The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
who's ahead of him in the pecking order there? Been on SUFC site, not familiar with any of the names/facesMaybe didn't want to sign another contract at Sheffield U ?
BT/W, anyone taking him on will need to pay Sheffield U a 'development fee' even though he's out of contract.
1 | Carrington, Eddie LW/RW |
2 | Cesay, Kallum CM/RB/CB |
3 | Craig, Matthew CM |
4 | Craig, Michael CM |
5 | John, Nile CF/LW |
6 | Kyezu, Jeremy FB |
7 | Lo-Tutala, Thimothee GK |
8 | Lusala, Dermi RB/CB |
9 | Muir, Marqes MID |
10 | Mundle, Romaine RW/LW |
11 | Robson, Max AM |
12 | Santiago, Yago AM |
13 | Solberg, Isak GK |
14 | Whittaker, Tarrelle CF/LW |
Worth commenting that shirt numbers 53 and 54 are remarkably low - Parrott is no 52 - and a number of the development squad will have numbers in the 60's......
Definitely a sign of being marked of great things expected of them
Is that a thing? I thought the squad numbers for the kids were basically random.
Agree , shame if we Loose Roles , he’s improving all the time , heard his goal was from outside the box again , but not really worth him sticking around if we are not going to try him in first team pre season matches . Unfortunately Our loss will definitely be someone else’s gain
Just wanted to post a couple of clips I thought were noteworthy from Cirkin's performance. Nothing over the top (I'm sure we all saw the game) but moments that show how far along he is:
Roles scores goals.Anyone understand what the plan is for Markanday? I know the age group isn't great but every time I see him play he looks good and creates scoring chances/goals. I've seen him play all over the pitch it feels like, including left back against Orient. Don't really get it.
Also, I know he's played well at each level and always seems to score goals for fun but I just don't see it with Roles. I know people aren't thrilled with him not being with the first team but personally he looks like a Championship/League 1 player. I like him too..just not for Spurs.
Yeah believe me I get it...I watched probably 10 Cambridge matches last year. I just don't see him having the physical tools needed to succeed in the Premier League.
I'd honestly be far more comfortable with CCV in the squad than Marsh. Watched probably more Orient than Cambridge last year (and actually saw them in person unlike Cambridge) and just don't think Marsh is close to ready yet. Where Roles (who I clearly don't love) excelled in League 2, Marsh wasn't nearly as impressive for me. I've always felt CCV could do a job in midfield, especially in that destroyer role that Mourinho loves. Could also allow us to play three at the back occasionally.
Is he good enough for the ball for that?
PL teams live and die by the rythm of passing ...
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.
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]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.
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.