Spurs Youth 2019/20

[tbonepremier]

Cool, but to be honest we need to do more. Much more.

Nadueke, Bennet and Edwards more or less said directly.

What we need to do, is to play them. Always have 2-5 in the XXV man squad and always have 1-3 in the XI man match day squad. No excuses.

As easy as that.

That alone would give the best dozen or so spots to fight for, both in the first team training regime and in the match day squads. A rabbit to chase in their development every single day.

It's a fucking travesty having youth players leave us, because we cannot do the above mentioned. In particular when the worst 30% of the XXV man squad are so shit, and in many instances, overpriced.

I too would like to see homegrown players break through, but I disagree with your "as easy as that". For many reasons.

First of all, when you say "the XI match day squad", do you mean the match day squad including subs, or the starting team (XI = 11,match day squad = 18).

When you say "play them" and that we should have 1-3 in the match day squad, do you mean players under a certain age, players under a certain age that has been with us for a given number of years (true academy products, as opposed to players we've bought at e.g. 19 years old), or do you mean HG players from our own academy of any age? If the latter, we usually do have Kane + Winks, and sometimes Tanganga and Skipp. Others involved more rarely.

If you mean 1-3 young, still up-and coming, in the first eleven, would that be the same 1-3, or should we rotate between a lot of players? How many games could they play before they were no longer a part of the category getting those 1-3 spots?

Do you not think that having such an arrangement would make them feel that they've made it too soon? Should those getting playing time under this quota be paid as first team regulars, or as schoolboys? If the former, we could have easily ended up with Walcotts and Wilsheres - players who stagnate early and who are hard to move on because of wages.

Not so easy, lots and lots of questions without an apparent good answer.

The thing is, imo, that developing players to go straight into a top class team from a youth team is very difficult. Players need time to mature, they need to be able to thrive under pressure, many fans and managers will demand near instant success, and, if they do break through and manage to get a spot to play regularly, injuries may quickly become an issue.

I have a long-held opinion that the HG rule is a travesty. It gives the top clubs way to strong an incentive to hold onto young talents, and has for a long time made many top clubs vacuum the market for talents and kept them in their squads as fringe players who never get the right amount of exposure and experience to develop in a good way.

It would be way more natural for talented players to move to the top step by step through clubs at increasing levels, like many foreign (to England) players have done, playing first in their home country, then stepping out to a bigger league, and then to a top international club.

Loans allow a version of the step-by-step career development, and is certainly better than the tran-under-me path of Poch. But players, I think, benefit more from actually belonging to the club they play for. Partly for stoking their own desire to perform and their feeling of belonging, but also to more greatly insentivise the club whos dhirt they wear to actually play and develop them.

I think the top clubs should focus more on youth development untill players are ready to start playing senior football, building a relationship with the players up to that point, selling them with buy-back clauses, and them, if they become greats, get them back at a stage in their careers where they are ready to actually make an impact.

But then there is that progress- and career-killing HG rule.

 

[tbonepremier]

Level playing field - The Coaches' Voice

Former QPR manager Chris Ramsey looks back on an eventful five-month spell as assistant manager to Tim Sherwood at Tottenham Hotspur

www.coachesvoice.com

Historic but interesting time - when about 8 players came through from the academy going onto play PL football, some with Spurs some at other clubs.

They did a fine job, and deserve more praise for what they did for the club and the players.

 

[Spursidol]

I too would like to see homegrown players break through, but I disagree with your "as easy as that". For many reasons.

First of all, when you say "the XI match day squad", do you mean the match day squad including subs, or the starting team (XI = 11,match day squad = 18).

When you say "play them" and that we should have 1-3 in the match day squad, do you mean players under a certain age, players under a certain age that has been with us for a given number of years (true academy products, as opposed to players we've bought at e.g. 19 years old), or do you mean HG players from our own academy of any age? If the latter, we usually do have Kane + Winks, and sometimes Tanganga and Skipp. Others involved more rarely.

If you mean 1-3 young, still up-and coming, in the first eleven, would that be the same 1-3, or should we rotate between a lot of players? How many games could they play before they were no longer a part of the category getting those 1-3 spots?

Do you not think that having such an arrangement would make them feel that they've made it too soon? Should those getting playing time under this quota be paid as first team regulars, or as schoolboys? If the former, we could have easily ended up with Walcotts and Wilsheres - players who stagnate early and who are hard to move on because of wages.

