Spurs Youth 2019/20

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, according to Spurs Web, two 16-year-olds, Alfie Devine and Dane Scarlett are involved in today's first team squad.

Devine is obviously a new signing, but what do our resident Academy experts think of Scarlett?

Mourinho didn't judge the older Troy Parrott to be ready for first team football, and Etete is a physical specimen. But it's Scarlett who seems to have impressed in training.

 
A big fat zero of the 2nd year scholars used today.
Doesn't seem surprising as I haven't heard any real buzz of interest about any of them.

1Carrington, Eddie LW/RW
2Cesay, Kallum CM/RB/CB
3Craig, Matthew CM
4Craig, Michael CM
5John, Nile CF/LW
6Kyezu, Jeremy FB
7Lo-Tutala, Thimothee GK
8Lusala, Dermi RB/CB
9Muir, Marqes MID
10Mundle, Romaine RW/LW
11Robson, Max AM
12Santiago, Yago AM
13Solberg, Isak GK
14Whittaker, Tarrelle CF/LW
 
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

What irks me is the blatancy of it all; Let's roll out the arguments, arguments a clear as day:

- We are short om homegrowns. Period.
- Covid19 financial constraints
- Stadium financial constraints
- Unbalanced and bloated XXV squad with expensive misfits, , and many of them are occupy those very spots XX-XXV in the match day squad and are only starting because of the unbalance of it.
- That "dozen" (let's go with that assumed number of top tier prospects for the sake of the argument) would resume sight of a clear career path
- Creating, apart from the ones making a career here, new provenue sales assets in the tier of Carroll, Mason, Livermore and Caulker

It is all so very blatant.

And it doesn't even prevent us for competing for players like Dybala (don't want him, just a e.g.) - To the contrary, it clears expenses off the squad.
 
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:









Could definitely see why Mourinho likes him.

He reminded me of a young Chilwell (the one we saw against us in the FA Cup one time for Leicester) which wouldn't be so bad. Though hopefully Cirkin has a higher ceiling.
 
Last edited:
Great stuff from JM today giving all the kids he likes some minutes.
We ran the game from start to finish.
Let's hope for a nice draw and maybe JM will gamble on maybe 3 or 4 of those featured today in the EFL?
Really liked White today.
Clarke and Gedson were treading on each other's toes.
Scarlet was only inches away from scoring.
All of 'em showed they were worthy of their selection today.
CCV's distribution put Mr Sanchez to shame. He didn't have any defending to do, though!
 
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.
 
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.
Roles scores goals.
Let's see what happens this pre-season but chances are he will be loaned this season again.
Markanday is talented and a good loan may be the making of him.
AFAIK both have contracts that expire next year.
 
Last edited:
Youth followers... WindyCOYS WindyCOYS sudoku Spursidol Spursidol ... question.

With the load of games coming our way, who do you see staying with the squad and helping relieve some of the senior players?

Seems like the following are definitely in the cards:

- White
- Bowden
- CCV
- Devine (possibly?)

Anyone else that you see making the jump and getting minutes in the cups and EL?
 
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.

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.

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]
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom