I don't understand why Brooks makes sense for Spurs currently. What existing problem with the squad would his signing address?

One issue I feel we have in the final 3rd is our players don't play with their heads up and look for a pass. Brooks is a good passer and finisher.

 

[Supersi32]

I don't understand why Brooks makes sense for Spurs currently. What existing problem with the squad would his signing address?

The almost zero creativity perhaps? Just a suggestion.....

 

[PrettyColors]

I don't understand why Brooks makes sense for Spurs currently. What existing problem with the squad would his signing address?

The Christian Eriksen sized problem in our squad composition.

 

[C0YS]

Stats dont mean as much. If a lot of your minutes are late in games that are stretched then easy for stats to be more padded. Also lamela at periods was taking corners/free kicks. So again assist stats can be misleading. Also hard to compare players from clubs thay have 30% of the ball compared to us who were having 60%+ under Poch in the early years. People also saying not to sign brooks due to a bad injury are sayingnwe should keep lamela who has missed 100 odd games for us since hes signed through injury. Considering he has 154 league appearances and 220 in all comps to be missing over 100 through injuries is a joke. Brooks signing could be great and i assume Levy would weight it heavily with appearances/injury clauses. He could be better than Maddison who a large majority cry about us not signing. He would get so much more time and space with us. Was the reason eriksen was so good as when we had peak Alli and son kane teams had to much too worry about and allowed him to dictate. At Bournemouth teams snuffed him out as Bournemouth had less players to worry about

OK so I bring out the stats directly in response to this idea of Lamela's productivity criticisms. I think Lamela is a good player regardless of productivity. I'm just using it to counter the point that he isn't, because evidence points to the opposite. Lamela has never been the regular corner taker, or free kick taker for us, so its a stretch to use that as a stick to beat him on. Particularly as most of the players I used as examples also take corners, and much more than Lamela, who has probably created at most one or two goals from corners. The thing is, yes, Lamela, does probably get better stats thanks to coming on late, but he is very very good at that.

Of course players can improve their stats when they move up to better teams, though the opposite can happen too. It's worth remembering that Charlie Adam was nominated for PFA player of the year. The point I'm making is that the best offensive players of lower league clubs tend to end up being more like Lamelas than Sons or Manes. Countless examples. Ashley Young, Lallana, Victor Moses, Ross Barkley, Shaqiri and even James Milner. At some point the players I've mentioned were very very hyped and where clearly too good for their team (Ross barkley is a bit more complicated but yeh) when moving to a bigger team, the play wasn't so centred around them at they became functional players. Most of these players were hits. Lamela is a hit. But my point is that rarely do players from the bottom half become elite players at a top club, rather they become Lamelas.

I don't care at all about the stat argument, it was just to counter a point nothing more. Madison is great, regardless of how many assists he gets. The point is that his productivity is fine, and other hyped players do not suggest they would bring better productivity.

For what it's worth I am in the keep Lamela and buy a Brooks type camp. It's not one or the other, we need another attacking player Berg, Lucas, Dele, Son, lamela gives us five players for 6 positions. We are missing one.

 

[freeeki]

The Christian Eriksen sized problem in our squad composition.

Literally this.

When we were first linked with Brooks, he was talked about as an Eriksen understudy.

The fact Eriksen went off the boil so much in his last 12 months with us no doubt contributed massively to our decline in form toward the end of Poch. As much as I wanted Eriksen to leave, and was glad when he finally did, we still need a player in that role.

Brooks would be perfect. PL proven, can hold his own despite being 5ft 8, and at 23 is still to reach his prime. Hugely underrated and classy player.

 

[rossdapep]

Literally this.

When we were first linked with Brooks, he was talked about as an Eriksen understudy.

The fact Eriksen went off the boil so much in his last 12 months with us no doubt contributed massively to our decline in form toward the end of Poch. As much as I wanted Eriksen to leave, and was glad when he finally did, we still need a player in that role.

Brooks would be perfect. PL proven, can hold his own despite being 5ft 8, and at 23 is still to reach his prime. Hugely underrated and classy player.

Imagine how much further along we'd be had we signed him in 18 summer. He may have kept Eriksen out of the team by 2019.

 

[SpursSince1980]

Signings aren't all about solving 'problems'. They can be about bringing in a quality player who can bring a different dimension to your team or add to the talent you already have. But to answer your question, in my opinion we have lacked a midfielder that is capable of taking the ball and creating opportunities for the attacking players. Since losing Eriksen we have struggled to create clear cut opportunities and currently rely on counter attacks or hitting the ball out right to Aurier to cross in. If TND isn't gonna remain with us then Brooks would be a good signing.

There is nothing about his experiences so far to suggest he can adequately replace Eriksen in his prime.

Will he one day be able to do that? Who knows. But I think if we are aiming to finish higher, then we need to aim a little bit higher than Brooks. And I agree we really do need someone who can link up play and provide a creative spark. But he is not the ideal panacea.

I hope the lad has an excellent career. And maybe he is the deal deal. But we have little wiggle room for hedging bets on a very limited budget. And unless Bournemouth were willing to agree to a creative solution, then it would be risky to fork over the likely 30M+ to land him.

 

[Johno1470]

There is nothing about his experiences so far to suggest he can adequately replace Eriksen in his prime.

Will he one day be able to do that? Who knows. But I think if we are aiming to finish higher, then we need to aim a little bit higher than Brooks. And I agree we really do need someone who can link up play and provide a creative spark. But he is not the ideal panacea.

I hope the lad has an excellent career. And maybe he is the deal deal. But we have little wiggle room for hedging bets on a very limited budget. And unless Bournemouth were willing to agree to a creative solution, then it would be risky to fork over the likely 30M+ to land him.

It’ll take a special talent to replace an Eriksen in his prime and a hell of a lot of money. Our team has went a different way and modern football of late seems to be doing away with a typical number 10 too so I don’t really see the need for Brooks.

Brooks wouldn’t be my first option either but there’s clearly talent there and if the money is right and he wants to come I would be against it.
We do need the creative spark though and I’d struggling to see where it comes from in our team at the moment unless we see a dramatic turnaround from TND

 

[rebrab]

This might be why some rate him. If he can get back to this level he could be class. Who knows what his injury has done to him. He has a very high ceiling

most intriguing thing here is that, despite being a good dribbler, he often releases the ball very early. Not a trait many of our players have and if we’re playing on the counter a useful one.

 

[daryl hannah]

most intriguing thing here is that, despite being a good dribbler, he often releases the ball very early. Not a trait many of our players have and if we’re playing on the counter a useful one.

He looks perfect for the counter, and holds his own in a shoulder-to-shoulder fight.

Only Ndombele releases the ball as quickly as that. The lad has vision.

 

[spursfan77]

Brooks is good player but he doesn't have the ability to become world class like grealish or eze ... I am yet to see why people rate brooks so highly...

Eze world class? That’s a fucking huge stretch. He’s only played a handful of games in the championship. I’m not saying Brooks is the answer but saying things like that is just ridiculous. I’m not even sure Grealish has the potential to raise his game to the next level let alone be called world class. Kane is world class, Salah, Mane world class, Sterling, KDB are world class. That’s the level you’re talking about using those words. Grealish and Eze are miles away from that at this minute in time and are highly unlikely to get there.