Not so easy, lots and lots of questions without an apparent good answer.

The thing is, imo, that developing players to go straight into a top class team from a youth team is very difficult. Players need time to mature, they need to be able to thrive under pressure, many fans and managers will demand near instant success, and, if they do break through and manage to get a spot to play regularly, injuries may quickly become an issue.

I have a long-held opinion that the HG rule is a travesty. It gives the top clubs way to strong an incentive to hold onto young talents, and has for a long time made many top clubs vacuum the market for talents and kept them in their squads as fringe players who never get the right amount of exposure and experience to develop in a good way.

It would be way more natural for talented players to move to the top step by step through clubs at increasing levels, like many foreign (to England) players have done, playing first in their home country, then stepping out to a bigger league, and then to a top international club.

Loans allow a version of the step-by-step career development, and is certainly better than the tran-under-me path of Poch. But players, I think, benefit more from actually belonging to the club they play for. Partly for stoking their own desire to perform and their feeling of belonging, but also to more greatly insentivise the club whos dhirt they wear to actually play and develop them.

I think the top clubs should focus more on youth development untill players are ready to start playing senior football, building a relationship with the players up to that point, selling them with buy-back clauses, and them, if they become greats, get them back at a stage in their careers where they are ready to actually make an impact.

But then there is that progress- and career-killing HG rule.

First of all the rules established by UEFA and PL to have 'Club Trained' and other Home Grown players were the only thing that kept the 'unfettered capitalism' of the likes of ManCity, Chelsa et al, just buying the best players available - and with no concern or interest in training youngsters from every country having the opportunity for football training and the possibility of a career of a top class footballer.

In simple terms its easy to pay £m's to buy a footballer who has the requisite experience to play in PL (through experience of playing in overseas leagues) at a relatively early age.

Youngsters coming through top academies in England are considered some of the best in Europe - which is why an increasing number of youngsters are being wooed by european clubs from the age of 16 upwards - and the reason why the youngsters go abroad is almost always because they do not get the chance to play enough in England (ie the likes of Sancho spotted the dsangers of being hoarded by a top club and rebelled).

In terms of rules to ensure the youngsters do genuinely get a chance to play in PL, there are plenty of options, but simplicity says it might be :

1. All match day squads must have at least 2 youngsters (players under the age of say 21) who have made less than [30 appearances] in the first team and spent at least 12 months at the club - with 7 subs on a bench having 2 as youngsters is hardly an imposition, and indeed the reason why the number of subs was increased from 5 to 7.
2. Each club must ensure that the minutes played by such youngsters is to be more than say (20 minutes x 38 games x 50%) per season.

That alllows the manager to spread the minutes across as many youngsters or as few as he likes.

Perfectly possible to create playing minute rules for european and domestic cup games as well.

 

[Airfixx]

Gedson, Tanganga... The mystery trialist..... It's crazy peeps be moaning about a lack of RBs!

 

[White Van Jan]

Level playing field - The Coaches' Voice

Former QPR manager Chris Ramsey looks back on an eventful five-month spell as assistant manager to Tim Sherwood at Tottenham Hotspur

www.coachesvoice.com

Historic but interesting time - when about 8 players came through from the academy going onto play PL football, some with Spurs some at other clubs.

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. He comes across well.

He's being harsh on himself here:

There were games where we had to hold our hands up and admit we were well beaten, though – like our first league defeat in charge, at home to Manchester City. We lost 5-1. It was a rude awakening for where the club was at the time, and the direction City were going in compared to us.

I was at that game. We got battered for 25 mins, 0-1 could have been 3. But we fought back and by the end of the first half we were well in it. Scored an equaliser which was disallowed for absolutely no reason that I could see. Dawson header I think. At the start of the 2nd half Rose was pinged for a penalty, and got a red card (which I think was overturned, cheers for that you cunt of a ref). Game over. But we still managed to fight our way back into it and got a goal back, atmosphere was great. Without the red I was convinced we could have got something out of the game and went home satisfied that they'd given their all. Chalk and cheese from the 0-5 v LFC which was the only time in a home game I've left early.

Sherwood we know can be a bit of a nutter but he was a 100 times better than AVB.

Just checked, the cunt was Marriner. Nuff said. Apparently it wasn't even a foul. And Dawson wasn't offside.

Next time you all wail about hanging around for 30 seconds for a crap decision to be overturned, think back to how cunts like him fuck us over. It was Marriner who fucked us over at Chavs, 1-0 and cruising. Then an offside goal and a Lumpard invented "goal" that Gomes prevented crossing the line.

 

[sudoku]

 

[tbonepremier]

First of all the rules established by UEFA and PL to have 'Club Trained' and other Home Grown players were the only thing that kept the 'unfettered capitalism' of the likes of ManCity, Chelsa et al, just buying the best players available - and with no concern or interest in training youngsters from every country having the opportunity for football training and the possibility of a career of a top class footballer.

Well, no, it is not "the only thing that kept" the clubs from developing players, and certainly not the only conceivable rule or incentive to have clubs invest in youth development. It is a shit rule that may do more harm than good, including, but not limited to:
- the biggest, richest clubs vacuuming the market for talented players;
- players being traded at a very young age, moving them from safe environments to fierce competition far from the comfort of their homes;
- making it harder for players who do not go the top-club route early to reach the top, as the HG players limits the positions available in top club squads; and
- poor development for many of the most talented players when they have reached the point of almost being good enough for top clubs.

Youngsters coming through top academies in England are considered some of the best in Europe - which is why an increasing number of youngsters are being wooed by european clubs from the age of 16 upwards - and the reason why the youngsters go abroad is almost always because they do not get the chance to play enough in England (ie the likes of Sancho spotted the dsangers of being hoarded by a top club and rebelled).

Yes. England have for many years produced excellent youth teams. Yet, most of the players from said youth teams have struggled to find a route into senior football. They have finally woken up to the fact that they can not sit as HG players in top squads, that they need to move on early to get actual playing time at a reasonable level.

In terms of rules to ensure the youngsters do genuinely get a chance to play in PL, there are plenty of options, but simplicity says it might be :

1. All match day squads must have at least 2 youngsters (players under the age of say 21) who have made less than [30 appearances] in the first team and spent at least 12 months at the club - with 7 subs on a bench having 2 as youngsters is hardly an imposition, and indeed the reason why the number of subs was increased from 5 to 7.
2. Each club must ensure that the minutes played by such youngsters is to be more than say (20 minutes x 38 games x 50%) per season.

That alllows the manager to spread the minutes across as many youngsters or as few as he likes.

Perfectly possible to create playing minute rules for european and domestic cup games as well.

Those are possible rules, yes. Quite random, but of course possible. Now, sitting a player on the bench will NOT help his development, rather the opposite. One of the reasons for that is that his training must be such that he is ready for playing. He can not train too hard just before a game. That is ok for players who actually do get to play for 90 or close to 90 minutes, but not as much for those who only get 20.

How many youngsters has to play 20 minutes x 38 games x 50%? And is that 50% of 38 games or 50% of 20 minutes? Would that be PL games only, or does League Cup, FA cup and games in Europe count as well? Is the 50% x 38 games x 20 minutes for each player in the "such youngsters" group, or could it be split amongst 2, 5, 10 or 20 different players?

Given the first (per player) option: What happens when a player has reached that amount of games? The rules that you suggest would ensure very limited exposure, not enough to become established, and even before reaching the completion of the second rule a player would no longer qualify to fill one of the spots of the first rule (if the 50% would be applied to the minutes rather than the number of games). The rules you suggest would further also almost guarantee that only one sub could/would be used outside of the two youngsters each game, limiting a managers options greatly and making it very hard and frustrating trying to break into the team for someone not a part of the "such youngsters" group - a group that would almost certainly be limited to two players.

Any WHY would absolute top clubs have an obligation to play youngsters? It would, in most cases, not benefit the clubs. And it would, in most cases, not benefit the players. There has been a lot of talk from managers about how youngsters in top clubs are spoiled. How they think that they've "made it" very early into their careers. The amount of players that piss away their talent after an early break-through in a top club far outweighs the number of players kicking on from there (is my feeling, I have not studied it in detail).

They fall through the cracks, despite having several advantages:
- In many cases local boys, which should make them more popular with fans;
- Fills a spot in the HG quota;
- Extremely talented at a young age, which was what allowed them to get proper training in the top club;
- Early exposure to international football and competition against other very talented players; and
- The comfort of financial security at a young age, living close to home (for many), playing in a club they are very much familiar with.

There is no reason to think that it is good for the clubs or for the players to do at least the final bits of the player development - the stage where matching at a senior level kicks in. Nor to think that the clubs should have an obligation to do so.

Any rules trying to enforce such development will have negative impacts, and I believe that most if not all may have negative impacts that outweighs the positive effects.[/QUOTE]

 

[Spursidol]

Spirited Under-18s topple Stevenage | Tottenham Hotspur

A resilient performance from our Under-18s saw them twice come from behind to beat Stevenage in a pre-season friendly at Hotspur Way on Tuesday.

www.tottenhamhotspur.com

Two goals for Spurs u16 striker Jamie Donley - his first for a public Spurs u18 freindly. Donley has played for both England Northern Ireland youth - last call up I believe was for Nortthern Ireland u16's - and is a good prospect in a talented Spurs u16 squad.

 

[Spursidol]

Good to see Eyoma has got minutes again in his 2nd frieindly match for Lincoln (last time 45 minutes), hopefully recovering the form he had at Spurs preseason 2018, before losing it in Poch's no play just train 2018/19 season. And a goal too and is in the headlines for Licoln

 

[NorseYid]

I too would like to see homegrown players break through, but I disagree with your "as easy as that". For many reasons.

First of all, when you say "the XI match day squad", do you mean the match day squad including subs, or the starting team (XI = 11,match day squad = 18).

When you say "play them" and that we should have 1-3 in the match day squad, do you mean players under a certain age, players under a certain age that has been with us for a given number of years (true academy products, as opposed to players we've bought at e.g. 19 years old), or do you mean HG players from our own academy of any age? If the latter, we usually do have Kane + Winks, and sometimes Tanganga and Skipp. Others involved more rarely.

If you mean 1-3 young, still up-and coming, in the first eleven, would that be the same 1-3, or should we rotate between a lot of players? How many games could they play before they were no longer a part of the category getting those 1-3 spots?

Do you not think that having such an arrangement would make them feel that they've made it too soon? Should those getting playing time under this quota be paid as first team regulars, or as schoolboys? If the former, we could have easily ended up with Walcotts and Wilsheres - players who stagnate early and who are hard to move on because of wages.

Not so easy, lots and lots of questions without an apparent good answer.

The thing is, imo, that developing players to go straight into a top class team from a youth team is very difficult. Players need time to mature, they need to be able to thrive under pressure, many fans and managers will demand near instant success, and, if they do break through and manage to get a spot to play regularly, injuries may quickly become an issue.

I have a long-held opinion that the HG rule is a travesty. It gives the top clubs way to strong an incentive to hold onto young talents, and has for a long time made many top clubs vacuum the market for talents and kept them in their squads as fringe players who never get the right amount of exposure and experience to develop in a good way.

It would be way more natural for talented players to move to the top step by step through clubs at increasing levels, like many foreign (to England) players have done, playing first in their home country, then stepping out to a bigger league, and then to a top international club.

Loans allow a version of the step-by-step career development, and is certainly better than the tran-under-me path of Poch. But players, I think, benefit more from actually belonging to the club they play for. Partly for stoking their own desire to perform and their feeling of belonging, but also to more greatly insentivise the club whos dhirt they wear to actually play and develop them.

I think the top clubs should focus more on youth development untill players are ready to start playing senior football, building a relationship with the players up to that point, selling them with buy-back clauses, and them, if they become greats, get them back at a stage in their careers where they are ready to actually make an impact.

But then there is that progress- and career-killing HG rule.

Well players leave us when they don't see a route to play. As simple as that.

We can't both say that loans and playing is good but playing for us is bad. Playing is either good or bad.

The squads are so big now on match days (18) and in particular with the new subs regulations, there is apt occasion for giving these players brief appearences.

If they are to have any relationship with the club then there needs to be hope and perspective - not a 25 man squad bloated with the likes of Vorm, N'Koudo and Co and managers who keep filling up the match 18 with that kind of squad players

So no I don't agree. And yeah, it is pretty easy.

 

[Spursidol]

Well, no, it is not "the only thing that kept" the clubs from developing players, and certainly not the only conceivable rule or incentive to have clubs invest in youth development. It is a shit rule that may do more harm than good, including, but not limited to:
- the biggest, richest clubs vacuuming the market for talented players;
- players being traded at a very young age, moving them from safe environments to fierce competition far from the comfort of their homes;
- making it harder for players who do not go the top-club route early to reach the top, as the HG players limits the positions available in top club squads; and
- poor development for many of the most talented players when they have reached the point of almost being good enough for top clubs.



Yes. England have for many years produced excellent youth teams. Yet, most of the players from said youth teams have struggled to find a route into senior football. They have finally woken up to the fact that they can not sit as HG players in top squads, that they need to move on early to get actual playing time at a reasonable level.



Those are possible rules, yes. Quite random, but of course possible. Now, sitting a player on the bench will NOT help his development, rather the opposite. One of the reasons for that is that his training must be such that he is ready for playing. He can not train too hard just before a game. That is ok for players who actually do get to play for 90 or close to 90 minutes, but not as much for those who only get 20.

How many youngsters has to play 20 minutes x 38 games x 50%? And is that 50% of 38 games or 50% of 20 minutes? Would that be PL games only, or does League Cup, FA cup and games in Europe count as well? Is the 50% x 38 games x 20 minutes for each player in the "such youngsters" group, or could it be split amongst 2, 5, 10 or 20 different players?

Given the first (per player) option: What happens when a player has reached that amount of games? The rules that you suggest would ensure very limited exposure, not enough to become established, and even before reaching the completion of the second rule a player would no longer qualify to fill one of the spots of the first rule (if the 50% would be applied to the minutes rather than the number of games). The rules you suggest would further also almost guarantee that only one sub could/would be used outside of the two youngsters each game, limiting a managers options greatly and making it very hard and frustrating trying to break into the team for someone not a part of the "such youngsters" group - a group that would almost certainly be limited to two players.

Any WHY would absolute top clubs have an obligation to play youngsters? It would, in most cases, not benefit the clubs. And it would, in most cases, not benefit the players. There has been a lot of talk from managers about how youngsters in top clubs are spoiled. How they think that they've "made it" very early into their careers. The amount of players that piss away their talent after an early break-through in a top club far outweighs the number of players kicking on from there (is my feeling, I have not studied it in detail).

They fall through the cracks, despite having several advantages:
- In many cases local boys, which should make them more popular with fans;
- Fills a spot in the HG quota;
- Extremely talented at a young age, which was what allowed them to get proper training in the top club;
- Early exposure to international football and competition against other very talented players; and
- The comfort of financial security at a young age, living close to home (for many), playing in a club they are very much familiar with.

There is no reason to think that it is good for the clubs or for the players to do at least the final bits of the player development - the stage where matching at a senior level kicks in. Nor to think that the clubs should have an obligation to do so.

Any rules trying to enforce such development will have negative impacts, and I believe that most if not all may have negative impacts that outweighs the positive effects.

[/QUOTE]

One vital fact you seem to overlook.

No youngster would join a club with the zero route to the first team you offer (which is to join Spurs and be loaned out to develop) - that's precisely why the likes of Noni Mandueke, formerly Spurs u16 captain, left to join PSV and at aged 18 is starting to break through into their first team, ironically seeming to take Bergwijn's place, Jadon Sancho leaving Man City to go to Germany etc.

In short your 'solution' is no solution........its been shown not to work

The way forward is for the clubs to develop youngsters through a combination of both loaning out and playing youngsters in Spurs first team.

There is no point in debating how to do that if you do not accept those basic principles.

 

[tbonepremier]

Well players leave us when they don't see a route to play. As simple as that.

We can't both say that loans and playing is good but playing for us is bad. Playing is either good or bad.

The squads are so big now on match days (18) and in particular with the new subs regulations, there is apt occasion for giving these players brief appearences.

If they are to have any relationship with the club then there needs to be hope and perspective - not a 25 man squad bloated with the likes of Vorm, N'Koudo and Co and managers who keep filling up the match 18 with that kind of squad players

So no I don't agree. And yeah, it is pretty easy.

Playing is good. But sitting on the bench for the majority of the time, and getting the very odd cameo is not. Loans and playing regularly are way, way better than being a bench boy for years. Which imo is one of the reason why Walker became great and Naughton (who iirc was seen as the greater talent) became a championship player, why Onomah haven't really got going yet, and why KWP stagnated for at least a couple of seasons.

 

[tbonepremier]

One vital fact you seem to overlook.

No youngster would join a club with the zero route to the first team you offer (which is to join Spurs and be loaned out to develop) - that's precisely why the likes of Noni Mandueke, formerly Spurs u16 captain, left to join PSV and at aged 18 is starting to break through into their first team, ironically seeming to take Bergwijn's place, Jadon Sancho leaving Man City to go to Germany etc.

In short your 'solution' is no solution........its been shown not to work

The way forward is for the clubs to develop youngsters through a combination of both loaning out and playing youngsters in Spurs first team.

There is no point in debating how to do that if you do not accept those basic principles.
[/QUOTE]

I am saying that loaning players out are far better than having them just train and get the odd, substitute appearance. But also that, for players, leaving a top club that will loan you out or keep you on the bench, and transfer to a club that will let you play is by far the best option.

Sitting on the bench most of the time, or just playing reserve football, will not give players the quality game time that they need. Being on loan is not ideal because the club that is loaning the player does not have the incentive to develop the player for future gain. And being a player that is loaned out can also be hard, as many a player has testified, e.g. because they often get moved around too much and do not get the time to get settled.

I am not arguing that Spurs should not give them a path to first team football. I am arguing that doing so succesfully is harder than you make it out to be, and that the HG rule is counter prpductive and, like the FFP rule and e.g. the new handball rules and everything else they try to control from the top, it is quite shit.

 

[Spursidol]

One vital fact you seem to overlook.

No youngster would join a club with the zero route to the first team you offer (which is to join Spurs and be loaned out to develop) - that's precisely why the likes of Noni Mandueke, formerly Spurs u16 captain, left to join PSV and at aged 18 is starting to break through into their first team, ironically seeming to take Bergwijn's place, Jadon Sancho leaving Man City to go to Germany etc.

In short your 'solution' is no solution........its been shown not to work

The way forward is for the clubs to develop youngsters through a combination of both loaning out and playing youngsters in Spurs first team.

There is no point in debating how to do that if you do not accept those basic principles.

I am saying that loaning players out are far better than having them just train and get the odd, substitute appearance. But also that, for players, leaving a top club that will loan you out or keep you on the bench, and transfer to a club that will let you play is by far the best option.

Sitting on the bench most of the time, or just playing reserve football, will not give players the quality game time that they need. Being on loan is not ideal because the club that is loaning the player does not have the incentive to develop the player for future gain. And being a player that is loaned out can also be hard, as many a player has testified, e.g. because they often get moved around too much and do not get the time to get settled.

I am not arguing that Spurs should not give them a path to first team football. I am arguing that doing so succesfully is harder than you make it out to be, and that the HG rule is counter prpductive and, like the FFP rule and e.g. the new handball rules and everything else they try to control from the top, it is quite shit.
[/QUOTE]

The HG rule is here to stay, so get over it

UEFA have plans to increase the number of club trained players required to be in a squad - and time out on loan with other clubs are not included in the minimum of 3 years at a club before the age of 21, which in turn mean that loans can only play a part of a footballlers development.

In the UK and rest of europe there is a tradition of some of the players having a strong affinity with their clubs which tends to strongly be related to home trained players (which includes both older players such as Kane who came through the academy a few years ago now, and the likes of Tanganga, Cirkin and White who are just coming through)- quite unlike baseball where the 'draft' means players are allocated to teams and hence there is no affinity between players and clubs, the players are just paid employees

Good coaches who bring youngsters through juggle the youngsters time between loans and playing for the first team, and done well is a very good way to get players through to being full time members of the first team squad.

 

[Perryman]

Rules will change also on signing young players from abroad as we are out of the EU.
Will not be able to sign players under 18.
I think this is a good thing as not a lot of these prove successful. Apart from Woolwich of course with fabregas and bellerin...stolen from Barca.

 

[giannisgrs]

what do you think for him ?
Only 15 years old
giannis sarris

 

[NorseYid]

Playing is good. But sitting on the bench for the majority of the time, and getting the very odd cameo is not. Loans and playing regularly are way, way better than being a bench boy for years. Which imo is one of the reason why Walker became great and Naughton (who iirc was seen as the greater talent) became a championship player, why Onomah haven't really got going yet, and why KWP stagnated for at least a couple of seasons.

Which is, incidently, why I suggest a full change of squad strategy meaning that players coming on for games and even starting some, well in those XVIII there are at least 1-3 of those younger players.

Bennett. Edwards. Naku.

 

[Taricco's Tackle]

what do you think for him ?
Only 15 years old
giannis sarris

Looks shite

 

[Cravenspurs]

what do you think for him ?
Only 15 years old
giannis sarris

Better than me, which is saying a lot as I scored on average three goals a year playing in the highest of leagues in the pacific northwest as a youth. If it weren't for that torn rotator cuff, I could have been the next US great.

But seriously, he looks heavy on his feet, but I guess better than the people he is playing against. Do you know him? Are you his agent?

 

[sudoku]